Practical ship afterbody optimization by multifidelity techniques

References

• Adams BM, Bauman LE, Bohnhoff WJ, Dalbey KR, Ebeida MS, Eddy JP, Eldred MS, Hough PD, Hu KT, Jakeman JD, et al. 2015. DAKOTA, a multilevel parallel object-oriented framework for design optimization, parameter estimation, uncertainty quantification, and sensitivity analysis: version 6.0 user’s manual. Sandia Technical Report SAND2014-4633, July 2014. Updated November 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Bigini G, Jacoby M, Steenbergen A, Minerva LF, Villa D, Vernengo G. 2022. Large yacht resistance reduction by hydrodynamic multi-objective shape optimization. Ship Tech Res. doi:10.1080/09377255.2022.2054759.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bonfiglio L, Perdikaris P, Brizzolara S. 2016. Multi-fidelity optimization of high-speed SWATHs. SNAME Maritime Convention, Bellevue, USA.
   Google Scholar
• Bonfiglio L, Perdikaris P, Vernengo G, Karniadakis G. 2017. Multi-fidelity Bayesian optimization of SWATH vessels for improving seakeeping performance, SNAME Maritime Convention, Houston, USA.
   Google Scholar
• Brizzolara S, Vernengo G, Pasquinucci CA, Harries S. 2015. Significance of parametric hull form definition on hydrodynamic performance optimization. 6th Int. Conf. Comp. methods Marine Engineering, MARINE 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Chun HH. 2010. Hull form parametrization technique with local and global optimization algorithms. Int. Conf. Marine Technology, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
   Google Scholar
• Crepier P. 2017. Ship resistance prediction – verification and validation exercise on unstructured grids. 7th Int. Conf. Comp. Methods Marine Engineering (MARINE2017), Nantes, France.
   Google Scholar
• Feng Y, El Moctar O, Schellin TE. 2021. Parametric hull form optimization of containerships for minimum resistance in calm water and in waves. J Mar Sci Appl. 20:670–693. doi:10.1007/s11804-021-00243-w.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Forrester AIJ, Sóbester A, Keane AJ. 2007. Multi-fidelity optimization via surrogate modelling. Proc Royal Soc A. 463(2088):3251–3269.
   Google Scholar
• Grigoropoulos GJ, Campana EF, Diez M, Serani A, Gören O, Sariöz K, Dani’sman DB, Visonneau M, Queutey P, Abdel-Maksoud M, Stern F. 2017. Mission-based hull form and propeller optimization of a transom-stern destroyer for best performance in the sea environment. 7th Int. Conf. Comp. Meth. Marine Eng., MARINE 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Han S, Lee Y-S, Choi YB. 2012. Hydrodynamic hull form optimization using parametric models. Jnl Mar Sci Technol. 17:1. doi:10.1007/s00773-011-0148-8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoekstra M. 1999. Numerical simulation of ship stern flows with a space-marching Navier Stokes method, Dissertation, Delft Univ. Techn.
   Google Scholar
• Hoekstra M, Raven HC. 2003. A practical approach to constrained hydrodynamic optimization of ships. NAV 2003 Symp., Palermo, Italy.
   Google Scholar
• Kim H, Jeong S, Yang C, Noblesse F. 2011. Hull form design exploration based on the response surface method. 21st ISOPE Conf. Hawaii.
   Google Scholar
• Kim H, Yang C. 2010. A new surface modification approach for CFD-based hull form optimization. 9th Int. Conf. Hydrodynamics, Shanghai, China.
   Google Scholar
• Liu X, Zhao W, Wan D. 2022. Multi-fidelity Co-Kriging surrogate model for ship hull optimization. Ocean Eng. 243:110239. doi:10.1016/j.oceaneng.2021.110239
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pellegrini R, Serani A, Broglia R, Diez M, Harries S. 2018. Resistance and payload optimization of a sea vehicle by adaptive multi-fidelity metamodelling. Paper 2018-1904, 2018 AIAA/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference. doi:10.2514/6.2018-1904
   Google Scholar
• Pellegrini R, Serani A, Harries S, Diez M. 2017. Multi-objective hull form optimization of a SWATH configuration via design-space dimensionality reduction, multi-fidelity metamodels and swarm intelligence. MARINE 2017 Conf., Nantes, France.
   Google Scholar
• Pereira FS, Eça L, Vaz G. 2017. Verification and validation exercises for the flow around the KVLCC2 tanker at model and full-scale Reynolds numbers. Ocean Eng 129:133–148. doi:10.1016/j.oceaneng.2016.11.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peri D, Campana EF. 2008. Variable-fidelity and surrogate modelling in simulation-based design. Proc. 27th Symp. Naval Hydrodynamics, Seoul, South-Korea.
   Google Scholar
• Peri D, Campana EF, Tahara Y, Takai T, Kandasamy M, Stern F. 2010. New developments in simulation-based design with application to high-speed waterjet ship design. Proc. 28th Symp. Naval Hydrodynamics, Pasadena, USA.
   Google Scholar
• Peri D, Kandasamy M, Tahara Y, Wilson W, Miozzi M, Campana EF, Stern F. 2012. Simulation-based design with variable-physics modeling and experimental verification of a waterjet propelled catamaran. Proc. 29th Symp. Naval Hydrodynamics. Gothenburg, Sweden.
   Google Scholar
• Raven HC. 1992. A practical nonlinear method for calculating ship wavemaking and wave resistance. Proc. 19th Symp. Naval Hydrodynamics, Seoul, South-Korea.
   Google Scholar
• Raven HC. 1996. A solution method for the nonlinear ship wave resistance problem. Dissertation, Delft Univ. Technology, Delft, Netherlands.
   Google Scholar
• Raven HC. 2018. Minimising ship afterbody wave making using multifidelity techniques. 32nd Symp. Naval Hydrodynamics, Hamburg, Germany.
   Google Scholar
• Raven HC. 2022. Ship hydrodynamics knowhow derived from computational tools: some examples. J Ocean Eng Mar Energy. doi:10.1007/s40722-022-00256-9
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Raven HC, Scholcz TP. 2017. Wave resistance minimisation in practical ship design. Proc. MARINE 2017, Nantes, France.
   Google Scholar
• Raven HC, Scholcz TP. 2019. An assessment of multifidelity procedures for ship hull form optimisation. 8th Int. Conf. Comp. Meth. Marine Eng., Gothenburg,Sweden.
   Google Scholar
• Raven HC, Van Brummelen EH. 1999. A new approach to computing steady free-surface viscous flow problems. 1st MARNET-CFD workshop, Barcelona, Spain.
   Google Scholar
• Scholcz TP, Gornicz T, Veldhuis C. 2015. Multi-objective hull form optimization using Kriging on noisy computer experiments, 6th Int Conf. Comp. Meth. Marine Eng.
   Google Scholar
• Serani A, d’Agostino D, Campana EF, Diez M. 2018. Assessing the interplay of shape and physical parameters by nonlinear dimensionality reduction methods, 32nd Symp. Nav. Hydrodyn., Hamburg, Germany.
   Google Scholar
• Serani A, Ficini S, Broglia R, Diez M, Grigoropoulos G, Bakirtzogou C, Papadakis G, Goren O, Danisman DB, Solak HP, et al. 2022. Resistance and seakeeping optimization of a naval destroyer by multi-fidelity methods, NATO STO-TR-AVT-354.
   Google Scholar
• Toal DJJ. 2015. Some considerations regarding the use of multi-fidelity Kriging in the construction of surrogate models. Struct Multidiscipl Optim. 51(6):1223–1245. doi:10.1007/s00158-014-1209-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Brummelen EH, Raven HC, Koren B. 2001. Efficient numerical solution of steady free-surface Navier-Stokes flow. J Comp Phys. 174:120–137. doi:10.1006/jcph.2001.6880
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van der Ploeg A, Eça L, Hoekstra M. 2000. Combining accuracy and efficiency with robustness in ship stern flow calculation. Proc. 23rd Symp. Naval Hydrodynamics, Val de Rueil, France.
   Google Scholar
• Wackers J, Visonneau M, Serani A, Pellegrini R, Broglia R, Diez M. 2020. Multi-fidelity machine learning from adaptive and multigrid RANS simulations. 33rd Symp. Nav. Hydrodyn., Osaka, Japan.
   Google Scholar