Presented at the International Ship Design Conference (ISDC); Glasgow, Scotland; June 11-14, 2012.

3D Hullform Modeling to Support Naval Ship Design

Synthesis and Multi-Objective Optimization
David Winyall 1, Joshua Edwards2 and Alan Brown3

ABSTRACT
This paper describes ongoing research to develop a flexible 3D hullform design process and modules with
associated performance models, and integrate these modules into an existing ship synthesis model (SSM) in
a multi-objective optimization approach to perform Naval Ship Concept and Requirements Exploration
(C&RE). Effectiveness is initially based on seakeeping indices and resistance, and then extended to a multi-
objective genetic optimization of an Offshore Patrol Vessel (OPV) total ship design.

KEY WORDS
Ship design; Hullform; Multi-objective optimization, Seakeeping, Operational Effectiveness Models

INTRODUCTION
The goal of the research described in this paper is to develop a flexible 3D hullform design process and modules based on
ORCA3D and Rhino (DRS, 2011) with associated performance models, and integrate these hullform modules into an existing
ship synthesis model (SSM) in a multi-objective optimization to perform Naval Ship Concept and Requirements Exploration
(C&RE) (Brown and Thomas 1998; Brown and Kerns 2010). Objectives include:

Establish Rhino/ORCA3D design variable lanes for displacement and semi-displacement hullforms consistent with small
naval surface combatants.
Build response surface models for estimating hullform hydrostatic, seakeeping and radar cross-section characteristics for
application in C&RE.
Assess the influence of selected ORCA3D design variables on resistance, seakeeping characteristics and RCS.
The Naval Ship Design Concept and Requirements Exploration (C&RE) process used at Virginia Tech, shown in Figure 1, is
based on a Multi-Objective Optimization approach that explores the design space to identify a non-dominated set of ship
design solutions ranked by cost, risk, and effectiveness. Our current method of calculating an Overall Measure of
Effectiveness (OMOE) used in this process is based on expert opinion and pairwise comparison. In the past, it was sufficient
in this method to use a relatively simple and traditional parametric hullform model and design variables (LBP, B, D, T, Cp,
Cx, Crd) with performance based on parametric resistance algorithms (Holtrop 1984) and seakeeping indices (Bales 1980).

Despite the useful results obtained using expert opinion for effectiveness metrics (Stock and Brown 2008; Stepanchick and
Brown 2007), more direct physics-based Operational Effectiveness Models (OEMs) starting with a detailed Design Reference
Mission (DRM) including mission Operational Situations (OpSits), conditions, and measures may provide greater confidence
in the validity of the results and a greater perception that results are unbiased and rational (Kerns et al 2011a; Kerns et al
2011b). Many of these OEMs require analyses that depend on a 3D hullform model. These analyses include resistance,
seakeeping, ship vulnerability and radar cross section. Other performance, synthesis and feasibility analyses also benefit from
having a 3D hullform model early in the design process including space, structural weight, and stability. Having a 3D model
in Concept Development also facilitates transition to preliminary design. Fine tuning and detailed optimization of the
hullform using more sophisticated models and methods can come later, but greatly benefit from a solid foundation based on
early decisions that are consistent with the overall cost/effectiveness/risk of the total ship design.

1
Graduate Student, Aerospace and Ocean Engineering, Virginia Tech (VT), Blacksburg, VA, USA
2
Undergraduate Student, Aerospace and Ocean Engineering, Virginia Tech (VT), Blacksburg, VA, USA
3
Professor, Aerospace and Ocean Engineering, Virginia Tech (VT), Blacksburg, VA, USA
 Figure 1: Concept and Requirements Exploration Process (C&RE)

Simulations and optimization algorithms can be combined together early using Simulation-Based Design (SBD) techniques
including response surface models to provide inexpensive approximations of expensive analysis codes. For hullform
modeling, it is helpful to use models that are not overly complex, but that inherently include reasonable physical and
feasibility constraints, and a practical set of design variables that capture important characteristics of the basic hull geometry
to be modeled. It is also advantageous to use as much commercial-of-the-shelf software as possible. Rhino with an ORCA3D
plugin (DRS, 2011) was selected for the hullform modeling tool used in this paper based on this criteria.

Specific tasks for the work described in this paper include:

Perform hullform match runs using Rhino/Orca3D and establish design lanes for Orca3D Hull Assistant design
variables (DVs) consistent with displacement and semi-displacement hullforms used in small to medium naval
surface combatants. Develop a rational process and criteria to pre-set values and reduce the Orca3D design space to
a manageable size.
Perform a Design of Experiments (DOE) in Model Center (MC) with Rhino/Orca3D, extract hullform resistance
data from the Holtrop-Mennen utility in Orca3D, interface with a seakeeping analysis code, and interface with radar
cross section (RCS) analyses.
Collect data and build hullform response surface models. Conduct further variable screening and data analyses.
Build the final hullform RSMs for integration with the SSM. Analyze important relationships and influence between
Orca3D DVs and performance predictions for hydrostatics, resistance, seakeeping, and radar cross section.
Perform various multi-objective optimizations to better understand performance trade-offs.
Incorporate the new hullform model in a SSM and search the design space for non-dominated designs.

HULLFORM DESIGN
One of the most difficult steps in designing a hull is creating the initial 3D shape; modifying and fairing the shape is
relatively straightforward. We use Orca3D Hull Assistant for our hullform design tool (DRS 2011). Orca3D includes a
number of Hull Assistants that allow the user to specify a set of practical design parameters and create a 3D NURBS surface
which can then be modified and faired in Rhino to produce a final hull shape. Orca3D adds the capability in Rhino to define
sections, buttocks, waterlines, cant frames, inclines, and diagonals, and compute intact hydrostatics.

Figure 2 illustrates the somewhat unique design variables used in the Orca3D Hull Assistant to define a 3D NURBS
hullform. The approach takes advantage of the general characteristics of a displacement hullform and shapes the hull using
familiar characteristics, but does not explicitly use the more traditional sectional area curve and area/volume ratios that are
very common. Implicit in these variables and their permissible ranges are reasonable constraints and characteristics for a
displacement hull. This reduces the requirement for additional constraints in the optimization process.
 Figure 2: Orca3D Design Variables (DRS 2011)

The Orca3D Hull Assistant uses 33 design variables, but it was hoped that many of these could be predetermined and set to
fixed values for all designs, effectively reducing the design space to a series of designs with some common characteristics
consistent with the mission and good practice. Since the literature provides no established design lanes for these variables, we
first set out to reverse-engineer a collection of recent surface combatant hullforms, and for contrast several other naval
surface ship hullforms, by modeling/matching these in Orca3D. Best-fit values of Orca3D DVs to match these hullforms
were determined by fitting ORCA-generated hullforms to imported IGES models of the target hullforms. First
approximations at matching Orca3D hullforms to the targets were created by hand using the Hull Assistant and visually
comparing the ORCA hulls to the target hulls. These manual matches gave a good starting point for optimized fits that were
performed by running Orca3D from Model Center and using Model Centers gradient optimizer to minimize the difference
between the Orca3D hull and the target IGES hull offsets. Figure 3 shows the hullform match for a DDG hullform.

Table 1 lists the Orca3D DV values for some of the matched hulls. These values were analyzed and interpreted to choose a
subset of the Orca3D hull assistant variables as Design Variables (DVs) with design lanes for use in the hull design process,
and the remainder as Design Parameters (DPs) with fixed values for all designs based the match results. A summary of this
analysis with conclusions is provided in Table 2.
Table 1: Orca3D Design Variable (DV) Values from Match Runs
Variables: Ships:
Num UI ARS50 DDG 51 FFG 7 LPD17 NSC OPC TAKE WHEC 378
Mean Match Difference: 0.054 0.096 0.082 0.021 0.047 0.027 0.077 0.064
1 Length on Deck [m] 77.430 154.480 136.000 208.000 125.550 108.470 210.000 113.080
2 Beam on Deck[m] 15.540 20.210 14.260 30.000 16.080 16.460 32.000 12.600
3 Depth @ Bow [m] 10.370 16.800 9.410 19.000 12.000 10.200 25.650 11.050
4 Depth @ Transom [m] 10.370 9.860 9.410 19.000 12.000 10.200 25.650 8.400
5 Draft [m] 5.000 6.200 4.380 5.000 0.100 5.000 5.000 5.000
6 Transom Height (abv BL) [m] 4.000 5.800 4.000 6.000 3.310 3.625 9.500 3.200
7 Max Area Location 0.500 0.500 0.500 0.484 0.500 0.500 0.550 0.500
8 Long'l Prismatic Control 0.450 0.351 0.050 0.309 0.250 0.250 0.450 0.450
9 Section Tightness Fwd 0.700 0.200 0.500 0.501 0.994 0.700 0.500 0.600
10 Section Tightness Mid 0.800 0.990 0.400 0.401 0.900 0.700 0.400 0.500
11 Section Tightness Aft 0.500 1.000 0.300 0.801 1.000 0.990 0.600 0.300
12 Deadrise Fwd 1.000 0.836 1.000 0.800 0.300 1.000 1.000 0.900
13 Deadrise Mid 0.009 0.200 0.800 0.028 0.300 0.100 0.100 0.300
14 Deadrise Aft 0.100 0.002 0.800 0.292 0.011 0.100 0.200 0.300
15 Side Slope Fwd 1.000 0.999 0.800 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.900 0.900
16 Side Slope Mid 0.012 0.198 0.100 0.077 0.200 0.300 0.000 0.200
17 Side Slope Aft 0.100 0.199 0.300 0.000 0.200 0.200 0.000 0.200
18 Flare Fwd 1.000 0.999 0.500 0.936 1.000 0.997 1.000 1.000
19 Flare Mid 0.002 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.100
20 Flare Aft 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.500 0.000
21 Sheer Height 0.800 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.700 1.000 1.000
22 Sheer Height Position 0.500 0.500 0.500 0.500 0.500 0.200 0.500 0.500
23 Fullenss Fwd 0.300 0.600 0.300 0.199 0.400 0.400 0.000 0.500
24 Fullness Aft 0.000 0.956 0.100 0.400 0.400 0.400 0.100 0.500
25 Stem Rake [deg] 29.004 37.154 47.000 27.168 44.555 48.022 23.000 40.000
26 Stem Curvature 0.200 0.300 -0.100 0.016 0.007 -0.500 0.000 0.100
27 Bow Rounding 0.100 0.100 0.000 0.199 0.200 0.100 0.100 0.000
28 Forefoot Shape 0.500 0.600 0.950 0.500 0.200 0.600 0.500 0.000
29 Transom Rake [deg] -11.003 -16.460 -40.000 -10.349 6.000 10.004 1.000 0.000
30 Transom Deck Width 0.500 0.611 0.700 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.780
31 Keel Rise Point 0.600 0.741 0.550 0.589 0.699 0.500 0.700 0.500
32 Vel0 0.296 0.300 0.400 0.394 0.300 0.400 0.100 0.300
33 Vel1 0.005 0.229 0.050 0.106 0.200 0.000 0.100 0.100
34 Number of Net Columns 12.000 12.000 12.000 12.000 12.000 12.000 12.000 12.000
35 Number of Net Rows 9.000 9.000 9.000 9.000 9.000 9.000 9.000 9.000
 Table 2: Orca3D Hullform Match Summary and Conclusions

Figure 3: DDG51 IGES (blue) / Orca3D (grey/black) Match in Rhino

As shown in Table 2, we determined that 10 Orca3D hullform DVs were required. The remaining Orca3D parameters were
set to the same values for all designs. For our small surface combatant, our only dimensional DV was LOA which we varied
from 90-110 meters. For L/B and B/T ratios we chose well-established design lanes of 7-10 and 2.8-3.2, respectively. D10
was determined based on USN criteria for minimum freeboard forward and aft. For our initial studies we used zero sheer with
the plan to add a raised deck step to the final design, its location determined by a raised deck coefficient Crd, with a value of
0.6-0.8 defining the longitudinal location of raised deck step as a fraction of LBP. The remaining Orca3D design variables
and parameters had values as listed in Table 2 with rationale listed in the right hand column.
HULLFORM PERFORMANCE MODEL AND PERFORMANCE RSMs
Our Ship Synthesis Model (SSM) requires the calculation of various hullform characteristics and performance to assess the
balance, feasibility and effectiveness of alternative designs. Running Orca3D and related hullform performance software as
part of a multi-objective genetic optimization (MOGO) greatly increases optimization run time and the likelihood of crashes
and other issues during the optimation which can take many hours. It is also desireable upfront to screen design variables for
their influence on performance and verify program performance. Our approach to these issues is to conduct a Design of
Experiments (DOE) before and separate from the MOGO for our hullform design space to generate representative hullform
performance data sufficient to build hullform performance Response Surface Models (RSMs) and assess hullform DV
influence on performance.

We run DOEs, build RSMs and run optimizations, including our MOGO, using Model Center software (Phoenix Integration
2011). We typically merge data from a full-factorial DOE with a Latin-Hypercube DOE to obtain a good coverage of the
design space including the boundaries. We use polynomial or Kriging RSMs depending on their quality of fit for a particular
problem. Figure 4 shows four modules integrated in Model Center for running our hullform DOE. The Orca3D module
receives DV inputs and interfaces externally with Rhino/Orca3D to build a hullform as described, perform hydrostatic
analysis, perform a resistance calculation using a HydroComp, Inc. Holtrop/Mennen algorithm supplied with Orca3D,
generate a set offsets and calculate specified response location coordinates for input into our PDStrip seakeeping module. The
PDStrip module interfaces externally with a public-domain strip theory program, PDStrip (Source: Forge 2006) to perform
our initial seakeeping analysis. PDStrip computes the seakeeping characteristics of ships and other floating bodies using
Sodings method (Soding 1969) to calculate motions.

Seastate 4-5 is used as the limiting seastate for this paper. A significant wave height of 3 meters, modal wave period of 10
seconds and long-crested waves in head seas are used for calculating significant motions. Head seas and motions in the
vertical plane are considered worse-case in this analysis with the assumption that roll can be addressed in the design synthesis
by considering the design GM/B ratio when more is known about the ships weight distribution and KG. Significant heave,
pitch, vertical displacement at Station 15 and the approximate center of a helicopter deck (s3S15), vertical acceleration at
Station 10 (midships) and the approximate location of the bridge (a3S10), relative vertical displacement at Station 20 and the
approximate location of a stern boat ramp (r3S20), and relative vertical displacement at Station 0 and the keel (r3S0) are
computed. These motions are considered separately and combined into a simple seakeeping index similar to Bales, 1980 and
McCreight, 1984, and as discussed by Sarioz 2006.

Design data is extracted from Orca3D and PDStrip using a Design of Experiments (DOE) in Model Center over a pre-defined
design space as shown in Figure 4 and Figure 5. This data is used to build Response Surface Models (RSMs) for application
in variable screening, analysis, the total ship synthesis model, and optimization. Rhino/ORCA3D are kept open in the
background as the DOE is run in Model Center. Hullforms are generated as shown in Figure 6, hydrostatics, resistance and
seakeeping are analyzed, and the data is returned and collected in Model Center. POFACETS is a program for analyzing
radar cross section. We have interfaced POFACETS with our hullform geometry and we are in the process of adding a
deckhouse to this automated process at which time RCS will be addressed. It is not discussed further in this paper. Influence
plots generated from the DOE data are shown in Figure 7, and representative cuts of the Response Surface Models (RSMs)
built from the data are shown in Figure 8.

Influence diagrams are used to screen DVs for their relative effect on model responses, in this case hydrostatic characteristics,
resistance and sustained speed, and ship motions, represented in Figure 7 by sustained speed for a specified propulsion
effective power, hull form displacement, and pitch significant amplitude in the specified seastate.

Figure 4: Model Center Configuration for DOE

 Figure 5: Setup of Hullform Design of Experiments (DOE)

Figure 6: Hullform Generated in Rhino/ORCA3D by Model Center DOE

Sustained Speed (Vs) Displacement Pitch

Figure 7: Influence Diagrams Generated from DOE Data

 Figure 8: Response Surface Model Cuts Generated from DOE Data
Response surface models, illustrated in Figure 8, are used in the ship synthesis model as surogates to reduce optimization run
time and improve robustness. Sustained speed varies significantly with available power. It decreases with increasing LOA in
this analysis despite the effect of reduced speed to length ratio because LOA is the major driver for ship dimensions and
displacement. For a given LOA, sustained speed increases with increasing L/B and B/T ratios. Sustained speed is also very
sensitive to Deadrise Midship, Longitudinal Prismatic Control, and Section Tightness. Hydrostatic characteristics including
displacement vary as expected with LOA, B, T and Prismatic Control and are also very sensitive to Deadrise and Section
Tightness. Significant pitch amplitude is also sensitive to Deadrise, Fullness Forward and Section Tightness.

HULLFORM PERFORMANCE OPTIMIZATION

As a preliminary application of the hullform RSMs, before insertion in the ship synthesis model, a multi-objective
optimization was run with objectives to minimize required shaft power at endurance speed (14 knots) and to maximize a
simple Seakeeping Index (SKI), Equation (1), developed considering important motion operational criteria for an OPV in Sea
State 5 with significant wave height of 3 meters and modal period of 10 seconds in long-crested waves and head seas. Results
for this optimization are shown in Figure 9 through Figure 16. In each of these figures, points represent individual hullform
designs and designs closest to the upper left hand corner of the plots dominate. Colored points are constrained to
displacements between 1500MT and 1600 MT to visualize the impact of hullform design variables without the influence of
displacement. Variations of color in each plot show the variation of the respective design variable in different regions of the
design space with their respective performance in resistance and seakeeping. All of the non-dominated designs in this
displacement range had LOAs close to 90 meters indicating that this lower value may be constraining the design space and
should be checked during ship synthesis when this trend could change.

SKI =1.0- (x5/x5max+x3/x3max+s3S15/s3S15max+a3S10/a3S10max+r3S20/r3S20max+r3S0/r3S0max)/6.0 (1)

where:
x3 = significant heave (m)
x5 = significant pitch (deg)
s3S15 = significant vertical displacement at Station 15 (approximate center of helo deck (m)
a3S10 = vertical acceleration at Station 10 (approximate location of the bridge) (m)
r3S20 = relative vertical displacement at Station 20 (approximate location of a stern boat ramp) (m)
r3S0 = relative vertical displacement at Station 0 and the keel (m)
 Figure 9: Length to Beam Ratio Figure 13: Beam to Draft Ratio

Figure 10: Longitudinal Prismatic Control Figure 14: Section Tightness Forward

Figure 11: Section Tightness Midships Figure 15: Fullness Forward

Figure 12: Stem Rake Figure 16: Stem Curvature

Observations from Figure 9 to Figure 16 are as follows:
Figure 9 shows that values of Length to Beam ratio at the high end of its design lane (6.6-7.6) dominates for minimum
resistance.
Figure 13 shows an even stronger dominance for Beam to Draft ratio at the high end of its design lane (2.7-3.2). This
could indicate that the L/B and B/T design lanes should be extended to higher values, but in the final ship synthesis
considering effectiveness and cost higher values are not as dominant.
Figure 10 indicates that low values in the design lane of the Longitudinal Prismatic Control parameter (0.1-0.4) are
favored for low resistance and high values are favored for maximum seakeeping index. There is a clear trade-off here.
Similarly Figure 14 shows that low values in the design lane of the Forward Section Tightness parameter (0.15-0.99) are
favored for low resistance and values higher than 0.5 are favored for maximum seakeeping index. There is also a clear
trade-off here, whereas Figure 11 shows that low values for Midship Section Tightness (0.4-0.99) are preferred for all
non-dominated designs in this displacement range.
Figure 15 indicates that high values (less full) in the design lane for Fullness Forward (0.3-0.6) are favored for low
resistance and medium values are favored for maximum seakeeping index. There is a clear trade-off here.
A large Stem Rake was preferred for all non-dominated designs in this displacement range with negative Stem Curvature
(-0.3to0.3) preferred for low resistance and positive curvature preferred for seakeeping.

Figure 17 through Figure 22 assess the consistency of individual seakeeping parameters with respect to the seakeeping index.
Figure 17 shows that the lowest significant heave for these designs is consistent with a high seakeeping index. Pitch shown in
Figure 19 is remarkably low for all of the non-dominated designs because of its importance to a number of the other
seakeeping parameters (s3S15, r3S20, r3S0). The lowest r3S20, s3S15, a3S10, and r3S0 also all occur consistent with a high
seakeeping index. This correlation indicates that the seakeeping index was a reasonable choice for this optimization.

Finally, Figure 23 shows that maximum sustained speed is also consistent with low endurance speed SHP as would generally
be expected.

Figure 17: Heave Significant Amplitude (meters) Figure 19: Pitch Significant Amplitude (degrees)

Figure 18: r3S20, Relative Vertical Displacement, Sta 20, DWL (m) Figure 20: s3S15, Vertical Displacement, Sta 15 (m)
Figure 21: a3S10, Vertical Acceleration, Sta 10, Bridge (m/s2) Figure 22: Relative r3S0, Vertical Displacement, Sta 0, BL (m)

Figure 23: Vs, Sustained Speed (knots)

As a final analysis of this non-dominated set, three designs were selected for further discussion. These designs are shown in
Figure 24. Design 21379 is the non-dominated design with maximum seakeeping index. Design 26734 is the non-dominated
design with minimum endurance speed resistance. Design 8428 is a non-dominated design at the knee-of-the-curve with a
high seakeeping index and good resistance. Table 3 lists the characteristic for these designs and Figure 25 shows the hullform
geometry.

Figure 24: Selected Designs

Table 3: Selected Designs Characteristics
knee high SK low R

Design 8428

Design 21379

Design 26734
Figure 25: Selected Designs - Hullforms
Design 21379 has the best SKI. It has the lowest length to beam ratio, a prismatic control equal to the maximum of 0.4, the
highest section tightness forward, the highest deadrise midships, the lowest fullness forward, the highest stem rake and the
highest positive stem curvature. All of these are consistent with the non-dominated results.

Design 26734 has the lowest endurance resistance and highest sustained speed. It has the highest LtoB ratio, lowest prismatic
control, the lowest section tightness forward, lowest deadrise midships, the highest fullness forward, and a low negative stem
curvature. All of these are consistent with the non-dominated results. Design 8428 DV values are between Designs 21379 and
26734 in most cases.

Pitch RAOs for these designs are shown in Figure 26. Design 21379 shows the lowest response although Design 8428 is very
close. Again, Design 26734 shows the largest pitch response.

Figure 27 plots the pitch significant response for Design 21379 in a polar plot as a function of ship speed and heading. This
shows that head sea vertical motions at 14 knots were a reasonable choice for the seakeeping index and for seakeeping
optimization.

Figure 26: Comparison of Design Pitch RAOs

Figure 27: Design 21379 Sea State 5 Significant Pitch Response (deg)
SHIP SYNTHESIS MODEL AND MULTI-OBJECTIVE OPTIMIZATION

As discussed earlier in the paper, the Naval Ship Design Concept and Requirements Exploration (C&RE) process used at
Virginia Tech, Figure 1, includes a Multi-Objective Genetic Optimization (MOGO) that explores the design space to identify
a non-dominated set of ship design solutions ranked by cost, risk, and effectiveness. Integral to this optimization is a ship
synthesis model (SSM) that assembles the designs and assesses their balance, feasibility, performance, effectiveness, cost and
risk. Response surface model modules for hullform hydrostatics, resistance and seakeeping were developed as described in
the previous sections and used to represent the 3D hullforms developed in Rhino/ORCA3D.

The SSM and MOGO will be presented here in the context of an Offshore Patrol Vessel (OPV) design case study. OPV is
intended to bridge the gap between the USCGs smaller FRCs and larger NSCs. It will be deployed primarily in the
outskirts of littoral regions of the Americas with the capability to stay at sea for extended periods of time. The primary
responsibilities will be Port, Waterway and Coastal Security (PWCS) and Search and Rescue (SAR). PWCS includes, but is
not limited to, the enforcement of exclusion zones and the performance of tactical reconnaissance in and around US maritime
ports. SAR will require the vessel to be capable of rescuing multiple individuals and towing any ship up to the OPVs weight
that is incapacitated. To aid in search and rescue OPV will have aerial support for helicopters and VAUVs. The OPV will
also be heavily involved in Drug Interdiction (DRUG), in which the vessel will conduct maritime interception of trafficking
operations as well the search and seizure of suspected vessels. Migrant Interdiction (AMIO) will require OPV to be capable at
all times to provide humanitarian support to any parties in need as well being fully capable to manage any number of refugees
that are intercepted. The vessel will be also be responsible for the Protection of Living Marine Resources (LMR) which
entails the enforcement of maritime fishing and wildlife regulations and the apprehension of non-cooperative vessels and
those on board. Finally, OPV is charged with Defense Readiness (DR) in which the vessel must engage in the collection of
tactical intelligence and the provision of Harbor Defense and Port Security.

Following the C&RE process shown in Figure 1, a clear mission definition was developed including a Mission Essential Task
List (NMETL), Operational Situations, a Design Reference Mission (DRM) and Required Operational Capabilities (ROCs).
Measures of Performance (MOPs) were developed from these which were assembled in an Overall Measure of Effectiveness
(OMOE) using the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) and expert opinion. The resulting OMOE hierarchy is shown in
Figure 28 with the resulting MOP weights in Figure 29. A technology risk register and Overall Measure of Risk (OMOR)
were also developed. An enhanced weight-based cost model was used to estimate acquisition and total ownership costs. The
design space for hullform, power and propulsion, mission/combat systems including boats, helos and UAVs, Table 4, was
developed to consider a broad range of available and required technologies and systems.

Figure 28: Overall Measure of Effectiveness (OMOE) Hierarchy

Figure 29: Measure of Performance (MOP) Weights from AHP/Expert Opinion
Table 4: OPV Design Variables
 Figure 30: OPV Ship Synthesis Model for Multi-Objective Optimization
Once the objective metrics and design space are developed, response surface models developed for the design space
(including hullform hydrostatics, resistance and seakeeping) are added to the ship synthesis model (SSM) in Model Center,
Figure 30. The following is a description of the modules in the SSM configured for the Offshore Patrol Vessel (OPV) design:
- Input Module: Inputs all design variables and parameter values. Provides inputs to other modules.
- Combat Systems: Extracts combat systems data from the combat systems data tables as specified by the selected combat
systems design variables. Calculates payload SWBS weights, VCGs, areas and electric power requirements.
- Propulsion Module: Extracts propulsion system data from propulsion system data tables as specified by the selected
propulsion system design variables. These tables are generated by modeling similar power plants in ASSET using a
single baseline design. The module calculates the characteristics of the propulsion and power generation systems using
this data.
- Hull Form Module: This is a Response Surface Model (RSM) that calculates hullform hydrostatic characteristics,
volume and areas based on the input of ORCA3D design variables.
- Space Available Module: Uses simple geometric equations to estimate areas and volumes of the hull above the
waterline and deckhouse. Also calculates the minimum required depth, hull cubic number, and the height and volume
requirements of the machinery box.
- Electric Module: Calculates the maximum marginal electric load (KWMFLM), required generator power (KWGREQ),
required 24 hour average electric power (KW24AVG), and the required auxiliary machinery room volume (VAUX). The
module estimates the systems power requirements using known values or parametric equations, sums and applies
margins. It also uses response surface models to determine manning.
- Resistance Module: This is a Response Surface Model (RSM) that calculates hullform resistance at endurance speed
and sustained speed based on the input of ORCA3D design variables and propulsion power.
- Weight Module: Calculates single digit SWBS weights, total weight and full load weights and VCGs. The module uses
a combination of known weights and parametric equations to calculate the SWBS weights. This module uses fuel as a
 slack variable meaning that the fuel weight is calculated as the difference of the total displacement on the design
waterline and the sum of all other weights except fuel. This fuel weight is used to calculate Endurance range in the
Tankage module which is then evaluated for feasibility in the Feasibility module and used to calculate OMOE in the
OMOE module. The balancing of ship weight and buoyancy is therefore obtained without iteration. The module also
calculates the KG, KB and GM for the design.
- Tankage Module: Calculates required tankage volumes based on fuel weight and parametric equations. The module
uses a number of input variables including specific volumes for the fluids, fuel weight, ballast type, specific fuel
consumption from engines, total power at endurance speed and electric load. All fuel tankage calculations are based on
DDS 200-1 requirements. Outputs for the tankage module include required tankage volumes and endurance range.
- Space-Required Module: Calculates required areas for deckhouse and total ship using parametric equations. Required
inputs include beam, hull volume, tankage volume, average deck height and crew size.

Figure 31: OPV 3-D Non-Dominated Frontier

Figure 32: 2-D Non-Dominated Frontier

The Darwin Multi-Objective Optimizer is used to search the design space for non-dominated designs resulting in the 3-D and
2-D non-dominated frontiers shown in Figure 31 and Figure 32. Non-dominated objective attributes are total ownership cost
(CTOC), overall effectiveness (OMOE) and overall risk (OMOR). Medium risk designs show two clear knees-in-the-curve at
$320M and $360M. These coincide closely with steps in propulsion power from the lower to higher options.

Figure 33 shows the distribution in seakeeping index for the non-dominated set with a mean of 0.575, lower-midrange for the
designs optimized only for seakeeping and resistance. Figure 36 shows the non-dominated set distribution for sustained speed
with three speed ranges corresponding to the three main engine options.

Of the design variables discussed above which seemed to max (or min) out in the optimization for seakeeping and resistance,
we find good distributions for Length to Beam ratio (Figure 34), Section Tightness Midships (Figure 35), and Stem Rake
(Figure 38). Only Beam to Draft ratio continued to push its upper limit and could benefit from being extended up to 3.4 or
3.5. Overall the hullform, seakeeping and resistance modules functioned very well in the MOGO with consistent results
throughout.

Figure 33: Non-Dominated Set Seakeeping Index Figure 36: Non-Dominated Set Sustained Speed

Figure 34: Non-Dominated Set Length to Beam Ratio Figure 37: Non-Dominated Set Beam to Draft Ratio

Figure 35: Non-Dominated Set Section Tightness Midship Figure 38: Non-Dominated Set Stem Rake (deg)
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
In this paper, we have described the application of Rhino/ORCA3D and PDStrip to hullform generation and analysis.
Rhino/ORCA3D design lanes were developed for a medium-sized surface combatant displacement hull, and a working
understanding of the relationship between Rhino/ORCA3D design variables, seakeeping and resistance was developed and
presented. Response surface models for hullform hydrostatics, resistance and seakeeping were derived from data using
Rhino/ORCA3D and PDStrip. These models were applied as modules in a hullform-only optimization and in a multi-
objective genetic optimization of an OPV ship design. These modules worked very effectively in both optimizations
providing consistent and effective results in both.

Future work includes adding a bulbous bow and a simple deckhouse to the hullform design, radar cross-section analysis,
basic subdivision, an automated interface for hull structural design and optimization, and an early stage vulnerability analysis.
Similar work has also been completed for a semi-planing hullform which will be the subject of a future paper. We are also
exploring the application of physics-based operational effectiveness models (OEMs) in place of our expert opinion-based
effectiveness models. These OEMs will require more quantitative ship motions analysis and integration in operations like
helo launch and recovery and boat launch and recovery. These will also be subjects of our future work.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors wish to thank our gracious sponsor, Ms. Kelly Cooper, ONR 33, for her support of this project.

REFERENCES
BALES, N.K., Optimizing the Seakeeping Performance of Destroyer-type Hulls, 13th Symposium on Naval
Hydrodynamics, Shipbuilding Research Association of Japan, Tokyo, 1980

BROWN, A.J., THOMAS, M., "Reengineering the Naval Ship Concept Design Process," From Research to Reality in Ship
Systems Engineering Symposium, ASNE, 1998

Brown, A.J., KERNS, C., Multi-Objective Optimization in Naval Ship Concept Design, Marine Systems and Technology
(MAST) 2010 Conference, Rome, Italy, 9-11 November 2010

DRS Defense Solutions, ORCA3D User Manual, Version 1.1, 2011

KERNS, C., BROWN, A.J., WOODWARD, D., Application of a DoDAF Total-Ship System Architecture in Building
Naval Ship Operational Effectiveness Models, MAST Americas 2011, Washington DC, 1416 November, 2011

KERNS, C., BROWN, A,J., WOODWARD, D., Application of a DoDAF Total-Ship System Architecture in Building a
Design Reference Mission for Assessing Naval Ship Operational Effectiveness, ASNE Global Deterrence and Defense
Symposium, Bloomington, IN, September 13-14, 2011

HOLTROP, J., "A Statistical Re-Analysis of Resistance and Propulsion Data", International Shipbuilding Progress, Vol. 31,
No. 363 November, 1984

MCCREIGHT, W.R., Estimating the Seakeeping Qualities of Destroyer-Type Hulls, DTNSRDC Report/ SPD-1074-01,
January, 1984

PHOENIX INTEGRATION, Model Center 10.0, 2011

SARIOZ, K. and SARIOZ, E., Practical Seakeeping Performance Measures for High Speed Displacement Vessels, Naval
Engineers Journal, No. 4, 2006

STROCK, J., BROWN, A.J., Methods for Naval Ship Concept and Propulsion System Technology Exploration in a CGX
Case Study, Naval Engineers Journal, Vol. 120, No. 4, pp. 95-122, 2008

STEPANCHICK, J., BROWN, A.J., Revisiting DDGX/DDG-51 Concept Exploration, Naval Engineers Journal, Vol. 119,
No. 3, 67-88, 2007
SODING, H., Eine Modifikation der Streifenmethode, Schiffstechnik, 16, pp.15-18, 1969

Source Forge, Open Source Software, PDStrip Public Domain Strip Method, http://pdstrip.sourceforge.net/, 2006.