Oil Tanker Cargo Hold Structural Optimization

Using Ultimate Limit States

Justin M. Freimuth (AM), Ming Ma (AM)
Advanced Marine Technology Center, DRS Technologies Inc., Stevensville, MD, USA

This paper presents a method to optimize an oil tanker cargo hold’s structural scantlings based on stiffened panel
ultimate limit states. Two different tanker models and their results are presented demonstrating this optimization
procedure using models of varying mesh densities. The full ship finite element models are loaded with multiple load
cases, design bending moments, external hydrostatic pressure, and internal tank pressure. The working stresses of a
stiffened panel, which are used for the panel’s ultimate limit states assessment, are obtained by 3D finite element
analysis. Each stiffened panel is then optimized using multi-objective genetic algorithms for its weight and safety.
The optimization process is performed on two different versions of the same vessel: one with all stiffeners defined
explicitly and one with internal stiffeners (allowing the stiffener layout to be changed during the optimization). The
numerical results show that the proposed method is very useful to perform ultimate strength based ship structural
optimization with multiple objectives, namely minimizing the structural weight and maximizing structural safety.

KEY WORDS: Multi-objective optimization; Ultimate Limit
States; MAESTRO; ALPS/ULSAP
INTRODUCTION
In modern shipbuilding, the emphasis on reliability,
affordability, and efficiency continues to drive the need for an
optimal ship structural design. During the concept design phase,
typically a midship structural design is established which meets
the requirements (e.g., principal dimensions, coefficients of
form, etc.) of the overall design. In many ships, once a midship
section structural design is complete, the remaining significant
portion of the ship’s length can be designed from this section.
Since the bending moments and shear loads are greatest between
the quarter points of the hull, the scantlings toward each end of
the ship need only be given as modifications to the midship
section. Ships with a fairly uniform midbody, such as an oil
tanker, can use the midship section design for the purpose of
structural weight estimation, rules-based checks, and initial cost
estimation. This ship design workflow lends itself to a large
potential value by performing a midship section structural
optimization.
In setting up the optimization problem for a midship
structural section, a large number of variables are introduced
including plating thickness, stiffener properties, and the discrete
number of stiffeners. Additional complications include
constraints from stiffened panel yielding and buckling under
various load conditions and design rules specified by
classification societies. Although ship cross section design can
be rather complicated, the attempts of structural scantling
optimization have been plentiful and various strategies have
been proposed. In terms of the optimization methods, there are
basically two main types of optimization algorithms: the
mathematical approaches (deterministic or gradient) and the
heuristic or stochastic approaches including concepts inspired
by natural biological systems. The main difficulties related to
the use of gradient methods are that they can become stuck in a
local optimum and the discrete variables have to be
approximated as continuous variables. Because the objective
functions and constraints are often highly non-linear, the
problems are usually either sequentially linearized and solved
with linear programming (Hughes 1980), or separated into a
series of convex problems and solved accordingly with the non-
linear gradient-based method (Rigo 2001). Conversely,
heuristic methods offer the possibility of handling discrete
variables as well as providing global optimization capabilities.
The heuristic methods have been growing in popularity over the
last few years as more and more researchers discover the
benefits of their adaptive search. The Genetic Algorithm (GA) is
one type of popular heuristic methods. Many papers now exist
describing a multitude of different types of genetic algorithms,
theoretical and practical analyses of GAs and a plethora of
applications (Coello 1999, Konak 2006).
The genetic algorithm is an optimization technique which
simulates the natural process of evolution. Solutions to the
optimization problem are created in an iterative process
described by generations starting with a random population of
possible solutions. The new generations are developed using
methods similar to genetic crossover and mutation. Crossover
occurs when more than one parent solution is used to develop
the new solution by crossing over between the parent’s solutions

144
at one or more points. Mutation occurs when the new solution
changes one or more of the parent genes (in this case the genes
are representative of optimization variables, such as plate
thickness). At each new generation, or solution, the new
population’s genes are evaluated using a fitness measure. In the
case of a single objective optimization, the genetic algorithm
stores a single fitness value for each solution in the population.
For multiple objective problems, it is common practice to use a
weighted sum to combine multiple objectives into a single
objective whose fitness can be measured. For example:
(1)
where is the normalized objective function and are
the weighting coefficients representing the relative importance
of the n objective functions. It is usually assumed that
in order to allow fitness comparisons with single
objective optimizations or other multiple objective solutions
with different weighting vectors (each possibly with a different
number of weighting functions.) Solving a problem with the
objective function in Eq. 1 for a given weighting vector
yields a single solution, and if multiple
solutions are desired, the problem must be solved multiple times
with different weighting coefficient combinations. In future
generations, members of the population with a higher fitness
level are given a stronger chance of producing offspring in the
next generation, which usually provides better solutions. A
pseudo-code for a simple Random Weight-Based Genetic
Algorithm process is given in the following steps:
1. Generate a set of random weight vectors
where
2. Generate a random population.
3. Assign a fitness value to each solution as
4. Crossover: Generate an offspring population as follows:
Choose two solutions x and y from Sk based on the fitness
values. Using a crossover operator, generate offspring and
add them to the next generation set Sk+1.
5. Mutation: Mutate each solution with a predefined
mutation rate.
6. Rank the population and update the fittest solution to the
non-dominated set M.
7. Repeat steps 3~7 until the stopping criterion is satisfied
8. Repeat steps 1~8 for next set of weighting coefficients.
One of the strengths of the genetic algorithm is its
simplicity, efficiency, and ability to explore a large design space
without performing an exhaustive search of possible solutions.
However, some of its weaknesses are that it can be difficult to
determine the appropriate weights to scale the optimization
objectives and that “improved” solutions are only relative to
Oil Tanker Cargo Hold Structural Optimization Using Ultimate Limit States
other solutions so results can vary significantly based on the
stopping criterion used.
LIMIT STATE BASED STRUCTURAL
OPTIMIZATION
In the field of ship structures, often designs are based on
simple empirical constraints, such as scantling rules and
allowable stress limits specified by class societies, to size the
structural scantlings. Today, it is well known that the limit state
is a better basis for the design and assessment of large thin-wall
structures than allowable working stress. Although the working
stress is an important evaluation parameter, the limit state
analysis checks both individual and combined (i.e., stiffened
panel) structural members under a combination of loads for
particular failure modes. In addition to working stress limits
(often relative to the material yield stress), classification
societies also require that plating, stiffened panels, and primary
structural members be evaluated against buckling and ultimate
strength criteria.
There are two ways to evaluate the limit states of a
stiffened panel. One is to use full-blown non-linear finite
element analysis methods, and the other is to use semi-analytical
approximate methods. Although general finite element tools are
widely available and provide reliable results for structure
instability analysis, their application can be prohibitive due to
the computational time. This justifies the interest for more time-
effective strategies, for which the main idea is to replace the
finite element method with approximation techniques. The use
of an analytical or semi-analytical approach results in an
attractive strategy due to its effectiveness in terms of
computational time, especially if compared with conventional
numerical procedures such as the finite element method. This
aspect becomes even more important when dealing with highly
non-linear analyses and in the context of optimization
procedures, in which repeated analyses are required.
Several closed-form solutions and semi-analytical
approaches can be found in the literature for predicting the limit
state of stiffened panels (Paik 2009). Among them, the
ALPS/ULSAP method accounts for a wide range of loads and
initial conditions, including combined in-plane, longitudinal,
transverse and shear loads, lateral pressure, initial deflection of
plate and stiffeners, residual stress, structural dents, plate
openings, impact pressure, corrosion, etc. The primary modes of
overall failure for a stiffened panel or a grillage under
predominately compressive loads can be categorized into the
following six types (Paik 2003, Hughes 2010):
■ Mode I: overall collapse after overall buckling
145
 ■ Mode II: collapse of the plating between stiffeners
without the failure of stiffeners
■ Mode III: beam-column type collapse of a stiffener
with attached plating
■ Mode IV: local buckling of stiffener web (after
buckling collapse of attached plating)
■ Mode V: lateral-torsional buckling (tripping) of a
stiffener
■ Mode VI: gross yielding

To effectively assess limit states of a stiffened panel, the

structural response and working stresses have to be known. One
of the most reliable methods to obtain the structural response
and stress is through finite element analyses. However, due to
the nature of the repeated calculation in optimization, few
approaches have attempted to directly integrate finite element
methods into their optimization schemes. For example, the
optimization program LBR5 uses an analytical method (based
on differential equations of stiffened plates) to compute the
overall response of the hull structure (Rigo 2005). This method Fig. 1 Iterative Optimization Process
is a direct analysis of the stress and strain of the prismatic part
of the ship or a cargo hold. OCTOPUS (Zanic 2009) uses OBJECTIVE FUNCTIONS AND CONTRAINTS
customized super-element finite element method to compute the
structural response of a 2.5D segment. As indicated in the previous section, the multi-objective
In order to leverage widely available generic finite element optimization is executed at the stiffened panel level. A typical
models, Ma, et al. (Ma 2013) proposed a two-step heuristic stiffened panel is shown in Fig. 2.
based approach to optimize ship structures. In this process, the
structural response is calculated using standard finite element
models. Each stiffened panel’s loads are applied from the finite
element analysis and remain constant during the optimization
procedure. ALPS/ULSAP, a semi-analytical ultimate limit state
criteria, is used to assess the structural safety of each panel.
Based on the optimization criteria, each of the panels are
optimized individually using the genetic algorithm and limit
states. Once each panel is optimized, a finite element analysis is
run on the new structural definition of the entire model and the
applied loads for each panel are updated. The optimization then
becomes an iterative process and limits the number of finite Fig. 2 Typical Stiffened Panel Structure
element analysis runs, which can be computationally expensive.
The overall iterative process employed can be illustrated in There are three objective functions for the problem. The
Fig. 1. first is the panel structural weight, W.

(2)

where ρp, ρsx, and ρsy are the plate density, longitudinal stiffener
density, and transverse frame density respectively. B and L are
the panel width and length. tp is the plate thickness. Nx and Ny
are the number of the longitudinal stiffeners and transverse
frames respectively. bf, tf, hw and tw are the stiffener (or frame)

146 Oil Tanker Cargo Hold Structural Optimization Using Ultimate Limit States
flange width, flange thickness, web height and web thickness of
the longitudinal stiffener or transverse frame.
The second objective function is the fabrication cost, C,
which in its current implementation, is based on weld length
alone. For a grillage the cost is:

(3)

where cf is the welding cost per length of stiffener. In these

(7)
examples, the cost is not taken into consideration, however the
optimization framework is setup such that more realistic and
The number of the stiffeners can be limited as:
builder-specific cost models can be accounted for.
The third objective function is the safety measure for the
panel or grillage, η, given in Eq. 4.
(8)

Manufacturing related constraints are:

(4)

where Cd and Dd are the characteristic values of capacity and

demand.
The optimization problem is to determine the optimum
values of the variables (tp, bfx, tfx, hwx, twx, Nx, bfy, tfy, hwy, twy, Ny)
which minimize the weight and cost while having a maximum
safety measure. Without loss of generality, the multi-objective
optimization assumes the form:

(9)

(5)
For genetic algorithm approach, the goal is to maximize the
fitness on the design space of all possible configurations. The
aggregated fitness function f can be expressed as:
The optimization constraints can also be set by using a plate and
stiffener property library, however this typically limits the
design space such that an exhaustive search can be used instead
of a genetic algorithm.
APPLICATION TO CARGO HOLD
STRUCTURAL DESIGN

To illustrate the procedure of the optimization, a cargo hold

(6) of a 200,000 ton double hull oil tanker, shown in Fig. 3(a), is
optimized in this section. The main particulars of the tanker are
where W0 and are the nominal initial design value of a given in Table 1.
stiffened panel weight and safety measure respectively, gi(x) is
the constraint penalty function, and ci is the coefficient of the Table 1. Main Particulars of the Oil Tanker
penalty function. ci is 0 if the design variables satisfy the Length between perpendiculars 264 m
constraints, and is 1 if they violate the constraints. The purpose Breadth 48 m

of the constraint penalty function is to drive the solution away Depth 23.2 m

from violating certain constraints by driving down the fitness Draught 19.2 m

level of that particular solution. Displacement 200,000 ton

Plate and stiffener scantlings can be prescribed by the users Dead weight 169,000 ton

based on their design experience, technological preferences and Block coefficient (Cb) 0.843

the structure’s local safety requirements:

Oil Tanker Cargo Hold Structural Optimization Using Ultimate Limit States 147
 The finite element model of the tanker has 121,368 nodes
and 513,076 elements. This model was originally created as a
generic Nastran finite element model, but loaded using
MAESTRO load patterns. The tanker has 6 cargo tanks and 6
ballast tanks, as shown in Fig. 3(c) and 3(d).
(a) Full Ship (b) Finite Element Model
(c) Cargo Tanks (d) Ballast Tanks
Fig. 3 Suezmax Class Double Hull Oil Tanker
For the full load case, all cargo tanks are loaded with a total
deadweight of 169,000 tons. For the ballast load case, all ballast
tanks are loaded with a weight of 52,000 tons. Hydrostatic
pressure was automatically calculated and applied to the
model’s outer hull.
Fig. 4 Hydrostatic Pressure Distributions for Full Load and
Ballast Conditions
In addition to tank loads and hydrostatic pressure, wave
induced extreme hogging and sagging bending moment design
envelopes, obtained by the CSR empirical formula (IACS, 2012)
were applied to the model:
(10)
(11)
where fwave-v is the distribution factor for vertical wave
bending moment along the vessel length, fprob=1, and Cwave
is the wave coefficient:
when 150 < L < 300 (12)
148 Oil Tanker Cargo Hold Structural Optimization Using Ultimate Limit States
The portion of the hull representing the cargo hold is shown
in Fig. 5. This portion of the model consists of 13,591 nodes
and 27,474 elements.
Fig 5. Cargo Hold of Oil Tanker
The stiffened panels in the cargo hold are automatically
found using MAESTRO’s evaluation panel search algorithm,
and are shown in Fig. 6. The search method looks for a
collection of elements representative of stiffened panels in the
finite element model based on changes in geometry (e.g., a deck
edge or plate intersection) and user-specified beam elements
which act as panel boundaries (e.g., transverse frames or
longitudinal girders). MAESTRO retains the critical stiffened
panel boundary conditions and parameters such as the true panel
span. Each of the 392 colored groups represent a stiffened panel
whose limit states are evaluated during each FEA run and used
in the optimization procedure.
Fig 6. Cargo Hold Stiffened Panels
In order to produce a realistic design from the optimization,
the stiffened panels are grouped into “design clusters.” The
purpose of the design cluster is to create larger portions of the
structure that will have the same scantling properties. This will
prevent changes in plate thickness or stiffener properties at each
panel. The design clusters are defined by the user and can be
used to simplify the manufacturing process. The 56 design
clusters for this example are shown in Fig. 7.
Fig. 7 Cargo Hold Design Clusters

During the optimization cycles, the stiffened panel with the

Fig. 9 Stiffener Design Constraints
worst adequacy parameter from each design cluster is optimized
and the new scantlings are applied to all panels in the cluster
This example is an especially severe test of the optimization
before the next FEA run. The adequacy parameters are a
method presented in this paper. This ship was originally
normalized strength ratio from -1 to 1. Any structure with a
designed using high tensile steel in some regions. The owners
negative adequacy parameter is considered inadequate based on
subsequently decided to use only mild steel. In this
the loads applied and the defined safety factors.
optimization the initial scantlings are those for the mild steel
The safety factors for buckling and yielding are 1.5 and
design, and consequently they are very inadequate. As shown in
1.25 respectively. The overall constraints for each of the design
Fig. 10, 25% of the structure was severely inadequate, with
clusters are shown in Fig. 8. Additional stiffener constraints
adequacy parameters as low as -0.161.
were also created and are shown in Fig. 9.

Fig. 8 Overall Design Constraints

Fig. 10 Optimization Weight and Safety Summary

In spite of this relatively weak initial design, the

optimization converged in 12 design cycles. In addition to

Oil Tanker Cargo Hold Structural Optimization Using Ultimate Limit States 149
eliminating all structure with a negative adequacy parameter, the
optimization process was able to achieve a 5.8% weight savings
(from 2401 tons to 2261 tons). The minimum adequacy
parameter was improved from -0.161 to 0.021. The percentage
of failed structure was reduced from 25% to 0%. Fig. 11 shows
the design history for structural weight, minimum adequacy
parameter and percentage of inadequate structure for 12 design
cycles. The optimization automatically stops when there is no
weight improvement within 5 cycles.

(a) Original Design

(b) Optimized Design

Fig. 11 Optimization Design Iterations
At the end of the optimization process, the full ship finite
element model was run and the Von Mises stress results were
compared for the optimized portion of the structure. Fig. 12
presents the stress distribution from the original design and the
new optimized design.
Fig. 12 Von Mises Stress Results from Original and Optimized
Design
APPLICATION TO COARSE AND FINE MESH
CARGO HOLD FE MODELS
A second application of this optimization procedure is used
on a separate full ship oil tanker model to demonstrate the
different results using a coarse mesh and a fine mesh (i.e., all
stiffeners are explicitly defined as beam elements) model of the
same midship section. In the optimization of the coarse mesh
model, the stiffener spacing is now a variable in addition to the
stiffener property whereas the fine mesh model has fixed
stiffener locations. The purpose of this exercise is to investigate
the weight savings comparison between the coarse mesh and
fine mesh optimization. The main particulars of the tanker are
given in Table 2.

150 Oil Tanker Cargo Hold Structural Optimization Using Ultimate Limit States
Table 2. Main Particulars of the Second Oil Tanker
Length between perpendiculars 174 m
Breadth 32.2 m
Depth 23.2 m
Draught 11.6 m
Displacement 56,000 ton
Block coefficient (Cb) 0.862

The coarse mesh model consists of 15,000 nodes and 133,679

elements. Stiffeners are not explicitly modeled, however their
property and spacing is stored as an attribute of their
associated shell element. During the finite element analysis,
the extra stiffness is accounted for using orthotropic plate
theory. The coarse mesh model is shown below in Fig. 13. Fig. 15 Second Tanker Midship Fine Mesh Model

The model’s ballast and cargo tanks were loaded and

Fig. 13 Second Tanker Coarse Mesh Model
The coarse mesh midship section structure to be optimized is
shown in Fig. 14. The red lines represent the internal
stiffeners.
combined with the structural weight to represent a full load
displacement of 56,000 tons. The model was balanced and the
appropriate hydrostatic pressures were automatically applied to
the outer shell elements. Additional load cases were created
which combined the CSR wave induced extreme hogging and
sagging bending moment design envelopes to the full load
Stillwater condition.
Evaluation patches and design clusters are identical for the
coarse and fine mesh models. Fig. 16 shows the evaluation
patches for the two versions of the mesh.

Fig. 16 Coarse and Fine Mesh Evaluation Patches

The safety factors for buckling and yielding are again 1.5 and
1.25 respectively. The overall constraints for each of the
design clusters are shown in Fig. 17.

Fig. 14 Second Tanker Midship Coarse Mesh Model

The equivalent fine mesh model of this midship section is

shown in Fig. 15. The model is connected to the rest of the
full ship coarse mesh model using rigid spline elements which
impose the coarse mesh displacements onto the fine mesh
boundary nodes.

Oil Tanker Cargo Hold Structural Optimization Using Ultimate Limit States 151
Fig. 17 Coarse and Fine Mesh Optimization Constraints Fig. 19 Fine Mesh Optimized Plate Thickness

The coarse mesh optimization introduces a new variable for

stiffener spacing which can range from 100 to 1,000 mm with
50 mm increments.
In this example, the original structure did not have any
failing adequacy parameters, however the structural weight was
reduced in both the coarse mesh and fine mesh. The coarse
mesh model was able to achieve an additional 8% weight
savings relative to the fine mesh model. Figs. 18 through 21
show the optimized plating thickness and stiffener count
comparison for the two models.
In Figs. 20 and 21, the coarse mesh model stiffeners are
shown as red lines within the plate elements and the fine mesh
model stiffeners are represented by the orange beam elements.
It can be seen that in the coarse mesh model, the outer bilge
plating was able to be significantly thinner (8 mm) with the
inclusion of additional stiffeners, whereas the fine mesh was
constrained by the existing stiffener layout and thus required
much thicker plating (32 mm). Fig. 20 Coarse Mesh Stiffener Layout

Fig. 18 Coarse Mesh Optimized Plate Thickness Fig. 21 Fine Mesh Stiffener Layout

152 Oil Tanker Cargo Hold Structural Optimization Using Ultimate Limit States
CONCLUSIONS
In this paper, a Random Weight-Based Genetic Algorithm
has successfully been used to optimize the cargo hold structural
design of a 200,000 ton tanker and compare the optimization
results of a 56,000 ton tanker using a coarse mesh and fine mesh
model. In both examples, to accurately determine the cargo hold
load capacity at each design cycle, standard finite element
analysis methods are used. The objectives of the optimization
are the structural weight and the ultimate local panel strength.
The paper demonstrated that the cargo hold structural weight
can be reduced while also eliminating all local panel failures
using this optimization approach. The second tanker example
demonstrated that a coarse mesh model in which the stiffener
spacing is not fixed, could potentially provide a greater weight
savings than a fine mesh model, while still maintaining the
structural integrity of the design. Based on these examples, the
proposed approach is quite capable of generating better cargo
hold designs, or larger portions of the structure, within
reasonable search times. Given their flexibility and ease of
implementation, the proposed multi-objective methods can be
viewed as a valuable and attractive tool for structural
optimization.
REFERENCES
Coello, Carlos A. An Updated Survey of Evolutionary
Multi-Objective Optimization Techniques: State of
the Art and Future Trends, Int. Conf.
Evolutionary Computation (ICEC’99), 1999
Hughes, Owen F., Mistree, F., and Zanic, Vedran. A
Practical Method for the Rational Design of Ship
Structures. Journal of Ship Research 24/2, (1999):
101-113
Hughes, Owen F. and Paik, Jeom K., Ship Structural
Analysis and Design. SNAME, 2010
IACS, Common Structural Rules for Double Hull Oil
Tankers. International Association of
Classification Societies, London, 2012
Konak, A., Coit, D.W., and Smith, A.E. (2006), Multi-
Objective Optimization Using Genetic
Algorithms: A Tutorial. Reliability Engineering
and System Safety 91, (2006): 992–1007
Oil Tanker Cargo Hold Structural Optimization Using Ultimate Limit States
Ma, Ming, Hughes, Owen F., and Paik, Jeom K., Ultimate
Strength Based Stiffened Panel Design Using
Multi-Objective Optimization Methods and Its
Application to Ship Structures. PRADS 2013
Paik, Jeom K. and Thayamballi, A.K., Ultimate Limit
State Design of Steel-Plated Structure. John Wiley
& Sons, 2003
Paik, Jeom K., Kim, B.J., and Seo, J.K., Methods for
Ultimate Limit State Assessment of Ships and Ship
Shaped Offshore Structures - Part III: Hull
Girders. Ocean Engineering 35, (2008): 281-286
Paik, Jeom K. and Seo, J.K., Nonlinear Finite Element
Method Models for Ultimate Strength Analysis of
Steel Stiffened-Plate Structures Under Combined
Biaxial Compression and Lateral Pressure
Actions - Part II: Stiffened Panels. Thin-Walled
Structures 47, (2009): 998-1007
Paik, Jeom K., Kim, S.J., Kim, D.H., Kim, D.C., Frieze,
P.A., Abbattista, M., Vallascas, M., and Hughes,
Owen F., Benchmark Study on use of
ALPS/ULSAP Method to Determine Plate and
Stiffened Panel Ultimate Strength. MARSTRUCT
2011: 169-186
Rigo, P., Differential Equations of Stiffened Panels of Ship
Structures and Fourier Series Expansions. Ship
Technology Research, (2005): 82–100
Rigo, P. and Fleury, C., Scantlings Optimization Based on
Convex Linearization and a Dual Approach - Part
II. Marine Structures 14, (2001): 631-649
Zanic, Vedran, Andric, J., Prebeg, P., Stipcevic, M.,
Grgic, M., Kitarovic, S., Hadzic, N., Piric, K.,
Chirica, I., Giuglea, S., Giuglea, V., Turan, O.,
Khalid, H., Rigo, P. (2009), RoPaX - Structural
Design Aspects. IMPROVE 2009
153
 Discussion
Matthew Collette, Member
I would like to congratulate the authors on
another advancement in the world of marine
structural optimization. The problem of both
robustly and efficiently optimizing marine
structures in the presence of conflicting
objectives and numerous loading conditions is
both central to naval architecture and highly
challenging to those developing optimization
algorithms. Here the authors have built on their
two-level sequential optimization approach,
using both a global finite element analysis (FEA)
model of the ship and ultimate limit state
evaluation at the panel level to guide the local
optimization. Encouraging results have been
shown for two oil tanker designs, and the relative
complexity of numeric modeling used
throughout is also notable and reflects current
best practice for design.
The debate between monolithic optimizers,
which attempt to solve the structural design
problem in one shot, and hierarchal or distributed
optimizers like the one presented here, which
partition the problem into simpler sub-problems,
continues in the marine research community.
While it is clear that partitioning the problem can
result in significantly smaller problem sizes and
potential efficiency gains, the challenge with
distributed optimizers is in re-integrating the
problem in such a way that the optimizer reliably
converges. I noted in figure 11 that the present
scheme did oscillate after discovering its most
optimum value. Given that there is no
optimization in the outermost loop of the
optimizer—just an update of the global FEA
model to ensure load consistency—do the
authors see a path to a more rigorous
convergence criteria other than plotting out the
iterations and determining the optimum by
inspection? Would the introduction of artificial
inertia terms in the global updating scheme
reduce the “bounce” seen after the optimum
point has been found? As far as I could tell in
the paper, no global section modulus constraint
was enforced; would additional constraints at the
global level impact this convergence?
In terms of integration, the use of the random
weight genetic algorithm at the panel level also
was interesting. As the objective function is
comprised of multiple objective terms—a
weight, strength/constraint, and cost term, and
the weight vector is randomly varied—did a
154 Oil Tanker Cargo Hold Structural Optimization Using Ultimate Limit States
single solution or Pareto front result from each
local optimization? The flowchart on page 2
makes reference to a non-dominated set M, but it
is not clear if this is just an internal feature of the
implementation, or a globally-returned Pareto
approximation generated by the different
weighting schemes. If a front is returned, how is
the final solution chosen to update the global
FEA model? Additionally, the penalty function
handling in this GA was a little unclear.
Equation 6 notes that penalty terms are addressed
with structural adequacy as a parameter using an
external penalty function approach. Were all of
equations 7, 8, and 9 used as penalty functions or
was the GA binary coded to directly include the
range constraints on the variables? While for a
problem the size of a single stiffened panel, the
external penalty function approach is probably
sufficient, both Deb (2001) and Klanac (2009)
have noted that performance gains can be
achieved by tying constraints to objectives
directly, or changing the selection criteria in the
GA to treat constraint violations separately than
objective functions.
In closing, I would like to thank the authors for
an engaging paper that builds on their sequential
optimization approach and shows impressive
early results.
Additional references
Deb, K. 2001. Multi-Objective Optimization
Using Evolutionary Algorithms. Wiley-
Interscience Series in Systems and Optimization.
Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
http://hdl.handle.net/2027/[u]:
mdp.39015051290461.
Klanac, Alan, and Jasmin Jelovica. 2009.
“Vectorization and Constraint Grouping to
Enhance Optimization of Marine Structures.”
Marine Structures 22 (2): 225–45.
doi:10.1016/j.marstruc.2008.07.001.
Authors’ Response
Thank you for your comments and discussion
topics. Your comment is accurate that there is
no intrinsic criteria to control the outer loop
iteration. Each panel is optimized independently
and the only interaction between panels is
through the global load redistribution. We have
not identified a good criteria to “glue” panels
together. The sectional modulus wasn’t ideal
because the proposed method wasn’t limited to
prismatic longitudinal mid-body structure. Some
of the panels are transverse bulkheads and deep
frames. Note that, although the weight objective
oscillates relatively significantly in the example,
the safety measure objective converges quickly.
Because of the nature of the two-stage
optimization, it is not necessary to get a true
Pareto front in the early stage. As a result, the
random weight GA becomes more
computationally efficient. A Pareto front is
generated for each panel during a local
optimization. The selection of the local optimal
design is hardwired into the code and is
automatically selected from the Pareto front
during the optimization with a greater emphasis
on reduced weight, while maintaining structural
safety. One of the main reasons to use a Pareto
front rather than single solution is to have
flexibility to select a solution biased toward
safety in the early stages.
The penalty term of equation 6 is
used for simple constraints such as the ratio of
plate thickness to stiffener web thickness. The
smallest adequacy parameter of limit states
(mode I to mode VI) is an objective function.
Equations 7, 8, and 9 define the range of the GA
search space and are not used as penalty
functions.
Vedran Zanic, Visitor
The authors have presented a well-written paper
on the mathematical models inbuilt into the
MAESTRO software, including FEM analysis
and optimization and their application to tanker
structures. The authors begin their paper by
introducing the concepts and techniques of
structural optimization starting with the early
work of Hughes, Mistreem and Zanic, and of
Rigo and Fleury. The authors subsequently
present their comprehensive method for
performing structural analysis using ultimate
strength concepts and structural optimization
based on the selected heuristic method. As the
second objective of the paper, the authors present
examples demonstrating the design of cargo
space amidships for two double-hull tankers to
illustrate the method when applied to practical
problems. The first example considers the
preliminary design phase (PDP) model and the
second example is of a tanker for concept design
problem (CDP) and PDP. CSR rules also were
applied. The savings were achieved in weight
objective with the simultaneous increase in
safety measure due to more logical material
Oil Tanker Cargo Hold Structural Optimization Using Ultimate Limit States
distribution obtained through optimization
procedures. This effect has been confirmed in
most of the published practical optimization
examples.
The presented structural optimization technique
(MOGA) inbuilt into the two-step iterative
optimization procedure proved to be a mature
tool. It is applicable in the design process and
helps the designer to achieve significant savings
for the shipyard and the shipowner: the increase
of deadweight; the decrease in the price and
weight of construction steel; the decrease of the
production costs; and an increase in safety (and
robustness). Such mathematical models may be
denoted design support systems (DeSS), based
on the algorithmic approach with strong
interactive capabilities. The MAESTRO software
was a forerunner of those developments (Zanic
2013 a, c), where the obtained results enable the
stakeholders’ direct involvement in the design
process (particularly in the most important
concept design phase) and support their educated
decisions, particularly if the techniques for
subjective decision making are used for
processing generated design variants. The
process stops at the frontier of structural
designer’s competence, that is, the Pareto
frontier (Zanic et al 2013 b), enabling the general
designer to make his/her decisions using
obtained weight, cost, and safety measure values
in the selection of the preferred design variant.
The design problem characteristics are defined as
follows.
ONE: Design problem (DP) identification
(conceptual level) presents a first step of the
design process definition where objectives,
variables, and safety constraints with adjoining
load conditions/cases are determined or selected.
• The determined design objectives are
weight, simplified cost, and measure of
design safety/robustness (represented with a
simplified safety attribute). Those
objectives, used to demonstrate the
procedure, can be extended by the
stakeholders’ expertise to more complex
forms.
• Selected design variables among the set of
design descriptors were mainly scantlings,
while topology was the variable only in the
stiffened panels of the coarse mesh model.
Material type was considered as a fixed
parameter.
• Selected design criteria functions
(constraints and attributes) were evaluated
155
 for the respective load conditions with
adjoining load cases (wave loads). In the
presentation, a part of the CSR defined loads
were used for the set of MAESTRO ultimate
strength panel criteria (ALPS/ULSAP).
Note that the design safety-based objective
function is obtained from constraint functions
(specifying minimum permissible safety level)
and requiring its maximization for the ‘best’
design (Zanic et al, 2013d).
TWO: Design Model formulation (algorithmic
level) included the selection of basic
mathematical models:
• MAESTRO design analysis model (AM) for
technical (response, feasibility criteria) and
economical evaluations (cost criteria,
safety/risk measure)
• Design synthesis model (SM) for objective
decision making using the presented
heuristic optimization model/method.
The presented methods in ßß and SM are general
enough to enable the validating of innovative
new ship concepts as well as generating
competitive designs for standard tanker types,
based upon requirements for realistic design
procedure regarding accuracy and timing. The
authors should present more data on timing, for
specified applied hardware, to substantiate this
aspect of the design problem.
Structural model
• The design model was defined via a set of
design descriptors (fixed parameters and
design variables are its subsets) and based
on the midship section design embedded
into the full ship model. It included
scantlings of structural elements, whereas
geometry of structure and material were
treated as parameters.
• Ship general arrangement, which defines
global structural topology, was fixed for the
structural designer by different ship
requirements/functions.
• The variables used were continuous
(scantlings) and discrete (number of
stiffeners). Scantlings given by the available
values (thickness of plates, available rolled
profiles, etc.) can be applied in the
standardization phase.
• Rigid splines were an effective technique for
practical adjustment of mesh size.
• Dimensionality in AM can be high as
156 Oil Tanker Cargo Hold Structural Optimization Using Ultimate Limit States
optimization solvers of the heuristic type are
used in SM.
Summary: FEM models developed (coarse mesh
for the CDP and fine mesh for the PDP) seem
adequate. However, CSR require three-hold-
models for each hold to be analyzed and one
should be careful to get all the required
responses.
Load model
• Implemented loads included all load
components: global forces, bending
moments, pressures, accelerations, etc.
• Deterministic definition was based on the
calculation of load component/load patterns.
A balancing procedure was inbuilt into the
tool.
• Design pressures (extreme value) are added
for the feasibility of calculations.
Summary: The load model is used for the
demonstration of large-scale analysis needs. The
full load set, defined by the CSR, put all
structural elements in their most unfavorable
states and requires a large number of load cases
per hold, some of them artificial.
Response model
• Complex FEM response calculations needed
for large structural models are possible, but
they affect design procedure via the required
accuracy of stress/displacement/fatigue
levels and as time penalty in synthesis
algorithms.
• MAESTRO FE modeling gives good insight
into stresses and deformations and is
capable, by a direct link to safety criteria, of
giving efficient and fast answers regarding
design feasibility in a structural optimization
context.
Summary: FEM responses, linked to the
analytically defined safety criteria obtained by
MAESTRO, are very fast and applicable in the
optimization problems. Non-linear FEM is still
very time consuming on the analysis level and
difficult to efficiently include in the optimization
loop (large number of iterations) except for the
smaller models (local sub-structures).
Adequacy/feasibility model (deterministic)
• Large number of adequacy (for example,
safety) criteria checks, including the most
important ultimate strength ones (on the
panel level), based on library of various
modes of failure (ALPS/ULSAP), under
combined loads are applied.
• Incremental-iterative procedure (Smith-
based or similar) for evaluation of hull girder
ultimate strength is required (CSR) and may
be used as optimization based safety
objective (Zanic et al 2013d).
Summary: An excellent library (Paik, Hughes) of
structural safety criteria is inbuilt in MAESTRO
and, provided that the load set is sufficient, can
guarantee structural safety for most of the CSR
requirements. Safety factors can be further
refined. Automatic failure patch definition seems
to be a way ahead in the efficient design forensic
investigations.
Quality /KPI
• The design procedure requires only a
comparison of competing designs, therefore
the authors used relative values in defining
the attributes excluding considerations that
are the same, or similar, for different
designs.
• Design quality measures, such as simplified
cost and safety measure functions, are part
of that group.
Summary: Other key performance indicators
should be opened to stakeholders, including
other relevant aspects of design, such as more
elaborate yard-based building cost, maintenance
cost, lifecycle cost, ship stability, etc. regarding
needs of multi-criteria decision making for either
multi-objective or multi-attribute approach.
DeSS definition
• Flexibility of the design model definition is
one of the first priorities to accommodate
the designer’s needs. PDP and CDP model
meshes were tested.
• Convergence of the procedure was
demonstrated.
Summary: MAESTRO is a very flexible tool as
demonstrated here and in many of its other
applications. Convergence of optimization
procedure was very fast (since 1980 Hughes et
al. paper to the present example). Equilibrating
(used by the authors) or compatibility approach
both converged efficiently (Zanic, 2013c),
measured in number of ship (FEM) cycles.
Optimization solvers
• The penalty function approach seems a
proven way to the fitness calculation for the
constrained problems.
• The design method, as shown in the
examples, was applicable in case studies of
modifying material and panel topology and
Oil Tanker Cargo Hold Structural Optimization Using Ultimate Limit States
capable of expansion to novel design
requirements.
Summary: The MAESTRO-based optimization
method seems practical for use in design offices.
AM and SM data are easily modified in the
interactive mode, opening the road to hybrid
solvers combining heuristic and analytical
approaches.
Subjective decision making/GUI
• Final selection of preferred design is
influenced by the subjective reasoning of the
structural and general designer, owners, and
shipyard management (multi-stakeholder
approach can be needed, Cudina et al 2010).
• Suitable graphical representation of the
design variants is missing in the GUI.
Summary: Interesting results were obtained,
particularly regarding comparison of results
obtained via the PDP fine mesh with the CDP
macro element based one. A subjective decision
making tool should be a part of the interactive
design environment to support DM.
THREE: Design Problem solution
(procedural level)
Application of the design procedure with
practical implementation of MAESTRO AM
inbuilt into the heuristic SM should enable
efficient synthesis, possibly using surrogate
modeling (Prebeg et al. 2014), due to the
required workload and time available for the
given design phase.
Development of parallel processing on modern
computers also fits very well with presented
design method where, despite the spiral character
of the overall design process, many of the
calculation steps are parallel in nature. The
increased speed of engineering hardware opens
the possibility of incorporating numerous and
complex design criteria into the realistic multi-
objective design procedure.
Finally, the authors succeeded in showing the
potential of structural analysis combining FEM
and ultimate strength criteria for complex design
tasks. The authors are encouraged to include
more data on timing and size of problem
(dimensionality of design and of criteria
functions spaces) to further confirm its
applicability for practical design work.
Additional references
Cudina, P., V. Zanic, P. Prebeg: Multiattribute
Decision Making Methodology in the Concept
157
 Design of Tankers and Bulk-Carriers, PRADS
2010, Rio de Janeiro, 2010.
Prebeg, P., Zanic V., Vazic B., Application of a
surrogate modeling to the ship structural design,
Ocean Engineering, Volume 84, 1 July 2014, pp.
259-272.
Zanic, V.: Editorial paper “Methodology and
Concepts for Multi-criteria Synthesis of Ship
Structures,” Ships and Offshore Structures,
(2013a), Volume 8, Special Issue on Analysis
and Design of Ship Structures, Number 3-4,
pp.225-244.
Zanic, V., Andric, J., Prebeg, P. “Design
Synthesis of Complex Ship Structures,” Ships
and Offshore Structures, (2013b), Volume 8,
Number 3-4, pp.383-403.
Zanic, V., Andric, J., Hadzic, N. “Optimization
Procedure for LNG Carrier Structural Design,”
Proc.IMechE, part M, Journal of Engineering for
the Maritime Environment, (2013c)
doi:10.1177/1475090213494195.
Zanic, V., Piric, K., Kitarovic, S. “Reliability
and robustness based design attributes for multi-
criteria decision making,” Proceedings of ASME
2013, 32nd International Conference on Ocean,
Offshore and Arctic Engineering (OMAE),
Nantes, (2013d).
Authors’ Response
Thank you for your comments and very thorough
review and discussion of the paper. You make
very good points about the timing and resources
needed to get the most out of the structural
optimization process. Although the optimization
can potentially provide weight reduction and
increased structural safety, it also needs to be
performed at a time in the design process that
makes such structural changes possible. In terms
of required computational power, both
optimization runs finished in under 3 hours using
a relatively high-powered laptop. You make a
good point that much of the calculations could be
performed in parallel, potentially saving
significant amounts of time and allowing a user
to explore an even larger design space.
In both examples, only a single cargo hold model
was used for the optimization, however the full
ship finite element model was run at each
iteration to update the loads for cargo hold
158 Oil Tanker Cargo Hold Structural Optimization Using Ultimate Limit States
structure. This enabled the structure to receive
the global response while only focusing the
optimization on a single cargo hold.
A significant part of optimization includes the
potential cost savings. However, because cost
models can be very complicated and specific to
each shipbuilder, a cost model was not used for
this optimization. In its current state, scantling
libraries can be used to define the design space
enabling a user to manually add or remove
structural entities based on their known
manufacturing and application costs. Taking this
a step further, the optimization could enable
additional penalty functions to be applied to
specific structural entities in a user’s library to
encourage more economical designs. This
approach also enables a user to allow multiple
materials to be used in the design, which can also
have a significant effect on costs. Finally, the
current framework supports the addition of a
more complex cost model, but that particular
data was not available at the time this paper was
written.
We agree that part of the optimization process is
a tool that enables the user to make a subjective
design on the best design from the optimization
results, especially in the case of comparing two
models of the same structure. In the current state,
the optimization results provide a user-defined
number of viable designs with a summary of
their weight and structural safety. Additionally,
visual tools exist that enable the user to easily
present the plating thicknesses, stiffener layouts,
and beam properties. Each of the possible
designs can be “applied” to the full structural
model and used to evaluate things like cross
sectional properties and hull girder ultimate
strength; however, this capability is currently
done through a manual process. We agree that it
would be beneficial to the user to automate more
of these capabilities to help assist in the selection
process.
Jon Downes, Visitor
This paper presents the progress made by the
authors in bringing structural optimization into
the concept design phase. The method presented
is a two-step approach based on the behavior of a
stiffened panel with the optimization procedure
being undertaken using an analytical-based
approach to determine the ultimate limit state.
Design using ultimate limit states has been
around for quite some time and is accepted as
offering significant advantages to the
engineering design process. However, such
processes are not well employed at the concept
design stages and the efforts of the authors
should be applauded.
The effects of initial imperfections and residual
stresses on the ultimate strength of stiffened
panels are known to be significant. It would be
of interest to hear from the authors if these
effects were considered within the limit state
evaluation and if so, what the relative influence
on the resulting optimized panel structures were.
Similarly, it would be of interest to know if there
was a significant change in the overall ultimate
strength and post-buckling behavior of the panel
between the pre- and post-optimized versions.
In consideration of the larger midship sections
investigated, the approach suggests that if the
optimization is undertaken initially by a coarse
mesh model, then more significant changes in
the structure can be achieved than by that
achieved by a fine mesh model. This is
potentially due to the fine mesh model being
more highly constrained. It would be interesting
to see whether, if these constraints were lifted,
the same effect would be achieved. It would be
of interest to hear from the authors if they
considered the overall global hull girder ultimate
strength and if so, how did the original and the
optimized structure compare? This would give
further information for assessing if the optimized
structure is a viable solution.
The approach suggests that a significant weight
saving might be achieved by using this approach
and that this can be achieved within a reasonable
number of iterations, making the approach less
computationally expensive than other available
techniques. It would be of interest to hear from
the authors if they have undertaken comparative
studies with these alternative techniques to
quantify the differential of this approach and
their resulting views.
Authors’ Response
Thank you for your comments and discussion
topics. You make a very good point regarding
the effects of initial imperfections and residual
stresses on the ultimate strength of panels. In this
particular paper, the panels were modeled as the
idealized structure and did not take into account
imperfections or residual stresses. However, the
ALPS/ULSAP limit states can account for such
imperfections and residual stresses and we agree
Oil Tanker Cargo Hold Structural Optimization Using Ultimate Limit States
that this would be a very interesting aspect to
investigate in future work.
The coarse mesh model in this study uses a
stiffened plate element, where the stiffeners are
part of the plate element. For the fine mesh
model, the stiffeners are explicitly constructed as
beam elements. The main reason that a coarse
mesh model gives better weight saving is
because the stiffener spacing for the coarse mesh
model is a design variable and can be changed
without altering the topology of the finite
element model. If the fine mesh model can be
reconstructed automatically when the stiffener
spacing is changed, the same level of weight
saving can be achieved for the fine mesh model.
The focus of this paper was presenting the
proposed optimization method and the results
using two cargo hold examples. The
optimization was based purely on the local panel
ultimate strength and the hull girder strength was
not taken into account in this paper. However,
we authored a paper that was presented at
COMPIT 2014 in which this optimization
method was used to optimize a single midship
section, again only focusing on the local panel
ultimate strength. What we found in that case
was that, as a result of the optimization, the
structural weight was reduced while also
increasing the cross section moment of inertia
and hull girder ultimate strength, as shown
below.
At this stage in the development of this
optimization method, there have not been any
direct comparisons to other optimization
159
 techniques. We agree that it would be of interest
and value to perform a comparison of this
technique with others, both in terms of their
results and required computation time.

160 Oil Tanker Cargo Hold Structural Optimization Using Ultimate Limit States