Towards Green Marine Technology and Transport – Guedes Soares, Dejhalla & Pavleti (Eds)

© 2015 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-1-138-02887-6

Influence of pre-defined non-dimensional ratios and affine mapping

on ship properties

P. Georgiev & K. Kolev

Technical University of Varna, Varna, Bulgaria

ABSTRACT:  The paper presents the results from the opening stage of research devoted to the imple-
mentation of metamodeling technique in multi-objective optimization at initial stages of ship design.
The basis ship approach is widely used in ship design. The modification of an existing hull is a quick
and reliable approach used for conceptual ship design. Affine mapping (or scaling) is one of the simplest
alteration methods. It was used in this research to develop variants on which to fit metamodels. The goal
is to evaluate quantitative influence of pre-defined non-dimensional ratios on ship qualities as total resist-
ance and initial stability of the ship. The pre-defined ratios between the new and existing basis ship are:
displacement; slenderness and B/T ratio. The stability is evaluated by comparing the maximum permis-
sible KG and the total resistance is calculated by Danckwardt method. As example, an Offshore Supply
Vessel (OSV) is used.

1  InTroduction (2013). Surrogate models are used by Chen et  al.

The role of metamodeling in the support of engi-
neering design optimization is well summarized by
Wang & Shan (2006) (Fig. 1).
During the last years two main directions in
implementation of metamodeling can be defined:
automatic ship structure design and optimization,
and risk and safety analysis. The main objective of
the research of Prebeg et al. (2014) is to improve the
design process of complex thin-walled ship struc-
tures through an application of surrogate modelling
(or metamodeling). The metmodeling was applied
to the approximation of structural responses in
order to reduce the number of FEM calculations
inside of the optimization loop. A hybrid between
the well-established Strength Pareto Evolutionary
Algorithm (SPEA2) and some commonly used sur-
rogate models is presented by Kunakote & Bureerat
Figure  1.  Metamodeling and its role in engineering
design (Wang & Shan, 2006).
(2013) for ­reliability-based robust design. The pro-
posed Surrogate Based Particle Swarm Optimization
(SBPSO) algorithm combines the metamodeling
technique and particle swarm optimization. The
algorithm and its efficiency are displayed through
numerical examples of a composite pressure vessel
comprised of an aluminium liner and T-300/Epoxy
composites. An automated optimization proce-
dure based on successive response surface method
is presented by Pajunen & Heinonen (2013). The
approach is applied to the weight optimization of a
stiffened plate used in marine structures.
The use of surrogates (metamodels) in multi-
objective optimization is not new.
Neu et  al. (2000) proposed a multidisciplinary
design optimization scheme for ships with surrogate
parametric analysis modules developed to examine
problem formulation issues prior to the availabil-
ity of the higher fidelity modules. A method of
hull shape control based on a barycentric blend of
basis hulls is developed.
Peri & Campana (2005) presents a Simulation
Based Design environment based on a Global
Optimization algorithm. In the global stage of the
search, a few computationally expensive simula-
tions are needed for creating surrogate models of
the objective functions.
Mohamad Ayob et al. (2009, 2010) introduced a
surrogate assisted scheme to reduce the number of
candidate design evaluations through an optimization
framework for design of planning craft regards to
resistance, stability and seakeeping consideration.

483
 Collette et al. (2010) used surrogate models for The most simple alteration method is scaling
two-stage hydrodynamic optimization framework (affine mapping) of the existing parent hull. With
for high-speed vessels. A key feature is the applica- this method one can vary one or all three of the
tion of advanced simulation in the early phases of major dimensions (length, beam, and depth) by a
design through the construction of surrogate mod- scale factor. The advantage of working with the
els that then drive a global system performance lines of a basis ship is that a body plan is the direct
model. The approach is demonstrated for a large result. This should not only be completely fair but
SWATH hull form optimized for both high-speed its sections should have the general characteristics
transit and low speed cargo transfer operations. of the basis ship albeit distorted by differences in
Wintersteen & Mizine (2012) discussed an the L/B and B/T ratios of the basis and new ships.
approach for Design Space Exploration in ship design It is, of course, rare for initial lines prepared in this
based on ModelCenter®. The last one is a software way to meet  all design requirements, but it does
solution that enables users to create model-based provide a good basis for later modifications if
engineering frameworks to: integrate any simulation necessary. There are also known relations between
tool from any vendor; create and automate simula- the hydrostatic particulars between the parent and
tion workflows; set simulation parameters and seam- the new hull.
lessly run multidisciplinary simulation processes. The matrix presentation of relations between
A metamodel-based multi-objective optimi- the surface points of both hulls is as follows:
zation problem is defined in (1) (Wang & Shan,
2006).  x1   kL 0 0 0   x0 
y   0 0   y0 
{ }
min F ( x ) = F 1( x ), ..., Fr ( x )  1 = 
 z1   0
kB
0
0
kT 0   z0 
(2)
S.T . gk ( x ) ≤ 0, k = 1, ..., K (1)
    
x ∈ [ x L , xU ] 1  1 0 0 1  1 

where r is the number of objective functions to be L B T
kL = ; kB = ; kT = (3)
optimized, K are constraints all with the tilde sym- L0 B0 T0

bol indicates the metamodels.
For decades ships have been designed using the where: L, B, T—length, breadth and draught of
well-known “basis ship approach” together with the the ship. Index “0” is for parent hull.
also well-known Evans-Buxton-Andrews spiral. Use The relation between the displacements of both
of recorded steel mass for structures of basis ship is ships is:
the most common method for preliminary estimates
for the new ship. The approach cannot be employed ∇ = kL ⋅ kB ⋅ kT ⋅ ∇ 0 (4)

in the so-called original design, but it is an example
for adaptive design (Mistree et al. 1990). The last is The important features of the method are:
an existing design adapted to different conditions or
tasks; thus, the solution principle remains the same – All the form coefficients are kept constant;
but the product will be sufficiently different so that it – The non-dimensional Sectional Area Curve
can meet the changed tasks that have been specified. (expressed in percentage of the midship section
The important part in the initial design phase area) remains unchanged;
is generation of ship hull form. The most simple – The angle of entrance of the waterlines, is
and quick method for obtaining a new ship form is affected by the multiplying factor kB/kL.
the alteration of existing hull. The process of hull – The most common dimensional ratios can be
alteration produces a derivative hull from a par- obtained from those of the initial hull:
ent hull by specifying new values for some of the
L kL L0 B kB B0 L kL L0
major parameters (Hollister,1996): Length of the = ; = ; = (5)
Waterline (LWL); Beam of the Waterline (BWL); B kB B0 T kT T0 T kT T0

depth; Draft; displacement; prismatic coefficient;
longitudinal centre of buoyancy; parallel middle In the adaptive ship design we can look for
body—forward and aft; midship coefficient. The better quality in stability, resistance, motions,
naval architects know the Lackenby method for reduction of speed in waves, manoeuvrability etc.
hull alteration well. This is a technique which allows The goal of this research is to study the implemen-
the designer to vary any of the following variables, tation of metamodels, presenting the ship qualities,
without affecting the LWL, BWL, and the depth of in a frame for multi-objective optimization. The
the vessel: prismatic coefficient; longitudinal centre metamodels are fitted based on variants developed
of buoyancy; parallel middle body. The method is by a given set of non-dimensional ratios and scal-
implemented in some modern software tools. ing method for hull alteration.

484
 As example in the study, an Offshore Supply
Vessel (OSV) is used. These ships should possess
high qualities due to operation in extremely hard
sea conditions. The interest in Bulgaria for this
type of vessels is dictated by the operation of
the m/v “Enterprise” (Fig. 2). She is included by
EMSA (European Maritime Safety Agency) to the
Network of Stand-By Oil Spill Response Vessels
responsible for Black Sea. Meanwhile, the ship
supports the offshore activities in the Bulgarian
offshore zone. Such ships might be a significant
part of the landscape soon when France’s Total
starts hydrocarbon drilling at the Bulgarian Black
Sea block Khan Asparuh. This is expected to hap-
pen in 2016.
The European order book by ship type shows
(SEA Europe, 2014) the progressive specialisation
of European shipbuilders in passenger, offshore
and other non-cargo carriers. The global invest-
ment in new offshore vessels increased its share,
from 20% in 2008 to 52% in 2012 as a result of the
high oil prices which led to an increase in the off-
shore production activities and, therefore, a higher
demand for offshore vessels and structures.
Wells (2014) concluded that due to the move-
ment of offshore support activities far from shore
the new OSV will be larger, more capable with
larger, quieter accommodation spaces to satisfy
regulators, customers, and crew members.
However, in 2013, the increased demand for
energy-efficient cargo carriers drove the investment
to the traditional vessel segments and offshore
decreased compared to previous years. The same
situation took place in 2014 due to an unexpected
drop in oil prices.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows:
Section  2 explains the scaling method and input
and response variables. Section 3 presents the fit-
ted metamodels of ship qualities. Finally, some
conclusions and directions for future work are
outlined.
Figure  2.  OSV “Entreprise” (http://www.bonmarine.
com/en/).
485
2  VARIANTS OF SHIP HULL
2.1  Scaling method for hull alteration
During the initial design, one of the tasks for adap-
tive design could be to obtain pre-defined values of
the volume ∇, the slenderness ratio L/∇1/3 and B/T
based on a basis ship. It is known that the last pre-
defined values are connected with the resistance
and intact stability. Additional aim of the research
is to evaluate in what extent they really influence
the qualities.
The relations between the new and basis ship
ratios are as follows:
∇ L / ∇1 / 3 B /T
R1 = ; R2 = ; R3 = (6)
∇0 L0 / ∇10/ 3 B0 / T0
The above idea is taken from Ventura (www.mar.
ist. utl.pt/mventura). From (3) taking into account
(4) we obtain:
kL2 k
kL ⋅ kB ⋅ kT = R1; = R23 ; B = R3 (7)
kB .kT kT
Solving together the three equations (7) we
obtain relations between the pre-defined ship
ratios and scaling factors:
R3 R11 / 3
kL = R11 / 3 ⋅ R2 ; kB = R11 / 3 ⋅ ; kT = (8)
R2 R2 ⋅ R3
In other words, we can estimate the scaling fac-
tors used for hull form alteration to obtain pre-
defined main dimensions ratios.
2.2  Input variables and basis ship
The input variables of R1, R2 and R3 present the
designer ideas for the future ship compared to
the existing one. The low and high values of Ri in the
research are presented in Table 1. The values suggest
that we will look for greater displacement, slender-
ness and B/T ratios compared to basis ship. These
agree with tendency of building the modern OSV.
The basis ship is built during the 1980s but it is
typical for most of OSV in operation today. The
main dimensions are shown in Table 2 and the sec-
tions and isometric view of the ship are presented
on Figure 3.
2.3  Metamodeling technique
The basic approach in metamodeling technique is
to construct approximations of the analyses codes
(software programme) i.e. to construct a “model
 Table 1.  Input variables and range.

Input variable Low High

R1 Displacement ratio 0.90 1.40

R2 Slenderness ratio 0.90 1.40
R3 B/T ratio 0.90 1.40

Table 2.  Basis ship main dimensions.

Length b/w perpendiculars—Lpp 56.40 m

Breadth moulded—B 13.80 m
Depth moulded—D   6.90 m
Summer draft—ds   5.70 m
Deadweight, DW 2366 t

of the model” or metamodel. The fitting of meta-

models in this research is based on RSM (Response
Surface Methodology). Polynomial regression Figure 3.  Sections and isometric view of basis ship.
is chosen due to its transparency and simplicity
and expected low order of non-linearity of the Table 3. Uniform design with 12 runs and levels.
responses. The response (output variables) surface
y(x) is presented by: No. R1 R2 R3

 1 -1/0.90 -1/0.90 -1/0.90

y( x ) = b0 + x T b + x T Bx (9)  2   1/1.40   0/1.15   1/1.40

 3 -1/0.90   0/1.15 -1/0.90
This model includes linear effects in x, two-  4   1/1.40 -1/0.90   0/1.15
f­ actor interactions and pure quadratic terms in x  5   1/1.40   1/1.40 -1/0.90
(the term xTBx).  6   0/1.15   0/1.15   0/1.15
For presented investigation the output variables  7   1/1.40 -1/0.90   1/1.40
are the total resistance and stability. The resistance  8   0/1.15 -1/0.90   0/1.15
is calculated by Danckwardt’s method (Danck-  9 -1/0.90   0/1.15   1/1.40
wardt, 1985) using the original software. Although, 10   0/1.15   1/0.90   1/1.40
the form coefficients of the variants are the same, 11   0/1.15   1/0.90 -1/0.90
the Danckwardt’s method takes into account not 12 -1/0.90   1/0.90   0/1.15
only integral parameters but the local character-
istics of foremost and aft most frames and some
slopes that are changed during the scaling of hulls. 3  FITTED METAMODELS
The stability is evaluated by maximum permis-
sible KG value (KGmax), related to the depth (D). The main dimensions of the 12 variants obtained
The calculations are based on hydrostatic particu- by accepted uniform design and (8) are presented
lars and cross curves of stability obtained by Auto- in Table 4. The final two rows include the percent-
Hydro® software and use spreadsheets in Excel®. age of corresponding dimension compared with
One of the important steps in modelling a com- the basis one.
puter experiment is the selection of a design with
an appropriate number of runs and levels for each 3.1  Ship resistance
variable to ensure sufficient design space coverage.
The presented research uses uniform experimental The resistance is calculated for speed range
design (Fang et al., 2006). The designs are marked 6–13 knots. The graphs of total resistance vs. speed
by Un(qs) where: n  =  number of experiments; for all 12 variants and maximum and minimum
q  =  number of levels; s  =  maximum number of envelope curves are shown on Figure 4. According
factors and are available from http://sites.stat.psu. to Danckwardt’s method the critical Froude number
edu/∼rli/ DMCE/UniformDesign/. (Fn) depends only on CB i.e. it is the same for all
A design U12(33) is used. The 3  input variables variants since the block coefficient is the same. This
are at 3 levels each. The scaled (in range −1, 1) and leads to a range of speeds 9.95–13.4  knots. The
real factor levels are presented in Table 3. speed limit is 10 knots, after which the considerable

486
increase in the resistance is visible on the graph.
The maximum permissible Fn for to the method is
for speed in range 12.1–16.2 kn.
The paper presents metamodels fitted by
STATISTICA® software for speed (V) 8, 10 and
12 knots (Fig. 5–Fig. 10). The surface plots are for
two scaled values of R1: (−0.6) and 1.0. The first
value corresponds to volume equal to basis ship and
the second one this volume is increased by 40%.
3.2  Stability requirements and KGmax
According to the Intact Stability Code (MSC
267(85). 2008) the following equivalent criteria
should be applied for OSV where a vessel’s char-
acteristics render compliance with part A 2.2
impracticable:
– the area under the curve of righting levers (GZ
curve) should not be less than 0.07 metre-radians
up to an angle of 15° when the maximum righting
lever (GZ) occurs at 15° and 0.055 metre-radians
up to an angle of 30° where the maximum right-
ing lever (GZ) occurs at 30° or above. Where the
maximum righting lever (GZ) occurs at angles
of between 15° and 30°, the corresponding area
under the righting lever curve should be:
0.055 + 0.001(30° − ϕ max ), mrad (10)
– the area under the righting lever curve (GZ
curve) between the angles of heel of 30° and 40°,
or between 30° and ϕf if this angle is less than
40°, should be not less than 0.03 metre-radians;
– the righting lever (GZ) should be at least 0.2 m
at an angle of heel equal to or greater than 30°;
– the maximum righting lever (GZ) should occur
at an angle of heel not less than 15°;
– the initial transverse metacentric height (GMo)
should not be less than 0.15 m;

Table 4.  Main dimensions of the ship variants.

No. Lpp, m B, m T, m D, m

 1   49.01   13.32    6.11 7.40

 2   72.56   17.03    5.03 6.08
 3   62.62   11.79    5.41 6.55
 4   56.78   17.45    6.27 7.59
 5   88.33   12.38    5.68 6.88
 6   67.95   14.46    5.19 6.29
 7   56.78   19.25    5.68 6.88
 8   53.18   16.34    5.87 7.11
 9   62.62   14.70    4.34 5.25
10   82.73   14.46    4.27 5.16
11   82.73   11.59    5.32 6.44
12   76.24   12.08    4.34 5.25
Min, %   86.9   84.0   74.9
Max, % 156.6 139.5 110.0 Figure  5.  Total resistance at V  =  8  kn, y  =  f(R2,R3),
R1 = −0.6.

Figure  6.  Total resistance at V  =  8  kn, y  =  f(R2,R3),

Figure 4.  Total resistance vs. speed for all 12 variants. R3 = 1.0.

487
Figure  7.  Total resistance at V  =  10  kn, y  =  f(R2,R3),
R1 = −0.6.
Figure  8.  Total resistance at V  =  10  kn, y  =  f(R1,R2),
R3 =  1.0.
For all of these requirements it is possible to cal-
culate corresponding maximum permissible value
of KG. For example, for area A(ϕ) under the sta-
bility curve between 0 and angle ϕ the KGϕmax is
obtained as follows:
ϕ The response surfaces for KGmax/D and transver-
∫0 GZ (θ )dθ = A(ϕ )
∫0 (KN (θ ) − KGmax sinθ )dθ = A(ϕ )
ϕ (ϕ )
(11)
A(ϕ ) − I (ϕ ) ϕ
(ϕ )
KGmax = ; I (ϕ ) = ∫ KN (θ )dθ
cos ϕ − 1 0
The final KGmax is the minimum one for all
obtained values for the requirements. The maximum
permissible values are calculated for summer draft.
The same approach is applicable for other draughts.
Regression coefficients for all fitted meta-
models are included in Table  5. The last row
presents R-squared value. Some of the coeffi-
488
Figure  9.  Total resistance at V  =  12  kn, y  =  f(R2,R3),
R1 = −0.6.
Figure  10.  Total resistance at V =  12  kn, y = f(R2,R3),
R1 = 1.0.
cients are not significant i.e. the p-value is > 0.05
(accepted common α level). However, due to the
simplicity of the models all coefficients are taken
into account and presented.
sal metacentre KMT are presented on Figure 11–
Figure 13. For KMT two graphs are shown—with
volume equal to basis ship and for increased by
40% volume.
4  CONCLUSIONS
Very often, at the initial steps of ship design, infor-
mation from basis ship is used. The modification
of an existing hull is a quick and reliable approach
for obtaining preliminary hull form. The scaling
method is one of the simplest alteration methods.
 Table 5.  Regression coefficients for fitted metamodels.

Resistance Stability

8 kn 10 kn 12 kn KGmax/D KMT, m

Interc. 59.7433 93.7265 175.5209   0.8329   7.1823

x1   7.2441   9.3884   13.6973   0.0063   0.5299
x12   0.0171   2.0108   -1.4678   0.0006 -0.0306
x2 -0.6992 -2.3691 -30.1753 -0.0145 -0.8078
x22 -3.1999   0.5105 -13.0983 -0.0082   0.1429
x3 -0.2468   0.8207   -0.3134   0.1149   1.0514
x32 -0.6097 -3.2377   -3.3917   0.0048   0.1229
x1*x2   0.7985   8.0462    1.3042 -0.0042 -0.0553
x1*x3 -0.0875   2.7676   -2.1984 -0.0084   0.0865
x2*x3   1.9773   3.6278    2.3425   0.0001 -0.1256
R-sqr   0.98503   0.93334    0.99962   0.99855   0.99992

Figure 12.  Transversal metacentre KMT-y = f(R2,R3),

Figure  11.  Response surface KGmax/D y = f(R2,R3), R1 = −0.6.
R1 = 1.0.

The method was used to develop variants of hull

of offshore supply vessel with pre-defined non-
­dimensional ratios of displacement, slenderness
and B/T compared to the basis ship. To analyse
their influence they were used as input variables
to fit several metamodels. Responses are the total
resistance at different speed and maximum permis-
sible KG as measure of intact stability.
From the results one can see that models cor-
rectly present the known theoretical relations. The
influence of slenderness to the ship resistance is
greater than influence of B/T and for stability the
influences are conversely. The influence of hull slen-
derness on resistance is greater for higher speeds
and could be neglected on stability. The total resist-
ance gets greater with increasing the displacement.
The influence of B/T ratio on transversal meta-
center is greater than hull slenderness and this influ- Figure 13.  Transversal metacentre KMT-y = f(R2,R3),
ence increases with increasing the displacement. R1 = 1.0.

489

Figure 14.  Scale factors kL, kB, kT vs. displacement ratio
for 5% and 10% reduction of total resistance.
Figure 15.  Scale factors kL, kB, kT vs. displacement ratio
for 10% and 20% increasing of KGmax/D.
The metamodels give possibilities to predict the
scale factors for obtaining desired level of some of
ship properties.
On Figure 14 the scaling factors versus displace-
ment ratio for reduction of total resistance by 5%
and 10% are shown. The B/T ratio is constant and
equal to basis ship. The kB and kT are equal since
R3 = 1 (see also (8)). Resistance reduction by 10%
could be very attractive, but this is connected with
ship length increasing in range 17%–47% and con-
siderable increasing of steel weight that should be
taken into account.
On Figure 15 the scaling factors versus displace-
ment ratio for increasing of relative maximum
permissible KG by 10% and 20% are shown. The
slenderness of the ship is constant and equal to
basis ship (R2 = 1.0). Factor kL is the same in both
cases since R2 = 1.
490
From the initial results presented, obtained dur-
ing the research, one can conclude that metamod-
els are a suitable tool for analysing the influence
of pre-defined non-dimensional ratios on ship
properties. The metamodels could be useful for ini-
tial stages in ship design based on basis ship.
The future investigations are directed to develop
new metamodels for typical OSV characteristics as
speed reduction on waves, ship performance and
very important deck area and to develop all other
necessary modules for multi-objective optimiza-
tion at initial stages of ship design.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This article is presented with the financial support
for research provided to the Technical University
Varna from state budget.
REFERENCES
Chen, J., Tang, Y. & Huang, X. 2013. Application of
surrogate based particle swarm optimization to the
reliability-based robust design of composite pressure
vessels. Acta Mechanica Solida Sinica, 26, 480–490.
Collette, M., Lin, W.-M. Li, J. 2010. Applying advanced
simulation in early stage unconventional ship design.
Grand Challenges in Modeling and Simulation
­Symposium, Issue 3 BOOK, 2010, Pages 344–351.
Danckwardt, E.C.M.1985. Weiterentwickeltes ­Verfahren
zur Vorausberechnung des Widerstandes von
Frachtschiffen. Schiffbauforschung, 24 3/ 1985, pp.
136–149.
Fang, Kai-Tai, Runze Li, Sudjianto A. 2006. Design and
modeling for computer experiments. Taylor & Francis
Group, 2006.
Hollister, St. M. 1996. Automatic Hull Variation and Opti-
mization.. Presented at the February 28, 1996 meeting
of the New England Section of The Society of Naval
Architects and Marine Engineers.
Kunakote, T. & Bureerat, S. 2013. Surrogate-assisted
multi-objective evolutionary algorithms for structural
shape and sizing optimization. Mathematical Prob-
lems in Engineering, 2013.
Mistree, F.W.F. Smith, B.A. Bras, J.K. Allen, D. Muster.
1990. Decision-Based Design: A Contemporary Para-
digm for Ship Design, SNAME, Annual Meeting, San
Francisco, California, October 31–November 3, 1990.
Mohamad Ayob, A.F., Ray, T., Smith, W.F. 2009. An
optimization framework for the design of planing
craft. RINA—International Conference on Computer
Applications in Shipbuilding 2009, ICCAS, Volume 2,
2009, Pages 1028–1057.
Mohamad Ayob, A.F., Ray, T., Smith, W.F. 2010.
Hydrodynamic design optimization of a hard chine
planing craft for coastal surveillance. International
Maritime Conference Pacific 2010, Pages 73–82.
MSC 267(85). 2008. Adoption of the International Code
on Intact Stability, IMO.
Neu, W.L., Hughes, O., Mason, W.H., Ni, S., Chen, Y.,
Ganesan, V., Lin, Z., Tumma, S. 2000. A Prototype
Tool for Multidisciplinary Design Optimization of
Ships. Ninth Congress of the IMAM, April 2–6, 2000,
Naples, Italy.
Pajunen, S. & Heinonen, O. 2013. Automatic design
of marine structures by using successive response
surface method. Structural and Multidisciplinary
Optimization.
Peri, D. Campana, E.F. 2005. High-fidelity models in
global optimization. Lecture Notes in Computer Sci-
ence, Volume 3478, 2005, Pages 112–126.
Prebeg, P., Zanic, V. & Vazic, B. 2014. Application of
a surrogate modeling to the ship structural design.
Ocean Engineering, 84, 259–272.
SEA Europe. 2014. Supplying, Building & Maintaining
the Future, 2014 Edition.
491
Ventura, M. Hull Form Alteration. Ship Design I,
Lecture Notes on MSC in Marine Engineering and
Naval Architecture. www.mar.ist.utl.pt/mventura.
Wang, G.G. & Shan, S. 2006. Review of metamodeling tech-
niques in support of engineering design optimization.
Journal of Mechanical Design, 129, 370–380.
Wells, R. 2014. The Past, Present, and Future of Offshore
Supply Vessel. USCG Proceedings, Winter 2013–2014,
pp. 63–66.
Wintersteen, B., Mizine, I. 2012. Effective Application
of Design Space Exploration in Ship Design, ASNE
Day 2012, Arlington, Virginia, USA, 9–10 February,
pp. 271–281.