Ships and Offshore Structures

ISSN: 1744-5302 (Print) 1754-212X (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsos20

Parametric structural analysis for a platform

supply vessel at conceptual design phase a
sensitivity study via design of experiments

Sthfano L. Andrade, Henrique M. Gaspar & Sren Ehlers

To cite this article: Sthfano L. Andrade, Henrique M. Gaspar & Sren Ehlers (2017) Parametric
structural analysis for a platform supply vessel at conceptual design phase a sensitivity
study via design of experiments, Ships and Offshore Structures, 12:sup1, S209-S220, DOI:
10.1080/17445302.2016.1262728

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17445302.2016.1262728

Published online: 21 Mar 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 61

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tsos20

Download by: [Universitetbiblioteket I Trondheim NTNU] Date: 02 July 2017, At: 16:19
SHIPS AND OFFSHORE STRUCTURES,
VOL. , NO. S, SS
http://dx.doi.org/./..

Parametric structural analysis for a platform supply vessel at conceptual design phase
a sensitivity study via design of experiments
Sthfano L. Andradea , Henrique M. Gaspar a
and Sren Ehlersb
a
Faculty of Maritime Technology and Operations, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Aalesund, Norway; b Institute for Ship Structural
Design and Analysis, Hamburg University of Technology, Hamburg, Germany

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Parametric structural design is a promising alternative for hull design, capable of combining weight reduc- Received September
tion, material efficiency and safety. The challenge of investigating a large space of alternatives created by Accepted November
the parametric model is caused by the high amount of engineering time required to model, analyse and
KEYWORDS
evaluate each of the possible configurations. The objective of this paper is thus to demonstrate the applica- Parametric model; structural
tion of a design of experiments sensitivity study for a parametrically modelled global structure of a platform sensitivity analysis; response
supply vessel with a focus on mass reduction during the conceptual design phase (CDP). The focus on CDP surface methodology
allows for simplifications in the model, thus gaining computational time by reducing discretisation. As a
result, knowledge on the impact of design variables on various combined responses is obtained and used
to determine a viable alternative within the solution space that has better material usage in comparison to
a base case design.

1. Introduction One common procedure to solve multi-objective optimisa-

Structural design of ships is a complex problem that involves a
diverse array of decisions, such as topology layout, plate thick-
ness, material, labour cost and main dimensions. The variables
can add to hundreds and the optimisation functions are non-
linear (Hughes and Paik 2010). Thus, a direct optimisation rou-
tine on every single part of the hull is not feasible with todays
numerical methods and probably, according to the Bremer-
manns limit, will never be possible (Suh 1990).
This paper utilises a design of experiments (DoE) aimed at a
response surface (RS) generation using a parametric finite ele-
ments (FE) model, seeking to obtain information on the effects
of key vessel variables based on their influence on the structural
strength, thereby allowing for new structural design options
to be considered during conceptual design phase (CDP). This
method combines good accuracy with low computational effort,
thus it is ideal for real life engineering problems during CDP,
e.g. design companies.
1.1. Brief overview on optimisation and structural
sensitivity analysis literature
The main strategy for ship structural optimisation is through
modular subdivision, where a sufficient number of scantlings
form a logical simplified entity (Hughes & Paik 2010). Addi-
tionally, it is possible to argue that an optimisation focused only
on weight reduction is not ideal for the majority of stakehold-
ers due to societal risks involved in ships failure (Zanic et al.
2010) and better designs can only be obtained through safety
objective definition, as safety constraints only are not sufficient,
thus the requirement for multi-objective approach that contem-
plates weight reduction and safety increase.
tion problems is genetic algorithms (MOGA) (Klanac et al.
2009). This approach seeks to make full use of iterative compu-
tational potential, however, convergence speed depends on the
initial population size (Jelovica & Klanac 2009) and also the level
of model fidelity required. A lower fidelity model reaches the
Pareto frontier faster, while high fidelity models requires more
runs, but reaches closer to the true frontier, as described by Zhu
et al. (2013).
The MOGA approach limitations, such as convergence time,
fine tuning of variables (e.g. elitism, crossover and muta-
tion rate) and initial population size can be solved by other
population-based heuristic (ISSC 2015), such as adaptive sim-
ulated annealing, extensive search methods and multi-objective
particle swarm optimisation (Zanic 2013). The latter does not
use crossover and mutation operators, thus converges faster
(Ehlers 2012).
Alternatively, a DoE-based approach is proposed as a viable,
reliable and less computer intensive form of multi-objective
optimisation, combined with RS generation for sensitivity
analysis.
Response surface methods (RSM) applicability studies for
computational simulations are found in aerospace industry
(Unal et al. 1997; Zink et al. 1999) and explored in the naval
industry by Arai and Shimizu (2001) for bulkheads weight min-
imisation, by Yu et al. (2009), who proposes RSM to access
fatigue on ship structures, and Zanic et al. (2013), who studied
ability of RSM to yield good results for low-order models.
The RS creation can be done through DoE, where design vari-
ables, or factors, are defined within a limited range and com-
bined to form the factor space (Anderson & Whitcomb 2005),

CONTACT Sthfano L. Andrade sthefano.lande@gmail.com

Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
S210 S. L. ANDRADE ET AL.
which is the design space spanned by design variables (Zanic
2013).
However, not every factor should be tested, only the vital ones
with greater response influence. Thus, factor definition is cru-
cial for DoE, as they dictate the total number of experiments.
Two recent works are used to define vital factors. Brandt (2015)
presents a preliminary study on better hull utilisation for off-
shore construction vessels, where the main dimensions (breadth
and depth) and plate thickness were studied.
Diewald (2015) focused on the influence of primary and sec-
ondary structural members on the global strength of ship per-
forming sensitivity analysis for different load conditions. The
screening procedure was developed according to Placketts and
Burmans experiment designs.
In summary, DoE aimed at RSM is proposed as an alterna-
tive to computer intensive procedures, such as population-based
heuristics, for multi-objective structural optimisation problems
that incorporate safety as objective.
1.2. Response surface methods (RSM) for improved
structural design
DoE aimed at RSM is capable of solving multi-objective opti-
misation problems and perform sensitivity analyses of multi-
factorial combination with aid of RS, for visual representation
of complex relations, while requiring reduced computational
power (Anderson & Whitcomb 2005). This allows trade-offs
between design choices to be studied (Arai & Shimizu 2001)
and, if the range of factor level studied is relatively small, then
the response forms studied can be accurately described by
low-order polynomial regressions (second- or third-order).
Finally, the use of preliminary factorial screening reduces the
chance of imposing uniformity to wrong factors or spending
computational time on trivial factors.
1.3. Augmented D-Optimal
Determinant-based optimal design (D-Optimal) is used to
define the experiments with more than five factors (Unal et al.
1998). It can handle a high number of factorials while requir-
ing a reasonable amount of experiments (Arai & Shimizu 2001).
An improved version of D-Optimal was first described by Unal
et al. (1998) in a study by NASA to optimise a wings structure,
which concluded that adding extra experimental points to the
space should improve the resulting RS approximation by reduc-
ing experimental gaps in the design space. Based on this study,
Anderson and Whitcomb (2005) suggest using D-Optimal to
create the minimal experiments required for a low-order model
and add at least 50% as many points using distance-based
criterion.
1.4. Desirability: converting multi-objective problems into
single objective
To perform a multi-objective model optimisation, the concept
of desirability is used (Derringer 1994). The desirability is a
preference formulation that measures a solutions ability of
achieving the desired goal through a single objective function.
The function di represents the individual desirability of each
studied design attributes. It grades the design attributes, rang-
ing from 1 to 0 (most to least desirable), for all possible values
attainable within the defined design space. For example, if the
user wishes to minimise weight, then the solution that wields the
lowest weight is assigned a desirability grade of 1, the heaviest
solution is graded 0 and the other solutions are graded accord-
ing to their relative distance from these extremes. Figure 1 shows
this concept for maximisation, minimisation, target and range
goals.
All design attributes can be graded by desirability func-
tions, di , with distinct goals, which are then combined into one
function (D):
1
n  n1
D = (d1 d2 . . . dn ) n = di (1)
i=1
The linear desirability grading does not add much in terms of
differentiating goals relative importance. To improve this, each
d-function can have a different importance, ri , adding emphasis
within the desirability function:
n  1r
D= diri i
(2)
i=1
Finally, applying weighted values to the desirability gives
added emphasis to the upper/lower bounds and to emphasise
the target value (Figure 2).
With a weight (wt) of 1 the di will vary from 0 to 1 in a linear
fashion. Weights greater than 1 give more emphasis to the target
value, while weights less than 1 give less emphasis.
Finally, since the design attributes were condensed to one
univariate function, an optimisation routine can be performed
by variable-sized simplex procedure (Anderson & Whitcomb
2005).
2. Procedure for structural design aimed at RSM
Based on the previous sections, a procedure (Figure 3) on how
to obtain a simplistic multi-objective optimisation approach for
structural problems during CDP using DoE and RSM is pro-
posed in the following paragraphs.
The steps refer to Figure 3 and the first are ship type selec-
tion, load case definition and responses studied (step 1). This
defines the parametric model creation directly (step 2) (Zanic
et al. 2013). The use of FE parametric model has three main
purposes: factorial permutation, attribute simulation and con-
sider complex structural member interaction (Hughes & Paik
2010), since FE offers effective and reliable means of generat-
ing stress field responses at cost of some computational time
(Benson 2011; Caboni 2016).
The model topologies and dimensions can be variable or
fixed (step 2) and they are defined according to design descrip-
tors (step 2.1), divided in three types:
r Initial parameters defining the base case
r Fixed variables
r Design variables
The design variables are the vital factors in this context,
they define the design space (step 2.1) and feed into the DoE
procedure, but only parameters that are expected to be the most
influential to the design attribute(s) can be selected and become
vital factors, the others are trivial, thus not tested (step 4). This
 SHIPS AND OFFSHORE STRUCTURES S211

Figure . Desirability functions.

Figure . Weighted desirability curve for target goal (Anderson & Whitcomb ).
S212 S. L. ANDRADE ET AL.
Figure . Procedure for structural design improvement using RSM.
step is important because the total of experiments increases
by the square of factorial number, thus the methods computer
efficiency in relation to population-based heuristics depends
on design variable preliminary screening, which can be based
on real life knowledge, stakeholders needs and DoE factorial
influence studies (Diewald 2015).
Anderson and Whitcomb (2005) and Arai and Shimizu
(2001) comment that in a restricted design space with correct
variables, low-order models generate reliable models for com-
putational structural analysis (step 5).
The design variables only vary within the design space
used to determine the experiments (step 6) using augmented
D-Optimal design, which, as commented previously, generates
a better mapping than D-Optimal alone. Then, the FE model
receives the experiments variables (steps 2.1 and 2) and is solved
(step 3).
The design attributes (step 7) regressions are determined
according to regression models (step 5). Their significance
should initially be validated according to statistical relevance
and ability to reproduce attribute values for points not included
in the regression modelling procedure, if not, then either the
vital factors chosen are insufficient, the number of experiments
is too low or the order of the regression not high enough, in any
case the DoE procedure must be redone. The attributes regres-
sions are then represented by three dimensional RS that can dis-
play any two factorial interactions on attributes (step 8).

To create multi-response model and obtain improved
solutions for the system, the desirability functions concept is
implemented, allowing for a multi-objective representation into
a single function form that includes safety as objective (step 9)
and can be optimised.
After solution validation (step 10), the procedure should
have generated not only possible improved design options, but
it should be possible to understand how changes in vital fac-
tors affect the desirability by studying factorial interactions
in RSs.
The proposed procedure is a robust and simple tool for
parametric sensitivity analysis and improved design solutions,
which is also fast and reliable.
3. PX121 case study
The procedure in Figure 3 is applied to a case study using ANSYS
for finite elements analysis (FEA) and Design Expert 8 for DoE
and RSM.
3.1. Parametric finite elements model
PX121 is used to model a typical platform supply vessel (PSV)
middle section (Figure 4), and Table 1 provides the cases
parameters.
The parametric frame creation is illustrated in Figure 5(a,b),
where simplifications for structural details (3), bilge curvature
(4), non-continuous longitudinal elements (2) and discontinu-
ities (1) are done in order to avoid overly fine meshing and min-
imise variables (Hughes & Paik 2010).
The final model represents a PSV cargo hold consisting of
43 frames spaced 700 mm apart with stiffeners as the smallest
structural members (Figure 6).
The model is considered a supported beam with moment
applied to the extremities. The nodes at the extremities belong
to a rigid body representing a bulkhead and this is modelled
through the use of rigid links that connect them to a master
node at the sectional neutral axis, where it is supported and the
Figure . PX PSV (Ulstein ). (This gure is available in colour online.)
SHIPS AND OFFSHORE STRUCTURES S213
bending moment is applied, all defined, magnitudes included,
according to IACS (2015) and DNV-GL (2015).
3.2. Cases design attributes
The design attributes are defined according to Ulstein and
the studies by Brandt (2015), where internal area, weight and
strength to global loads are the main concern. The internal area
is assumed related to breadth and depth, while weight is calcu-
lated by the sum of the models FE individual volumes, com-
bined with material density (regular steel) and divided by the
total model length.
The strength analysis is focused on the global stress from ver-
tical bending moment on the model. The FE analysis takes into
consideration effects on the longitudinal stress due to the pres-
ence of transversal strength elements, thus the equivalent stress
is assessed between the central frames of the model at: main
deck, bottom and cargo rail plates (Figure 7).
Finally, only the worst load case is studied, in this case sagging
moment. The base cases solution is determined (Table 2). Note
that the selected load case is just for the procedures demonstrat-
ing purposes and the model can be updated easily with addi-
tional load types and cases.
3.3. Vital factors space
The chosen design variables are depth, breadth, main deck
thickness, bottom plate thickness, cargo rail plate thickness,
number of stiffeners and stiffener type. The screening was based
on Brandt (2015), Diewald (2015) and stakeholders needs.
Since the number of stiffeners vary throughout the cross-
section, a general multiplier variable is defined to describe local
stiffener number functions. Moreover, stiffener type is defined
in qualitative manner depending on location. The design space
is defined in Table 3 and the stiffener types in Table 4.
This space of seven variables amounts for a total of 64
different experimental set-ups according to the augmented
S214 S. L. ANDRADE ET AL.

Figure . (a) Typical PSV mid-ship section drawing. (b) Simplied section model in ANSYSR . (This gure is available in colour online.)

Figure . Full hold model. (This gure is available in colour online.)

 SHIPS AND OFFSHORE STRUCTURES S215

Table . Parameters values for the base case.

Parameter Value Unit

Length . m
Breadth m
Depth (to main deck) m
Draught . m
General plating thickness mm
Bottom and tank top plating mm
General stiener prole HP
Stiener prole at main deck HP

Table . Results nomenclature and values for the base case.

Attribute Value Unit

R Mass per length unit . ton/m

R Stress at main deck . MPa
R Stress at bottom . MPa
R Stress at cargo rail . MPa
R Internal area m

Table . Design spaces level variation for the design variables (vital factors).

Factor Level range Unit Figure . Stress (Pa) measurement regions.

A Half-breadth (breadth/) m
B Depth m
C Main deck plating thickness mm
D Bottom/tank top plating thickness mm r Minimisation of mass
E Cargo rail plating thickness mm r Longitudinal stress minimisation for main deck, cargo rail
F Stiener number multiplier (integer)
G Stiener type (Table ) o-/o/o+ and bottom
r Maximisation of internal area
Table . Stiener types.
Additionally, two constraints are defined together with the
Location Stiener type (o-) Stiener type (o) Stiener type (o+) objectives:
Main deck HP HP HP
Other locations HP HP HP r Stress maximum limit of 160 MPa (DNV 2016)
r Internal area lowest acceptable limit of 144 m2

D-Optimal procedure (42 from D-Optimal, plus 21 for enhance-
ment and extra for the base case).
The multiple objectives are defined taking safety and weight
reduction into consideration. For this particular case, we repre-
sent safety in the form of a stress minimisation objective func-
tion in addition to the material utilisation objectives. The three
objectives are shown as follows:
This should generate solutions that are more material effi-
cient and have improved interior space, while still favouring
solutions with lower longitudinal stress values. In addition to
that, constraints are defined so that the solution space only con-
tains viable solutions. It should be noted that the desirability
approach allows for further inclusion of objectives in future
analyses with new load cases.

Table . Top eight solutions regarding desirability (D).

Variables Design attributes

Solution A B C D E F G R R R R R D

B/ (m) D (m) tdeck (mm) tbot (mm) tcg (mm) n HP Mass (ton/m) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) Area (m )

. . . o- . . . . . .
. . o- . . . . . .
. . o- . . . . . .
. . o- . . . . . .
. . . o- . . . . . .
. . . o- . . . . . .
. o . . . . . .
. . o . . . . . .
Base case o . . . .
S216 S. L. ANDRADE ET AL.

Figure . Response variation compared to the base case (% axis) according to Table .

Figure . RS for mass attribute.


Figure . Best solutions attributes, desirability ramps and values.
Finally, finite elements methods (FEM) rather than non-
linear equations are used to determine the viability of RSM
regression on structural computational analysis.
4. Results
Design Expert 8 solves the desirability function through a sim-
plex routine with a set of randomly defined starting points in
addition to randomly picked design points, which totalled 500
in this case. It stores the optimal solutions from each iteration
and ranks them according to desirability value (Stat-Ease 2010).
The eight best solutions are presented in Table 5.
Notable behaviours:
r Small increase in breadth, but below the limit of 10 m,
shown in Table 3
r Maximum use of depth within the design space range
r Overall decrease of main deck and bottom plate thick-
nesses
r Full use cargo rail plate thickness
r Generally, but not necessarily, minimal use of stiffener
numbers and smallest type
SHIPS AND OFFSHORE STRUCTURES S217
Figure 8 presents the design attribute variation for each
solution in comparison to the base case. Therefrom a general
increase of effective cargo space, a general increase in main
decks and cargo rails strength can be seen. Furthermore, the
mass for the solutions remains constant in relation to the base
case and so does the stress at the bottom (negligible variation at
CDP).
Several improved solutions are obtained in relation to
material usage (higher load capacity, same mass). Verification
through FEA showed that the attributes regressions agreed with
the simulated ones with less than 1% divergence. However, if
any of these solutions would coincide with initial experimen-
tal points, then this validation is not enough, thus, for future
works, the validation should include points that do not belong to
the initial experimentation sample and this should be performed
prior to the solving procedure.
For the studied case, the procedure yielded quality results,
showing a direction in which the design could be improved.
This was achieved through low computational efforts and good
result accuracy, thus showing the procedures effectiveness to
handle multi-objective problems, while equivalent population-
based heuristics could require hundreds of iterations more.
S218 S. L. ANDRADE ET AL.

Figure . Combined desirability D RS for breadth vs. depth. (This gure is available in colour online.)

5. Factorial sensitivity analysis
The other feature that this procedure offers is RSM, which is a
powerful tool to visually study tendencies in attribute variations.
Figure 9 compares how design variables affect the models mass
in relation to breadth and depth variations. It shows that factors
increase the models mass linearly.
However, mass is only one of five studied attributes,
then, to study multiple combined attributes, the desirabil-
ity concept is applied. Figure 10 presents the individual
attributes and global desirability values for the solution one
(Table 5). For that solution, stress at cargo rail and inter-
nal area positively influences the final desirability score,

Figure . Combined desirability contour RS for cargo rail plate thickness vs. breadth. (This gure is available in colour online.)

Figure . RS for bottom plate thickness vs. breadth. (This gure is available in colour online.)
deck stress is neutral, while mass and stress at bottom are
negative.
Besides obtaining improved local solutions and comparing
local optimal, the desirability RS can be studied to understand
combined factorial effects. In theory any bi-dimensional trade-
off can be compared to track desirability, for instance breadth
vs. depth (Figure 11); breadth vs. cargo rail plate thickness
(Figure 12).
Desirability surfaces show factorial tendencies within the
design space of the studied factors, meaning that the regions of
peak desirability can be tracked and design choices can be made
accordingly, e.g. the figures below compare factors concerning
breadth versus plate thickness in different locations.
For lower breadth values, the cargo rail thickness variation
has almost no influence over desirability (Figure 12). But, as
the breath increases, so does the positive influence of increased
thickness of the plate on the desirability.
The bottom plate has the opposite effect that of the cargo rail
plate (Figure 13), with thinner plate being more desirable. In
this particular case, a designer could notice that shifting mate-
rial from the bottom plate to the cargo rail is an effective way
of increasing structural efficiency as defined by the desirability
function.
In conclusion, besides being a computationally effective
method, it also provides the designer a powerful tool, in the form
of RSs, to further understand the compromises involved in the
design choices.
6. Conclusion
This paper demonstrated that FEA combined with DoE and
RSM are, for multi-objective optimisation purposes, a powerful,
viable and fast ways to create improved structural design
SHIPS AND OFFSHORE STRUCTURES S219
solutions that does not require the same amount of computa-
tional power for other multi-objective optimisation methods.
Additionally, it also allows for factorial sensitivity analysis in the
form of RS creation.
The concept of the procedure was shown, through a sim-
plistic design optimisation of a mid-ship section subjected to
bending moment, that it is possible to determine valid regres-
sions for ships structural models at a conceptual level using DoE.
Through the 50% augmented D-Optimal procedure, a repre-
sentative low-order response model was feasibly achieved when
using frame as sub-module element for optimisation purpose
with minimal deviation from the FE simulation.
Although the case is centred on PSVs and single load type,
this could be updated to include other ship types and more load
conditions. Thus, the method is a useful tool to support design-
ers in defining critical design variables at CDP in real-world
situations, when detailing is not required and time-consuming
heuristics are not ideal. Also, variable selection is crucial, since
they directly influence on the experiments number, as the addi-
tional trivial factors increase run time without generating useful
information, hindering the methods computational effective-
ness. Finally, the results are only valid within the studied design
space (Table 3) and the model regression validation should take
into account design points that do not coincide with the original
sample population.
Future work should include other loads combination, includ-
ing local loads, as well as their inclusion in the desirability
function. Furthermore, additional factors could be analysed,
e.g. individual girders, framing distance and different material
properties.
Acknowledgments
This article was partly supported by EMIS Project, in cooperation with
Ulstein International AS.
S220 S. L. ANDRADE ET AL.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
ORCID
Henrique M. Gaspar http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2128-2863
References
Anderson MJ, Whitcomb PJ. 2005. RSM simplified: optimizing processes
using response surface methods for design of experiments. New York
(NY): Productivity Press.
Arai M, Shimizu T. 2001. Optimization of the design of ship structures
using response surface methodology. In: Wu YS, Cui WC, Zhou GJ Pro-
ceedings of PRADS 2001; 2001 Sep 1621, Shanghai, China. Oxford:
Elsevier Science Ltd.
Benson S. 2011. Progressive collapse assessment of lightweight ship struc-
tures [thesis]. Newcastle: School of Marine Science and Technology,
Newcastle University.
Brandt U. 2016. Rules for classification: ships (RU-SHIP). Hvik: DNV GL.
Caboni M. 2016. Probabilistic design optimization of horizontal axis wind
turbine rotors [thesis]. Glasgow: University of Glasgow.
Derringer GC. 1994. A balancing act: optimizing a products properties.
Qual Prog. 27:5158.
Diewald R. 2015. Statistical studies on the influence of primary and sec-
ondary structural members on the global strength of ship structures
[thesis]. Hamburg: Hamburg University of Technology.
DNV GL. 2016. Rules for classification: ships (RU-SHIP). Hvik: DNV GL.
Ehlers S. 2012. A particle swarm algorithm-based optimization
for high-strength steel structures. J Ship Prod Design. 28:
527525.
Hughes OF, Paik JK. 2010. Ship structural analysis and design. New Jersey
(NJ): The Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers.
[IACS] International Association of Classification Societies. 2015. Common
structural rules for bulk carriers and oil tankers. London: International
Association of Classification Societies.
[ISSC] International Ship and Offshore Structures Congress. 2015. Report
of committee IV.2. In: Soares CG, Garbatov Y Proceedings of the
International Ships and Offshore Structures Congress; 2009 Sep 710.
Cascais, Portugal: CRC.
Jelovica J, Klanac A. 2009. Multi-objective optimization of ship structures:
using guided search vs. conventional concurrent optimization. In: Das
PK, Soares CG Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on
Marine Structures; 2009 Mar 1618; Lisbon: CRC Press.
Klanac A, Ehlers S, Jelovica J. 2009. Optimization of crashworthy marine
structures. Mar Struct. 22:670690.
Stat-Ease. 2010. Design expert 8 [CD-ROM]. Version 8.0. Minneapolis
(MN: Stat-Ease, Inc).
Suh NP. 1990. The principles of design. New York (NY): Oxford University
Press.
Ulstein. 2016. PX family catalogue. PX family catalogue. Internal Report.
Norway:Ulstein Group.
Unal R, Lepsch RA, McMillin ML. 1998. Response surface model build-
ing and multidisciplinary optimization using d-optimal designs. Paper
presented at: 7th AIAA/USAF/NASA/ISSMO Symposium on Multidis-
ciplinary Analysis and Optimization; St. Louis (MO).
Unal R, Wu KC, Stanley DO. 1997. Structural design optimization for a
space truss platform using response surface methods. Qual Eng. 9:441
447.
Yu L, Das PK, Zheng Y. 2009. A response surface approach to fatigue relia-
bility of ship structures. Ships Offshore Struc. 4(3): 253259.
Zanic V. 2013. Methods and concepts for the multi-criteria synthesis of ship
structures. Ships Offshore Struc. 8:225244.
Zanic V, Andric J, Prebeg P. 2013. Design synthesis of complex ship struc-
tures. Ships Offshore Struc. 8:383403.
Zanic V, Kitarovic S, Prebeg P. 2010. Safety as objective in multicriterial
structural optimization. In: Proceedings of ASME/OMAE; 2010 Jun 6
11; Shanghai, China. New York (NY): ASME.
Zhu J, Wang YJ., Collette M. 2013. A multi-objective variable-
fidelity optimization method for genetic algorithms. Eng Optim.
46:521542.
Zink PS, Love MH, Flick PM. 1999. The impact of active aero elastic wing
technology on wing geometry using response surface methodology. In:
Whitlow W Jr., Todd EN. CEAS/AIAA/ICASE/NASA Langley Inter-
national Forum on Aeroelasticity and Structural Dynamics; 1999 Jun
2225; Williamsburg (VA).