Ship Design Applications Chapter 2.

Earlier Research

Figure 2.3.1: C-Job Naval Architects Design Circle. Four different levels of accu-
racy, with eight different design aspects to consider in the optimization process.

2.3.1 Accelerated Concept Design

The ACD tool consists of several software components that are capable of
simultaneous evaluation of the ship objectives and constraints of a design
variation in an automated manner. This way, different design variations
can be computed sequentially without the interference of an engineer. The
objectives and constraints can be computed using different levels of precision.
The level of precision is typically set according to a client needs. The higher
the accuracy level, the more calculation time will be required to compute the
objective and or constraint. In the experiments conducted in this thesis, the
level of accuracy is set to level 3 except for weight and cost. The accuracy
of weight and cost is set to level 2.
A general overview of the objectives and constraints of a typical ship can
be found in the following descriptions:

Floating Position The floating position of a ship is checked to see if the

ship is in constant balance in still water and if the ship does not
heel or trim too much in a stable state. The maximum values for
these constraints are set by regulation authorities. Together with the
floating position, the maximum draught is checked to see if it meets
the stakeholders demands. Typically the maximum draught is set to a
number of meters so it can still moor in a port or sail through a sea
lock, river or canal.
Intact Stability When a ship is in normal operation configuration the ship
should meet various stability criteria. The ship, for instance, should

9
Ship Design Applications Chapter 2. Earlier Research

remain stable under all, even extreme loading conditions. Additionally,

the ship should also be capable of sailing with heavy weather conditions
without capsizing. Of course a transatlantic passenger ship has more
strict regulations compared to a simple bulk carrier that only sails
inland. Therefore, different regulations are defined per ship type.

Damage Stability After a collision, a ship should not immediately sink

or capsize. It should be capable of handling some damage to some
selected spaces/rooms of the ship. The guidelines for the locations of
the damage is defined by the IMO and other regulating authorities. Of
course the regulations differ again per type of ship.

Strength Typically when cargo gets loaded to a ship, the ship bends a bit
in the middle. This is the case because when a ship is fully loaded, the
water gives an upward pressure to the ship while the gravity on the
cargo now pushes the ship downwards in the middle, this phenomenon
is better known as sagging ((1) in Figure 2.3.2). The inverse of sagging
is named hogging ((2) in Figure 2.3.2) and mainly occurs when the
ship is empty. How much the ship is allowed to sag and hog is again
defined by the regulating authorities. The ship should be made strong
enough so it does not exceed the maximum stress limit.

Figure 2.3.2: Ship hull is sagging in (1) and hogging in (2). Note that the
bending is exaggerated.

Weight & Cost For a ship yard the weight goes hand in hand with the
cost of a ship. This is the case because the required amount of of steel
that needs to be bought and put together gives a rough indication of
how much the ship will cost to build. Therefore, the weight of a ship

10
Ship Design Applications Chapter 2. Earlier Research

is typically an objective that is to be minimized, because ship owners

want their ship to be cheap to build.

Space Reservation A space reservation should be made in such a manner

that the fuel tank, engine, pump, crew accommodation, steering hut,
and other equipment all fit in the hull or on deck. This space reservation
typically results in a lot of constraints and often changes a bit when
more details of the ship gets defined. A schematic space reservation
can be found in Figure 2.3.3.

Figure 2.3.3: Space reservation of a ship. Where every color defines a differ-
ent space.

Resistance Resistance is another objective that typically needs to be mini-

mized for a ship to be as operationally efficient as possible. This can
be achieved by changing the shape of the hull. Typically a long and
slender ship will lead to less hull resistance compared to a shorter wider
ship. Resistance is usually estimated using CFD simulations which can
be very expensive in terms of computation time.

Motions Motion deals with how the ship reacts to waves and wind. It should
not roll, pitch, yaw, heave, sway or surge (see Figure 2.3.4) too much
after a single or a sequential number of waves. Passengers, for example,
get seasick when there is too much heave/pitch and equipment can
break when there is too much rolling back and forth after a number of
sequential waves.

11
Ship Design Applications Chapter 2. Earlier Research

Figure 2.3.4: Roll, pitch, yaw, heave, sway, surge of a ship.

12
–The biggest room in the world is room for
improvement.
Helmut Schmidt

3
Ship Design Optimization
Problem

h i p d e s i g n o p t i m i z at i o n is a complex process requiring the

S successful coordination many disciplines [27]. This results from the

fact that a ship consist of a wide variety of systems and compo-
nents, for example cargo storage and handling, energy generation
and ship propulsion, accommodation of crew/passengers and ship navigation.
All these components need to be optimized in such a manner that all the
design stakeholders are satisfied, and the right balance is found between the
conflicting objectives. Before we can optimize all components, we first have
to describe the problem in more detail. In this chapter, the ship design stages
and the optimization problem are defined. For illustration purposes a case
study of a ship design optimization problem is presented.

3.1 Design Stages

Every ship starts with an initial idea from a client. After this idea has been
described in a design specification, the ship design process can begin. The
ship design process can roughly be divided into four design stages: Concept-,
basic-, functional- and detail design. In these four stages an idea of the client
is transformed into a realistic and complete design a shipyard can build. The
different stages are further described in the following subsections and are
visually presented in Figure 3.1.1.

13
Design Stages Chapter 3. Ship Design Optimization Problem

Figure 3.1.1: Four ship design stages: Concept-, basic-, functional- and detail
design.

3.1.1 Initial Idea

In the initial idea, the future ship owner defines the purpose and the physical
constraints of the ship. Different purposes of ships could for example be:
dredging, fossil fuel drilling, urban transport, cargo transport or sailing for
pleasure. Besides the purpose, the initial idea also contains the information
about whether the ship should be sea worthy or that it should only be capable
of sailing inland.
Depending on the purpose of the ship, different regulations are defined
by the regulating authorities. These regulation constraints are from now on
referenced to as domain constraints. Besides these regulations, a typical ship
also has some preference or physical constraints like: The ship should fit
trough the Suez Canal, the ship should be able to moor in the harbour of
Rotterdam, or the ship should be able to sail underneath the Tower Bridge.
These rough constraints typically can be transformed into relatively simple
box constraints for the design, such as a maximum/minimum draught, air
draught, width, length and deck hight.
Finally the future ship owner will probably also have some preferences
such as CO2 neutrality, a small building, and minimum operational costs
which are to be translated into either constraints or objectives.

14
Design Stages Chapter 3. Ship Design Optimization Problem

3.1.2 Concept Design

The concept design phase is the crucial part of the ship design process. In the
concept design phase the naval architects translate the initial idea into the
concept design of the ship. In the concept design, the following components
get defined, computed, and parameterized: the general arrangement, first
estimations regarding stability, strength, and the main cross section.
These components will define the ship’s future performance, safety and
cost. In this stage of the design process, all different components need to
be optimized and designed in such a manner that they meet all regulations
and safety criteria. This is not trivial for the following three reasons: 1) The
objectives are typically conflicting. 2) Computing the constraints and objec-
tives is very time consuming due to the required simulation time. 3) Only
little parallelism is possible due to a typically limited number of commer-
cial licences available to the ship design company. A more mathematical
representation of the optimization problem can be found in the problem in
description Section 3.2.
After the concept design phase, a ship yard can make an estimation of
how long it will take, and how expensive it will be to build the ship. A benefit
of the concept design phase of C-Job Naval Architects is that the owner of
the concept design can go to different ship yards to get the best offer.

3.1.3 Basic Design

This phase yields two things: The drawings of the design and a class approval
which proves that the ship meets the latest regulations and criteria.
In the basic design stage only a few last minute, very small design changes
take place. These small design changes lead to a ship design that meets all
regulations and safety criteria. To meet the regulations and safety criteria,
the strength, damage stability, and intact stability should for example be
within regulated bounds.

3.1.4 Functional Design

This phase is a phase in between the detail and the basic design. Some
shipyards in Asia and Southern Europe do not have enough capacity to go
from basic to detail design in one step. Therefore, some guidance to the
shipyard can be provided in the shape of a functional design phase. This
phase yields a information package to support the next phase.

3.1.5 Detail Design

In this phase, multiple block sections of the ship are created and drawn.
These workshop drawings are created so that the shipyard can follow the
instructions to create and put together all the parts of the final ship.

15
Problem Description Chapter 3. Ship Design Optimization Problem

3.2 Problem Description

Every ship design optimization problem depends on the decision variables,
constraints and the objectives of the problem. The constraints can often
be seen as hard objective functions, which need to be satisfied before the
minimization of the remaining, soft objective functions takes place [14]. A
general definition of a Multi-Objective Problem is given in Definition 1, the
definition of Pareto optimality is given in Definition 2, the definition of Pareto
dominance is given in Definition 3, and Pareto optimal sets are defined in
Definition 4, all from [6].

Definition 1.
(Multi-Objective Problem [6]) : A general Multi-Objective Problem
is defined as minimizing F (~x) = (f1 (~x), . . . , fk (~x)) subject to gi (~x) ≤ 0, i =
{1, . . . , m} and ~x ∈ Ω. Multi-Objective problem solutions minimize the
components of the vector F (~x) to find a set of Pareto optimal solutions,
where ~x is a n-dimensional decision variable vector ~x = (x1 , . . . , xn ) from
some search space Ω. It is noted that gi (~x) ≤ 0 represent constraints that
must be fulfilled while minimizing F (~x) and Ω contains all possible ~x that
can be used to satisfy an evaluation of F (~x).

Definition 2.
(Pareto Optimality [6]) : A feasible solution ~x ∈ Ω is said to be Pareto
Optimal with respect to Ω if and only if there is no x~2 for which ~v = F (x~2 ) =
[f1 (x~2 ), . . . , fk (x~2 )] dominates ~u = F (~x) = [f1 (~x), . . . , fk (~x)].

Definition 3.
(Pareto Dominance [6]) : A vector ~u = [u1 , . . . , uk ] is said to dominate
another vector ~v = [v1 , . . . , vk ] if and only if ~u is partially less than ~v , i.e.,
∀i ∈ {1, . . . , k}, ui ≤ vi ∧ ∃i ∈ {1, . . . , k} : ui < vi . The following symbol is
used to indicate Pareto Dominance: .

Definition 4.
(Pareto Optimal Set [6]) : For a given Multi-Objective Problem, F (~x),
the Pareto Optimal Set, P ∗ , is defined as:

P ∗ := {~x ∈ Ω | @~y ∈ Ω, F (~y )  F (~x)} (3.2.1)

To get some more insight in the symbols, variables, constraints, objectives,

a real world application, a dredger from C-Job Naval Architects, the largest
independent ship design and engineering company in the Netherlands, is
given in detail in the following subsections.

16
Problem Description Chapter 3. Ship Design Optimization Problem

3.2.1 Decision Variables

The decision variables of a ship design problem are the numerical quantities
for which values can be varied in the optimization process [6]. These quanti-
ties are denoted as xj , where j = 1, . . . , n, where xj represents one descision
variable. The vector ~x is then represented by:

x1
 
 .. 
~x =  .  (3.2.2)
xn
All the possible combinations in between a predefined lower and upper bound
of ~x together is called the search space denoted by Ω. Of course due to the
constraints, not every combination will lead to a feasible solution.
The dredger (Figure 3.2.1) has the following decision variables: ∆breadth ,
∆length , foreship length, hopper length extension, hopper breadth, hopper
height. Here ∆ means a change opposed to the original design.

Figure 3.2.1: Trailer Suction Hopper Dredger designed by C-Job Naval Architects,
with the design variables annotated.

The overall length and breadth of the hull can be transformed with the help
of Free Form Deformation (FFD) [34]. For this transformation a box is drawn
around the hull. Any point on the box can be moved in all directions and
the parent surface that is inside this box will be transformed accordingly.
This FFD can be achieved by changing the ∆breadth and ∆length parameter
which then applies the FFD on the original concept design.
The part of the ship from the most forward bulkhead to the front is called
the foreship. The location of this last bulkhead can be changed by varying
the foreship length decision variable.
The cargo space, where the dredged material is dumped in, is called the
hopper. Changes can be made to the height, the breadth, and to the length

17
Problem Description Chapter 3. Ship Design Optimization Problem

extension of the hopper.

The optimization problem therefore has in total 6 design variables which
is hard to visualize. To still be able to visualize the 6 dimensions, a par-
allel coordinate plot can be made. An example of such a plot is shown in
Figure 3.2.2.

Parallel Coordinate Plot

3.40 Infeasible
9.00 15.93 22.00 9.00 9.80
Feasible
2.42 Non-dominated
8.20 15.14 20.80 8.21 7.28

7.40 14.36 19.61 7.43 4.76 1.43

6.60 13.57 18.41 6.64 2.24 0.45

5.80 12.79 17.22 5.86 -0.28 -0.53

5.00 12.00 16.02 5.07 -2.80

-1.51
HOPPER HEIGHT
HOPPER EXTENSION

HOPPER WIDTH

FORESHIP LENGTH

SHIP LENGTH

SHIP BREADTH

Figure 3.2.2: Parallel coordinate plot with infeasible solutions (red), feasible so-
lutions (blue), Non-dominanated solutions (green), every vertical axes represents a
decision variable.

3.2.2 Constraints
The constraints can be expressed in terms of function inequalities, where
one function inequality represents one of the m constraints. All inequality
constraints can then be expressed the following way:

gi (~x) ≤ ci ∨ gi (~x) ≥ ci ∀ i ∈ {1, . . . , m1 } (3.2.3)

Where gi is a, generally non-linear, real-valued function of the decision vari-
ables ~x and ci is a constant value. Some special cases of constraints are
equality constraints. These equality constraints are transformed into two
approximate inequality constraints:

gi (~x) ≤ ci +  ∧ gi (~x) ≥ ci −  ∀ i ∈ {1, . . . , m2 } (3.2.4)

18
Problem Description Chapter 3. Ship Design Optimization Problem

Where  = 0.0001 and therefore so small that in practice it can be neglected.

Finally, all function inequalities are transformed without loss of generality in
such a manner that we always get the function inequalities that represents
all the constraints as presented in Equation 3.2.5.

gj (~x) ≤ 0 ∀ j ∈ {1, . . . , m} (3.2.5)

Note that it is assumed that there is at least one solution for ~x ∈ Ω that
satisfies all the constraints. If there is no such solution the optimization
process is doomed to fail.
The constraints of a ship design optimization problem can be divided
into two categories: domain constraints and practical constraints. Domain
constraints are the constraints given by the regulating authorities while the
practical constraints are typically physical constraints given by the client or
imposed by physics. In the dredger case, the constraints mainly make sure
that everything fits in the hull and that the safety constraints are taken into
account.
For the practical constraints, the space reservation for: payload, fuel tank,
engine, pump, and accommodation are checked to see if the design variation
at least meets the minimum space required.
The domain constraints: steel arrangement, hull formation, double bottom
check, location of foremost bulkhead, intact stability, draft when fully loaded,
trim, and heel are checked to see if the ship meets the recommended stability
criteria, and to see if it at least meets the prescribed rules from the regulating
authorities.
In total, after all constraints are transformed, the dredger case has sixteen
constraints, which are computed by subtracting the required minimum value
from the actual value of the design variation. When all values are negative
the ship is feasible.

3.2.3 Objectives
The objectives of a ship design optimization problem are typically conflicting
and non-commensurable. As a consequence there is usually not one unique,
perfect solution but a set of alternative, so called non-dominated solutions.
This non-dominated solution set contains good compromises between the
objective functions fj (~x), j = 1, . . . , k. Together they form the vector of
functions to be minimized:

F (~x) = [f1 (~x), . . . , fk (~x)] (3.2.6)

The non-dominated set of solutions together form the Pareto frontier, where
Pareto optimality is defined by Definition 2 and Pareto dominance is defined
by Definition 3.

19
Problem Description Chapter 3. Ship Design Optimization Problem

Note that all the objective functions are transformed to minimization

problems. A transformation of a maximization problem into a minimization
problem can easily be achieved by simply multiplying the objective function
by minus one.
The dredger case has two objectives: maximizing the performance and
minimizing the building costs. This can be achieved by minimizing the hull
resistance and steel weight. This sounds trivial, but the objectives are a
classical example of conflicting ones. A long and slender ship will lead to less
hull resistance and a higher steel weight, while a wide shorter ship will have
a higher hull resistance and a lower steel weight. These design variations of
the ship, if non-dominated by other solutions, are then design variations in
the Pareto Optimal set as described in Definition 4.
The resistance of the design variation can be estimated with a CFD
simulation. There are different types of CFD simulation methods. In the
concept phase of the dredger, a relatively simple potential flow solver [36]
is used. This approach does not take everything into account but it is very
suitable for comparing the resistance between different design variations.
An indication of the steel weight in the concept phase is calculated by first
creating the main frame scantlings for either port or starbord and then mirror-
ing it (example in Figure 3.2.3). The main frame is made strong enough such
that it does not exceed the maximum stress limit by changing the scantlings
(mainly plate thickness and profile heights). This way the maximum bending
moments can never be exceeded. The surface of the scantlings multiplied by
the length of the ship can then be used as an estimation of the steel weight.

Figure 3.2.3: Schematic cross-section view of main frame scantlings.

20
–The inspiration you seek is already within you. Be
silent and listen.
Jalāl ad-Dı̄n Muhammad Rūmı̄

4
Proposed Solution

n this chapter, a new Constrained Efficient Global Optimization(CEGO)

I algorithm is proposed, combining the strengths of both the S-metric

multi-objective optimization techniques from SMS-EGO and the con-
straint handling techniques from SACOBRA. This combination of the
two algorithms can then be used to efficiently find an approximation of the
feasible Pareto frontier of constrained multi-objective problems.

4.1 CEGO
The proposed algorithm consist of several crucial components: the initial sam-
pling, the training of surrogate models for both objectives and constraints,
defining the Pareto frontier, defining the S-Metric Selection criterion, opti-
mizing the infill criterion subject to the constraints, the evaluation of the
found local optima, and the adjustment of the allowed constraint violations.
A general overview of the algorithm is given in the CEGO psuedocode that
can be found in Algorithm 1. Additionally, a flowchart of the algorithm is
shown in Figure 4.1.1. Lastly the individual components of the algorithm
are described in detail in the description following.

21
CEGO Chapter 4. Proposed Solution

Algorithm 1 Pseudocode CEGO.

1: par := InitialSample
2: obj, con := Evaluate(par)
3: eps := 0.01
4: while eval < maxEval do
5: objectiveModels := Kriging(par, obj)
6: constraintModels := cubicRBF (P ar, Con, EP S)
7: paretoFront := paretoFrontFeasible(Obj, Con)
8: criterion := SMetricSelectionCriterion(objM odel, paretoF ront, ref )
9: x := findLocalOptima(objectiveModels, constraintModels, criterion, eps)
10: obj[evall], con[evall] := Evaluate(x)
11: eps = adjustMargins(con[evall], eps)
12: evall := evall + 1

Figure 4.1.1: CEGO flowchart.

Initial Sampling The proposed algorithm starts with an initial sampling

of the n decision variables using Latin Hypercube Sampling(LHS) [24].
The generated samples by LSH are as uncorrelated as possible. This way
the average amount of information that can be gained by computing
the objectives and constraints given by the LHS is maximized. The
recommended size of the LHS is 11 · n − 1 [22] but for problems with
a large number of parameters it can be smaller. Note that the inital
size of the LHS must at least be bigger than n + 1 to be able to build
the surrogate models [1]. The LSH samples then get evaluated for all
objectives (Eq. 3.2.6) and constraints.

22
CEGO Chapter 4. Proposed Solution

Objective Models The objective values are used to train the objective sur-
rogate models. The objective surrogate models used are Kriging [23]
(often also called Gaussian Process Regression models). For every ob-
jective function a separate Kriging model is fitted. Kriging treats every
unknown objective function f as the combination of a centered Gaus-
sian Process (x) of zero mean with an unknown constant trend µ. The
advantage of using Kriging is that in addition to the predicted mean
y(x), the predicted uncertainty, called the Kriging variance σ(x), is
provided. The Kriging variance can be exploited in the optimization
procedure (see description Criterion for optimization).
In Figure 4.1.2, 4.1.3, 4.1.4, and 4.1.5 a Kriging training process is
presented for the y = x2 function. As can be seen from the figures,
the more points we use to train the Kriging model, the smaller the
variance gets and the more precise the approximation of the kriging
model becomes.
Kriging approximation with Gaussian smoothning Kriging approximation with Gaussian smoothning
1.0 1.2

1.0
0.5
0.8
0.0
0.6
y
y

0.5
0.4
1.0 training points training points
predicted values 0.2 predicted values
actual values actual values
1.5 variance 0.0 variance
1.00 0.75 0.50 0.25 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.50 0.25 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00
x x

Figure 4.1.2: Kriging with Gaussian Figure 4.1.3: Kriging with Gaussian
smoothing function approximation of smoothing function approximation of
y = x2 . Training points used: x = 0.5, y = x2 . Training points used: x = −1,
and x = 1. x = 0.5, and x = 1.

Kriging approximation with Gaussian smoothning Kriging approximation with Gaussian smoothning
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.6
y

0.4
0.4
training points 0.2 training points
0.2 predicted values predicted values
actual values actual values
0.0 variance 0.0 variance
1.00 0.75 0.50 0.25 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.50 0.25 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00
x x

Figure 4.1.4: Kriging with Gaussian Figure 4.1.5: Kriging with Gaussian
smoothing function approximation of smoothing function approximation of
y = x2 . Training points used: x = −1, y = x2 . Training points used: x = −1,
x = 0.25 x = 0.5, and x = 1. x = 0, x = 0.25, x = 0.5, and x = 1.

23
CEGO Chapter 4. Proposed Solution

Constraint Models The corresponding constraint values are used to train

the constraint surrogate models. For the constraint surrogate models,
Cubic Radial Basis Functions (CRBF) are used. Usually, to model a
function with an CRBF model in a proper way, additional parameters
need to be tuned manually. In CEGO this is taken care of by using
the self adjusting parameter control proposed by Bagheri & co [1]. The
self adjusting parameter control is used to fit a CRBF model for every
constraint function. The steps taken to model the constraint functions
are:

1. Rescale the search space to an interval of [−1, 1],

2. Rescale the constraint functions so that they are equally impor-
tant,
3. Define the distance requirement factor (DRC) that defines how
close the solutions are allowed to be to each other, and alter it at
every iteration,
4. Adjust the margin () of allowed violation of the CRBF model at
every iteration (see description Adjust margins).

In the first few iterations, the CRBF model might not fit the constraint
function very well. Therefore, a violation of the constraints is allowed.
The magnitude of the allowed violation decreases as more feasible
solutions are found.
Now, lets assume that the objective function y = x2 is subject to
the constraint function g = −x3 − 14 where g should be smaller then
or equal to 0 to be feasible. The constraint now limits the available
ranges of values that the Kriging model is able to choose for x. In
Figure 4.1.6, 4.1.7, 4.1.8, and 4.1.9 the available choices in each step
that can be made by the Kriging model is visualized.

CRBF approximation CRBF approximation

0.75 training points 0.75 training points
actual values actual values
0.50 predicted values 0.50 predicted values
0.25 Infeasible area 0.25 Infeasible area
0.00 0.00
0.25 0.25
g

0.50 0.50
0.75 0.75
1.00 1.00
1.25 1.25
1.00 0.75 0.50 0.25 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.50 0.25 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00
x x

Figure 4.1.6: CRBF function approxi- Figure 4.1.7: CRBF function approxi-
mation of y = −x3 − 41 . Training points mation of y = −x3 − 41 . Training points
used: x = 0.5, and x = 1. used: x = −1, x = 0.5, and x = 1.

24
CEGO Chapter 4. Proposed Solution

CRBF approximation CRBF approximation

0.75 training points 0.75 training points
actual values actual values
0.50 predicted values 0.50 predicted values
0.25 Infeasible area 0.25 Infeasible area
0.00 0.00
0.25 0.25
g

g
0.50 0.50
0.75 0.75
1.00 1.00
1.25 1.25
1.00 0.75 0.50 0.25 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.50 0.25 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00
x x

Figure 4.1.8: CRBF function approxi- Figure 4.1.9: CRBF function approxi-
mation of y = −x3 − 41 . Training points mation of y = −x3 − 41 . Training points
used: x = −1, x = 0.25 x = 0.5, and used: x = −1, x = 0, x = 0.25, x = 0.5,
x = 1. and x = 1.

Pareto Frontier Feasible In the previous example y = x2 , there is only

one objective y. When more objectives and more constraints are present
we have to optimize the objectives simultaneously. We do this by search-
ing for non dominated feasible solutions. To do this, the determination
of the current feasible Pareto frontier is important. The feasible Pareto
~ is defined by the set of feasible solutions which
frontier (denoted as Λ)
are also Pareto dominant according to Definition 3.

Criterion for Optimization In the criterion for optimization, CEGO uses

the idea of Emmerich et al. to use S-metric or (hyper)volume contri-
bution [2] of a potential solution ŷpot to the current Pareto frontier
approximation. CEGO uses the S-metric extended as an infill crite-
rion [30]. The infill criterion function computes for a given input vector
~x, the expected improvement ~x contributes to the current Pareto fron-
tier approximation. The predicted objective scores ŷ are predicted with
the Kriging models together with their estimated uncertainties ŝ. If
the 95% lower confidence bound ŷpot = ŷ − α · ŝ is -dominant we
compute the additional (hyper)volume it adds to the Pareto frontier.
-dominance is applied to support a good distribution over the Pareto
frontier. The values of ~ are set every iteration:
~ − min(Λ)
max(Λ) ~
~ = . (4.1.1)
~ | − 1k · (maxEval − eval)
1+ | Λ 2

Here max(Λ) ~ is the maximum value per objective on the Pareto frontier,
min(Λ)~ is the minimum value per objective on the Pareto frontier, k is
the number of objectives, maxEval the maximum number of allowed
iterations, and eval the number of evaluations executed so far. The final
(hyper)volume multiplied by minus one that ŷpot adds to the Pareto
frontier is the score the S-metric criterion will return. If ŷpot is not

25
CEGO Chapter 4. Proposed Solution

expected to be -dominant, the infill criterion will return a penalty

value p as presented in the following Equation:
X m
Y
p= −1 + 1 + ŷpot,j − yji (4.1.2)
~
y i ∈Λ j=1

3 hypothetical cases of the S-Metric Selection infill criterion in a two

dimensional objective space is shown in Figure 4.1.10. In this figure the
blue triangles represent the non dominated solutions found in previous
iterations, the black star represents the reference point, the grey area
represents the the current (hyper)volume, and the area between the
dark grey line and the grey area represents the  area.
Suppose case 1, where we find the solution with the predicted objective
scores (1.65, 1.65). This point would be dominated by the previously
found non-dominant solutions. Therefore, the infill criterion will return
the penalty score: 0.3225. This score is computed with Equation 4.1.2.
Suppose case 2, where we find a solution with the predicted objective
scores (1.75, 1.05) which lies in the epsilon dominated area. This point
does not significantly contribute anything to the Pareto frontier so the
criterion will return 0.
Suppose case 3, where we find a solution with the predicted objective
scores (1.2, 1.2). This potential solution is not dominated by the earlier
found solutions and does not lie in the epsilon dominated area. There-
fore, the (hyper)volume that this point adds to the current Pareto
frontier is calculated. This is equal to the surface of the green area in
Figure 4.1.10. The score the infill criterion will return in in this case
−0.27 which is equal to the (hyper)volume multiplied by minus one.

S-Metric Selection infill criterion

2.0

1.8

1.6
Objective 2

1.4 Reference Point

Non Dominant Solutions
area
1.2 Dominated Solution
-Dominated Solution
1.0 Non- -Dominated Solution
S-Metric Selection Score
Current Hypervolume
1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
Objective 1

Figure 4.1.10: S-Metric Selection infill criterion

26
CEGO Chapter 4. Proposed Solution

Find Local Optima The infill criterion is optimized in such a manner that
it searches for new optimal solutions that do not violate any of the
constraints. This can be done with an optimization algorithm that
is capable of dealing with: multiple decision variables (~x), single ob-
jective problem (S-metric criterion), and multiple constraints (CRBF
functions). In this research the Constrained Optimization by Linear
Approximation (COBYLA) algorithm [31] is used to optimize the ob-
jectives subject to the constraints.
The problem that COBYLA can solve is setup the following way: The
decision variables ~x can be changed within the predefined bounds.
The objective is the S-metric criterion that predicts the additional
(hyper)volume given ~x. The constraints can be interpolated with the
CRBF models given ~x and finally a the DRC constraint is added that
makes sure the solutions that get evaluated are not to close to the
previously found solutions.
COBYLA can deal wich such problems and therefore is able to optimize
the infill criterion under the condition that the constraints are satisfied.
The vector ~x that is expected to be feasible and expected to contribute
the most to the Pareto frontier approximation is then proposed as
new solution. If in the current design space no feasible solution can be
found, the vector ~x with the smallest expected constraint violation is
chosen.

Evaluate The minimum found by COBYLA is proposed as a new solution,

which is evaluated with the actual evaluation functions that are be-
ing optimized. This evaluation of ~x gives new objective values and
constraint values that can be added to the population. The surrogate
models are re-trained and the next iteration starts. This optimization
process goes on until the evaluation budget is exhausted. The evalua-
tion budget can be determined by the user. For simple problems the
budget could be small but it is recommended to make the budget larger
for complex problems with a lot of parameters. A guideline to take in
mind is: maxEval = 40 · n.

Adjust margins In the experiments reported in this thesis, the -value

√
used for the constrained CRBF models starts at 0.01. When b2 · nc
feasible solutions are found sequentially,  decreases by 50%. This
√
decrease of allowed violation can be justified by the fact that b2 · nc
consecutive feasible solutions are found and therefore the CRBF models
with the allowed violation have a better understanding of the constraint
boundaries so the allowed violation should decrease. Furthermore by
decreasing the allowed violation of the CRBF functions the CRBF
functions can be more exploited so solutions closer to the constrained
boundaries can be found.

27
CEGO Chapter 4. Proposed Solution

√
Alternatively,  increases by 100% when b2 · nc infeasible solutions
are found. This increase of the allowed violation can be explained by
the idea that the allowed violation of the CRBF is probably too tight
and the CRBF models are not yet capable of modelling the constraint
functions good enough yet. By increasing the allowed constraint viola-
tion margin of the CRBF models the constrained area can be explored
more thoroughly so that the fit of the CRBF models can increase. Of
course it does not make sense to explore the already known heavily
violated constrained area, therefore the maximum of  is set to 0.02 in
the experiments reported in this thesis.

28
–Failure is just practice for success.
Christopher Hitchens

5
Experimental Evaluation

o e va l u at e the performance of the proposed algorithm, three

T different experiments are set up. In the first experimental setup,

seven artificially designed problems are optimized. In the second
experimental setup, seven Real World Like Problems (RWLP) are
optimized. Finally, in the third experimental setup, the dredger ship design
problem as described in the problem definition (Chapter 3) is optimized.
All the optimization problems are optimized using the proposed algorithm
CEGO, and compared with the already widely used algorithms NSGA-II,
SPEA2, and MOGA.

5.1 Experimental Setup

For all experiments the number of allowed function evaluations is set to 200.
The number of allowed function evaluations is limited because the algorithms
should be able to find an approximation of the Pareto frontier in as little
function evaluations as possible. If the algorithm is not capable of finding
an approximation of the Pareto frontier in a few function evaluations the
algorithm would not be suitable for real world problems, because the function
evaluations of real world problems can be very expensive.
Furthermore, each algorithm is executed between 5 and 100 times per
problem, depending on the time-complexity of the algorithm and the problem.
The criterion that is used to evaluate the performance is the (hyper)volume
(HV) between a fixed reference point and the Pareto frontier. The reference

29
Experimental Setup Chapter 5. Experimental Evaluation

point values are set in such a manner that they represent the maximum
values of interest for the objective functions. In Figure 5.1.1 an example of a
reference point, the Pareto frontier and the volume of an example frontier is
visualized. The algorithm with the highest HV between the fixed reference
point and the Pareto frontier approximation can be defined as the algorithm
that performed the best on the problem.

CEXP
9
8
7
6
Pareto Frontier
5 Reference point
f2

(hyper)volume
4
3
2
1
0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
f1
Figure 5.1.1: Pareto frontier, reference point and (hyper)volume visualized for the
CEXP function.

The HV already gives a good indication of which algorithm gives the best
result, but what is also of interest is the spread of the obtained solutions on
the Pareto frontier approximation. To examine the spread of the obtained
solutions the Pareto frontier is visualized.
In addition to the HV and the spread the convergence rate of the dif-
ferent algorithms can also be an interesting measure to look at. This is
the case because if we have expensive evaluation functions the number of
allowed function evaluations is typically limited. This means that an algo-
rithm with a high convergence rate is more interesting compared to a not so
slow converging algorithm.

30
Experimental Setup Chapter 5. Experimental Evaluation

5.1.1 Artificially Designed Functions

Inspired by previous studies on multi-objective optimization algorithms,
seven widely used artificially designed functions are selected to experiment
with: BNH [6], C3-DTLZ4 [38], OSY [12], SRN [12], TNK [12], CEXP [9]
and CTP1 [9]. In Table 5.1.1 the number of objectives (k), number of vari-
ables (n), number of constraints (m), Lower Bound (LB), Upper Bound (UB)
of the variables and the reference point (ref) are given for each function. To
get some insight into the severity of the constraints, the percentage of feasi-
ble solutions (F(%)) is approximated by the evaluation of 1 million random
samples.

Table 5.1.1: Constrained artificially designed test problems.

Problem k n m LB UB ref F (%)

BNH 2 2 2 [0,0] [5,3] [140,50] 96.92
CEXP 2 2 2 [0.1,0] [1,5] [1,9] 57.14
C3-DTLZ4 2 6 2 [0,0,0,0,0,0] [1,1,1,1,1,1] [3,3] 22.22
SRN 2 2 2 [-20,-20] [20,20] [301,72] 16.18
TNK 2 2 2 [1e-5,1e-5] [π,π] [2,2] 5.05
OSY 2 6 6 [0,0,1,0,1,0] [10,10,5,6,5,10][0,386] 2.78
CTP1 2 2 2 [0,0] [1,1] [1,2] 92.67

5.1.2 Real World Like Problems

The RWLP are real world like functions which are believed to be diffi-
cult because they have many complex constraints [19]. The following seven
RWLP have been used in the experiments: Two-Bar Truss Design problem
(TBTD) [17], Welded Beam problem (WB) [17], Disc Brake Design problem
(DBD) [17], Speed Reducer Design problem (SRD) [25], Ship Parametric
Design problem (SPD) [28], Car Side Impact problem (CSI) [19], and the
Water Problem (WP) [19]. In Table 5.1.2, again the number of objectives (k),
number of variables (n), number of constraints (m), Lower Bound (LB), Up-
per Bound (UB) of the variables and the reference point (ref) are given for
each function. Note that if a function was to be maximized it is transformed
into a minimization problem.

5.1.3 Optimizing a Dredger

Finally, the dredger case as described in the problem definition (Chapter 3)
is optimized. The limits used for the dredger parameters are: delta breadth
∈ [−1.6, 3.4], delta length ∈ [−2.8, 9.8], foreship length ∈ [16, 22], hopper
length extension ∈ [5, 9], hopper breadth ∈ [5, 9], and hopper height ∈ [12, 16].

31
Algorithm Comparison Chapter 5. Experimental Evaluation

Table 5.1.2: Constrained Real World Like Problems.

Problem k n m LB UB ref F(%)

TBTD 2 3 2 [1, 0.0005, [3, 0.05, [0.1, 19.46
0.0005] 0.05] 100 000]
WB 2 4 5 [0.125, 0.1, [5, 10, 10, 5] [350, 0.1] 35.28
0.1, 0.125]
DBD 2 4 5 [55, 75, [80, 110, [5, 50] 28.55
1 000, 2] 3 000, 20]
SRD 2 7 11 [2.6, 0.7, 17, [3.6, 0.8, 28, [7 000, 1 700] 96.92
7.3, 7.3, 2.9, 8.3, 8.3, 3.9,
5] 5.5]
SPD 3 6 9 [150, 25, 12, [274.32, [16, 19 000, 3.27
8, 14, 0.63] 32.31, 22, −260 000]
11.71, 18,
0.75]
CSI 3 7 10 [0.5, 0.45, [1.5, 1.35, [42, 4.5, 13] 18.17
0.5, 0.5, 1.5, 1.5,
0.875, 0.4, 2.625, 1.2,
0.4] 1.2]
WP 5 3 7 [0.01, 0.01, [0.45, 0.1, [83 000, 92.06
0.01] 0.1] 1 350, 2.85,
15 989 825,
25 000]

The reference point is set to [5 000, 2]. This is the case because we are only in-
terested in design variations with a smaller resistance coefficient than 2, and
design variations with a smaller steel weight than 5 000 tonnes. Furthermore,
based on 200 random samples, approximately 24% of of the design space is
feasible. The original dredger designed by human experts has an approxi-
mated steel weight of 2 039 tonnes and an estimated resistance coefficient of
1.08.

5.2 Algorithm Comparison

The theoretical test functions, the RWLP and the dredger problem are opti-
mized with CEGO, NSGAII, SPEA2 and MOGA. The mean HV, the spread
and the convergence rate are presented in the following subsections.

5.2.1 Hypervolume
As shown in Table 5.2.1, CEGO outperforms NSGA-II, SPEA2 and MOGA
in terms of the HV measure for the final Pareto frontier with the limited

32
Algorithm Comparison Chapter 5. Experimental Evaluation

budget of 200 function evaluations for all test functions. In addition to a

better performance on the HV measure, the standard deviation (std.) is also
smaller for the CEGO algorithm compared to the other algorithms. This
indicates that the CEGO algorithm does not only show a better performance
but it is also more robust compared to the other algorithms.
Table 5.2.1: Mean (hyper)volume of the Pareto frontier to the reference point of
each test problem. Bold face denotes the best result (according to Welchs t-test
with significance level of 5%, the means are significantly different.).

Problem Measure NSGA-II SPEA2 MOGA CEGO

BNH HV 5 187 5 137 4 993 5 254
std. 19.41 20.60 59.96 7.633
CEXP HV 3.414 3.141 2.950 3.788
std. 0.086 0.145 0.185 0.006
C3-DTLZ4 HV 5.198 5.058 4.662 6.098
std. 0.202 0.178 0.230 0.224
SRN HV 58 179 48 780 51 863 62 562
std. 1 536 4 237 18 392 7.493
TNK HV 7.247 6.449 6.074 8.058
std. 0.323 0.514 0.545 0.0003
OSY HV 36 643 21 672 47 128 100 375
std. 17 756 15 495 17 218 54.21
CTP1 HV 1.248 1.221 0.661 1.303
std. 0.016 0.018 0.106 0.0004
TBTD HV 7 868 7 060 608.8 8 805
std. 470.9 674.3 1 826 8.155
WB HV 34.07 33.67 33.93 34.52
std. 0.189 0.386 0.252 0.058
DBD HV 219.4 214.6 221.4 227.9
std. 2.449 3.357 1.607 0.498
SRD HV 1.991e+6 1.497e+6 1.662e+6 4.157e+6
std. 8.965e+5 9.096e+5 1.690e+6 4 228
SPD HV 2.454e+10 2.087e+10 1.942e+10 3.240e+10
std. 3.134e+9 3.657e+9 3.749e+9 1.266e+9
CSI HV 15.34 13.95 17.13 23.21
std. 1.095 0.969 1.450 0.940
WP HV 1.280e+19 1.131e+19 1.268e+19 1.573e+19
std. 5.266e+17 6.095e+17 6.779e+17 7.340e+16

5.2.2 Spread
In the Figures 5.2.1, 5.2.2, 5.2.3, 5.2.4, 5.2.5 and 5.2.6 the non-dominated
solutions of six typical test functions are visualized. From these figures it can

33
Algorithm Comparison Chapter 5. Experimental Evaluation

clearly be seen that the approximation of the Pareto frontier and the spread
of the CEGO algorithm is better, compared to the other algorithms. Note
that WP has five objectives and that five dimensions are hard to visualize,
therefore the obtained Pareto frontier approximation obtained by the algo-
rithms is visualized as a parallel coordinate plot with the five function values
on the y-axes. Since the WP is a minimization problem we are interested in
as low as possible values on every axes.
CEXP
9
8 CEGO OSY
MOGA 120
7 NSGAII CEGO
6 SPEA2 MOGA
100
NSGAII
5 SPEA2
f2

80
4
f2 60
3
2 40
1 20
0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
f1 0
250 200 150 100 50
f1
Figure 5.2.1: Pareto frontier obtained
by the four algorithms on CEXP prob- Figure 5.2.2: Pareto frontier obtained
lem. by the four algorithms on OSY problem.
SRD WB
1600 0.040
CEGO CEGO
MOGA 0.035 MOGA
1400 NSGAII NSGAII
0.030
SPEA2 SPEA2
0.025
1200
0.020
f2

f2

1000 0.015
0.010
800 0.005
0.000
3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
f1 f1

Figure 5.2.3: Pareto frontier obtained Figure 5.2.4: Pareto frontier obtained
by the four algorithms on SRD problem. by the four algorithms on WB problem.
SPD
CEGO
MOGA
NSGAII 350000
SPEA2 400000
450000f3
500000
550000
600000
650000
11000
10000
8.5 9.0 9.5 9000
8000
10.010.511.0 7000 f2
6000
f1 11.512.012.5 5000

Figure 5.2.5: Pareto frontier obtained by the four algorithms on SPD problem.

34
Algorithm Comparison Chapter 5. Experimental Evaluation

WP
24840.11 CEGO
81601.85 1323.70 2.81 14341295.49
MOGA
19975.60 NSGAII
78049.53 1071.65 2.31 11513421.39 SPEA2

74497.22 819.59 1.80 8685547.30 15111.09

70944.91 567.53 1.30 5857673.20 10246.58

67392.59 315.47 0.79 3029799.10 5382.07

63840.28 63.42 0.29 201925.00

517.55
f1

f2

f3

f4

f5
Figure 5.2.6: Pareto frontier obtained by the four algorithms on WP problem.

5.2.3 Convergence Rate

In the Figures 5.2.7, 5.2.8, 5.2.9, 5.2.10, 5.2.11 and 5.2.12 the convergence
rate of a typical run of the four algorithms is visualized for six different test
problems. In all the figures it can clearly be seen that after the initial 30
LHS samples, CEGO converges faster compared to MOGA, NSGAII and
SPEA2. Note that in Figure 5.2.10 the HV-axis starts at ∼ 29, this is the
case because the first three iterations are not taken into consideration for
aesthetic reasons.
Because the CEGO algorithm converges so fast on for example the CEXP
and OSY problem (Figures 5.2.7, and 5.2.8), the evaluation budget for these
problems could have been set to an even smaller number. On the other
hand, CEGO did not fully converge yet on for example the WP problem
(Figure 5.2.12). This gives an indication that a better set of solutions exists
which could have been found if the evaluation budget would have been larger.
Convergence plot for CEXP problem
Convergence plot for OSY problem
3.5 100000
CEGO
3.0 MOGA
80000
NSGAII
2.5
(hyper)volume

SPEA2
(hyper)volume

2.0 60000

1.5 40000
1.0 CEGO
MOGA 20000
0.5 NSGAII
0.0 SPEA2 0
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200
Evaluation Evaluation

Figure 5.2.7: Convergence plot for the Figure 5.2.8: Convergence plot for the
four algorithms on CEXP problem. four algorithms on OSY problem.

35
Dredger Optimization Results Chapter 5. Experimental Evaluation

Convergence plot for WB problem

Convergence plot for SRD problem
4000000 34

33
3000000

(hyper)volume
32
(hyper)volume

2000000 31

1000000 CEGO 30 CEGO

MOGA MOGA
NSGAII NSGAII
29 SPEA2
0 SPEA2
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200
Evaluation Evaluation

Figure 5.2.9: Convergence plot for the Figure 5.2.10: Convergence plot for the
four algorithms on SRD problem. four algorithms on WB problem.

1e10 Convergence plot for SPD problem 1e19 Convergence plot for WP problem
3.5 1.6
3.0 1.4
1.2
2.5
1.0
(hyper)volume

(hyper)volume

2.0
0.8
1.5
0.6
1.0 0.4
CEGO CEGO
0.5 MOGA 0.2 MOGA
NSGAII NSGAII
0.0 SPEA2 0.0 SPEA2
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200
Evaluation Evaluation

Figure 5.2.11: Convergence plot for the Figure 5.2.12: Convergence plot for the
four algorithms on SPD problem. four algorithms on WP problem.

5.3 Dredger Optimization Results

In the dredger case, each algorithm was run 5 times, the mean HV for NSGAII,
SPEA2, MOGA and CEGO were respectively 3 529, 3 579, 3 602 and 3 819.
Again, CEGO outperforms the other algorithms in terms of HV. Additionally
the standard deviation of the obtained HV based on the 5 independent runs
also shows that CEGO is more robust. The standard deviation obtained
from NSGAII, SPEA2, MOGA and CEGO runs were 148.2, 93.35, 143.5 and
3.3 respectively.
A visualization of the obtained Pareto frontier of one of the runs for the
four algorithms is visualized in Figure 5.3.1. CEGO found ten ships that
dominate all those found by the other algorithms. A visualization of the
convergence rate of the four algorithms is shown in Figure 5.3.2. This figure
shows that none of the algorithms converged yet. It might therefore be wise
to: 1) let the algorithm resume by incrementing the evaluation budget, 2)
restart the algorithm with Pareto dominant solutions in the initial sample.

36
Dredger Optimization Results Chapter 5. Experimental Evaluation

Trailer Suction Hopper Dredger

Convergence plot for Dredger problem
1.3 Marked 3800
CEGO
1.2 MOGA
NSGAII 3600
SPEA2
Resistance

(hyper)volume
1.1 ORIGINAL 3400
1.0 3200
0.9 3000 CEGO
MOGA
0.8 NSGAII
2800
1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 SPEA2
Tonnes
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200
Evaluation
Figure 5.3.1: Original design and
Pareto frontier obtained by CEGO, Figure 5.3.2: Convergence plot for
MOGA, NSGAII and SPEA2 on the CEGO, MOGA, NSGAII and SPEA2 on
dredger optimization problem. the dredger optimization problem.

The designs obtained by the algorithm would be hard to come up with

for a naval architect. On the other hand, the solutions can easily be reverse
engineered so that the naval architect can learn from it. Furthermore, these
design variations can be used as a starting point for a naval architect to
continue from. This way, more domain knowledge and intelligent corrections
can be made to the design variation to turn the design into an actual concept
design. For the purpose of learning from the algorithm, two dredgers that
are marked in Figure 5.3.1 are graphically presented in Figure 5.3.3 and
Figure 5.3.4.

Figure 5.3.3: Original Dredger de- Figure 5.3.4: Dredger design opti-
sign by human experts. mized with CEGO.

As can be seen from the figures, the dredger found by CEGO is longer
compared to the original design. Typically when a ship is longer, more steel
is needed to fulfill the strength requirements of a ship. In this case the design
variation found by CEGO actually has less steel weight. This is caused by
a longer hopper which contributes to the overall strength of the ship. The
extra strength results in less required steel in the plates and profiles which
is needed to meet regulations concerning sagging and hogging.
Because the ship is longer and lighter, the ship has fewer draught and
has more floating capacity compared to the original. Due to less draught and
the longer design, the ship makes less waves and waves with a different wave
pattern which results in less resistance.

37
–The key is not to prioritize what’s on your schedule,
but to schedule your priorities.
Stephen Covey

6
Conclusion and Future Work

n t h i s t h e s i s the Constrained Efficient Global Optimization (CEGO)

I algorithm is proposed and it is shown that CEGO is efficient in finding

a Pareto frontier approximation using limited evaluation budgets for
both Real-World Like Problems and artificially designed test functions.
This algorithm has been shown to work in multidisciplinary ship design ap-
plications since a trailer suction hopper dredger was optimized using CEGO.
When CEGO terminated after 200 function evaluations, ten unique non-
dominated dredger designs were found. Compared to the original dredger
design, the most efficient solution found in terms of resistance shows a 20%
smaller resistance factor, and the most efficient solution found in terms of
steel weight shows a 30% smaller steel weight. CEGO also outperforms
state-of-the-art alternatives like NSGA-II, SPEA2, and MOGA on all of the
fourteen test problems used in the experimental setup. The proposed CEGO
algorithm in combination with an integrated design approach shows great
potential and can be used to design ships that are more energy efficient while
maintaining or even improving all other objectives.

6.1 Future Work

For future work, it would be interesting to define more independent parame-
ters that influence the performance of the ship to obtain better solutions.
From an algorithm point of view, the proposed algorithm could be im-
proved by taking the CRBF constraint surrogate models into account when

38
Future Work Chapter 6. Conclusion and Future Work

defining a new infill-criterion instead of using them as a constraint when min-

imizing the S-metric infill-criterion. It would also be beneficial to parallelize
the CEGO algorithm such that multiple evaluations can be run at the same
time. Lastly it would be interesting to do more research to highly multimodal
function optimization or severely constrained optimization problems. This
would be interesting because surrogate models are not yet capable of mod-
elling the highly multimodal functions in only a few function evaluations, and
because still a lot of ‘luck’ is needed to find a feasible solution in extremely
constrained design spaces.

39
 Bibliography

[1] Samineh Bagheri, Wolfgang Konen, Michael Emmerich, and Thomas

Bäck. Self-adjusting parameter control for surrogate-assisted constrained
optimization under limited budgets. Applied Soft Computing, 61:377–
393, 2017.

[2] Nicola Beume, Boris Naujoks, and Michael Emmerich. Sms-emoa: Multi-
objective selection based on dominated hypervolume. European Journal
of Operational Research, 181(3):1653–1669, 2007.

[3] Emilio Fortunato Campana, Giampaolo Liuzzi, Stefano Lucidi, Daniele

Peri, Veronica Piccialli, and Antonio Pinto. New global optimization
methods for ship design problems. Optimization and Engineering, 10
(4):533, 2009.

[4] Piya Chootinan and Anthony Chen. Constraint handling in genetic algo-
rithms using a gradient-based repair method. Computers & operations
research, 33(8):2263–2281, 2006.

[5] CA Coello Coello and E Mezura Montes. Use of dominance-based tour-

nament selection to handle constraints in genetic algorithms. Intelligent
Engineering Systems through Artificial Neural Networks, 11:177–182,
2001.

[6] Carlos A Coello Coello, Gary B Lamont, David A Van Veldhuizen, et al.
Evolutionary algorithms for solving multi-objective problems, volume 5.
Springer, 2007.

[7] Carlos A Coello Coello. Constraint-handling techniques used with evo-

lutionary algorithms. In Proceedings of the 2016 on Genetic and Evo-
lutionary Computation Conference Companion, pages 563–587. ACM,
2016.

[8] Kalyanmoy Deb. An efficient constraint handling method for genetic

algorithms. Computer methods in applied mechanics and engineering,
186(2-4):311–338, 2000.

40
BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY

[9] Kalyanmoy Deb. Multi-objective optimization using evolutionary algo-

rithms, volume 16. John Wiley & Sons, 2001.

[10] Kalyanmoy Deb. Multi-Objective Optimization, pages 273–316. Springer

US, Boston, MA, 2005. ISBN 978-0-387-28356-2. doi: 10.1007/
0-387-28356-0_10. URL https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-28356-0_
10.

[11] Kalyanmoy Deb, Samir Agrawal, Amrit Pratap, and Tanaka Meyarivan.
A fast elitist non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm for multi-objective
optimization: NSGA-II. In International Conference on Parallel Prob-
lem Solving From Nature, pages 849–858. Springer, 2000.

[12] Kalyanmoy Deb, Amrit Pratap, and T Meyarivan. Constrained test

problems for multi-objective evolutionary optimization. In International
conference on evolutionary multi-criterion optimization, pages 284–298.
Springer, 2001.

[13] J. HARVEY EVANS. Basic design concepts. Journal of the Ameri-

can Society for Naval Engineers, 71(4):671–678, 1959. ISSN 1559-3584.
doi: 10.1111/j.1559-3584.1959.tb01836.x. URL http://dx.doi.org/
10.1111/j.1559-3584.1959.tb01836.x.

[14] Carlos M Fonseca and Peter J Fleming. Multiobjective optimization and

multiple constraint handling with evolutionary algorithms. i. a unified
formulation. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics-
Part A: Systems and Humans, 28(1):26–37, 1998.

[15] European Comission. Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport.

White Paper on Transport: Roadmap to a Single European Transport
Area: Towards a Competitive and Resource-efficient Transport System.
Publications Office of the European Union, 2011.

[16] David E Goldberg and John H Holland. Genetic algorithms and machine
learning. Machine learning, 3(2):5, 1988.

[17] Wenyin Gong, Zhihua Cai, and Li Zhu. An efficient multiobjective

differential evolution algorithm for engineering design. Structural and
Multidisciplinary Optimization, 38(2):137–157, 2009.

[18] International Maritime Organization. UN body adopts climate

change strategy for shipping. http://www.imo.org/en/MediaCentre/
PressBriefings/Pages/06GHGinitialstrategy.aspx, 2018. online;
accessed 18-April-2018.

[19] Himanshu Jain and Kalyanmoy Deb. An evolutionary many-objective

optimization algorithm using reference-point based nondominated sort-

41
BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY

ing approach, part ii: Handling constraints and extending to an adaptive

approach. IEEE Trans. Evolutionary Computation, 18(4):602–622, 2014.
[20] Donald R Jones, Matthias Schonlau, and William J Welch. Efficient
global optimization of expensive black-box functions. Journal of Global
optimization, 13(4):455–492, 1998.
[21] Mifa Kim, Tomoyuki Hiroyasu, Mitsunori Miki, and Shinya Watanabe.
Spea2+: Improving the performance of the strength pareto evolutionary
algorithm 2. In International Conference on Parallel Problem Solving
from Nature, pages 742–751. Springer, 2004.
[22] Joshua Knowles. Parego: A hybrid algorithm with on-line landscape ap-
proximation for expensive multiobjective optimization problems. IEEE
Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, 10(1):50–66, 2006.
[23] Daniel G. Krige. A Statistical Approach to Some Basic Mine Valuation
Problems on the Witwatersrand. Journal of the Chemical, Metallurgical
and Mining Society of South Africa, 52(6):119–139, December 1951.
[24] M. D. McKay, R. J. Beckman, and W. J. Conover. A comparison of
three methods for selecting values of input variables in the analysis
of output from a computer code. Technometrics, 21(2):239–245, 1979.
ISSN 00401706.
[25] Seyedali Mirjalili, Pradeep Jangir, and Shahrzad Saremi. Multi-objective
ant lion optimizer: a multi-objective optimization algorithm for solving
engineering problems. Applied Intelligence, 46(1):79–95, 2017.
[26] A Papanikolaou, S Harries, M Wilken, and G Zaraphonitis. Integrated
design and multiobjective optimization approach to ship design. In
Proceedings of international conference on computer application in ship-
building, volume 3, 2011.
[27] Apostolos Papanikolaou. Holistic ship design optimization. Computer-
Aided Design, 42(11):1028–1044, 2010.
[28] Michael G Parsons and Randall L Scott. Formulation of multicrite-
rion design optimization problems for solution with scalar numerical
optimization methods. Journal of Ship Research, 48(1):61–76, 2004.
[29] Jendrik Poloczek and Oliver Kramer. Local svm constraint surrogate
models for self-adaptive evolution strategies. In Annual Conference on
Artificial Intelligence, pages 164–175. Springer, 2013.
[30] Wolfgang Ponweiser, Tobias Wagner, Dirk Biermann, and Markus
Vincze. Multiobjective optimization on a limited budget of evaluations
using model-assisted S-metric selection. In International Conference on
Parallel Problem Solving from Nature, pages 784–794. Springer, 2008.

42
 BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY

[31] Michael JD Powell. A direct search optimization method that models the
objective and constraint functions by linear interpolation. In Advances
in optimization and numerical analysis, pages 51–67. Springer, 1994.

[32] Rommel G Regis. Constrained optimization by radial basis function

interpolation for high-dimensional expensive black-box problems with
infeasible initial points. Engineering Optimization, 46(2):218–243, 2014.

[33] Thomas Richir, Jean-David Caprace, Nicolas Losseau, Maud Bay,

Michael G Parsons, Samuel Patay, and Philippe Rigo. Multicriterion
scantling optimization of the midship section of a passenger vessel con-
sidering iacs requirements. In The 10th International Symposium on
Practical Design of Ships and Other Floating Structures (PRADS), 2007.

[34] Thomas W Sederberg and Scott R Parry. Free-form deformation of

solid geometric models. ACM SIGGRAPH computer graphics, 20(4):
151–160, 1986.

[35] TWP Smith, JP Jalkanen, BA Anderson, JJ Corbett, J Faber,

S Hanayama, E O’Keeffe, S Parker, L Johanasson, L Aldous, et al. Third
imo ghg study. 2015.

[36] Yusuke Tahara, F Stern, and Y Himeno. Computational fluid dynamics–

based optimization of a surface combatant. Journal of ship Research,
48(4):273–287, 2004.

[37] Yusuke Tahara, Satoshi Tohyama, and Tokihiro Katsui. Cfd-based multi-
objective optimization method for ship design. International journal
for numerical methods in fluids, 52(5):499–527, 2006.

[38] Ryoji Tanabe and Akira Oyama. A note on constrained multi-objective

optimization benchmark problems. In Evolutionary Computation
(CEC), 2017 IEEE Congress on, pages 1127–1134. IEEE, 2017.

[39] Guolei Tang, Wenyuan Wang, Zijian Guo, Xuhui Yu, and Bingchang
Wang. Simulation-based optimization for generating the dimensions of
a dredged coastal entrance channel. Simulation, 90(9):1059–1070, 2014.

[40] Aimin Zhou, Bo-Yang Qu, Hui Li, Shi-Zheng Zhao, Ponnuthurai Na-
garatnam Suganthan, and Qingfu Zhang. Multiobjective evolutionary
algorithms: A survey of the state of the art. Swarm and Evolutionary
Computation, 1(1):32–49, 2011.

[41] Eckart Zitzler and Lothar Thiele. Multiobjective evolutionary algo-

rithms: a comparative case study and the strength pareto approach.
IEEE transactions on Evolutionary Computation, 3(4):257–271, 1999.

43

View publication stats