High Speed Craft

05/08/2016 Westlawn
Automatic Hull Variation and
Optimization
Stephen M. Hollister1
The process of design optimization is complicated by the infinite variability of
the hull shape and the close interrelationship among all of the major design
All the boats pictured on this site were variables. As a vessel is stretched along its length, the prismatic coefficient,
designed by Westlawn alumni. the longitudinal center of buoyancy, and the displacement all change. If a
Click here to see a gallery of alumni designs. design evaluation program is used for optimization, it is difficult to isolate and
examine the influence of each major hull shape parameter on the vessel. This
Westlawn alumni are prominent in the marine paper describes a computer program that solves this problem by
industry. Click here to see more. automatically varying the shape of a parent hull while maintaining constant
values for the major design parameters. A series of hull shape variations can
Click here for information on Westlawn's
be automatically created and evaluated, with printed, plotted, or contoured
short continuing education courses. results.
Click here to sign up for Westlawn’s free
email journal, The Masthead, with: technical
INTRODUCTION
information, what’s happening at Westlawn,
and boating industry updates. Many design evaluation methods, such as resistance calculation techniques,
use the major shape parameters of the hull to calculate their results. These
Click here to order books, apparel and
parameters typically include length, beam draft, prismatic coefficient (Cp),
accessories.
longitudinal center of buoyancy (lcb), and midship coefficient (Cm). It is
difficult to perform parametric or sensitivity studies using these techniques

because all of the variables are interrelated and may change at the same
time. For example, when a vessel's length is varied, it's Cp, lcb and
displacement values all change at the same time. It would be desirable to be
able to change any one of these major design variables, while maintaining
constant values for the rest. Of course, this is impossible, because as one
variable changes, at least one other variable must change to compensate.
Previous work in the area of hull shape creation approached the problem in
three different ways: the series approach (such as Series 60), hull variation or
distortion from a parent hull, and hull shape creation using form parameters.
See references [1]2 [13]. Many of these methods overlap, some are
automatic, and some require user intervention. The program described in this
paper uses specific hull variation or distortion techniques due to their
generality and their fully automated approach.
This paper discusses a computer program which automatically varies the
shape of a parent hull using any of the major design variables. A design
constraint can be selected to control which variables are fixed and which
variables are free to change. A search technique is
1 New Wave Systems, Inc., Jamestown, Rhode Island
2 Numbers in brackets designate References at end of paper.
Presented at the February 28, 1996 meeting of the New England Section of The Society of Naval
Architects and Marine Engineers.
applied to create the derivative hull with the desired values of the major
parameters. An inspection routine is then used to extract all hull shape
dimensions required by the evaluation routine (resistance calculation). This
process of automatic hull variation and evaluation collects all input,
intermediate, and final results for printing, plotting, and contouring.
http://www.westlawn.edu/student_center/lecture2.asp 1/14
05/08/2016 Westlawn
Fig. 1
The overall process flow is shown in the Fig. 1. The program starts with a
parent hull and automatically varies the shape according to the designer's
input. Each derivative hull shape is automatically evaluated, with the results
printed, plotted, or contoured. Each box of the diagram is explained in the
following sections.
The purpose of this program is to show the feasibility of carefully controlled
hull variation for use by design optimization or evaluation methods. The
overall design optimization is not fully automatic. It is under the control of the
designer who can carefully vary one or two major shape variables at a time
and evaluate the results. By graphing and contouring these results, the
designer can quickly study tradeoffs for a wide range of hull shapes and
progress toward an optimal design shape.
CREATE PARENT HULL SHAPE
There are many ways to define a hull shape for use by a computer program.
The most common methods are:
o Station definition using offsets
Used for volumetric calculations
o Bspline (NURBS) surface definition
Used for fairing and construction
o Ruling line definition
Used to define developable plates
o Wireframe definition
Station definition plus control lines
o Polyhedron mesh definition
Used for flow and structural calculations
Although all of these hull definition methods could be applied to the
techniques described in this paper, this example hull variation and evaluation
program uses a station definition of the hull, since a perfectly fair hull surface
is not required for the resistance evaluation.
05/08/2016 Westlawn
This example program is part of the New Wave System's Nautilus System
software for ship design and construction which allows you to create a station
definition of a hull by typing in a table of offsets, by digitizing a body plan, by
reading an existing offset file (SHCPShip Hull Characteristics Program, GHS
General Hydrostatics, etc.), or by converting a Bspline surface definition to a
station definition. Once a station definition of a hull (parent hull) is created
and stored in the vessel's database, the hull variation and evaluation program
can be started.
INPUT DEFINITION
The program starts by reading the station definition of the parent hull from the
vessel's database. Since the evaluation method being applied to the hull is a
resistance calculation, the input values must either come from the shape of
the boat or input by the designer. These inputs are listed below.
Basic input from the designer This data includes things that are not
dependent on the shape of the boat, such as boat velocity, water type, and
drag options.
Input from the shape of the hull All hull shape data required by the
resistance evaluation program is obtained during the hull "Inspection" routine,
discussed later in the paper.
Input of the hull variation constraints This input tells the program which
variables to vary to maintain the proper hull constraints. The two main
constraints are constant draft (T) and constant displacement (Disp). This is
discussed in the Hull Constraints section.
Input of the calculation and output choices This input tells the program
whether to perform a single calculation, a print or plot over a range of values,
or a contour plot over a matrix of input values. The print or plot option allows
the designer to vary one of the major design parameters while holding the rest
of the variables constant. The contour plot allows the designer to vary two
major design variables while holding the rest constant.
Once all userdefined input variables have been entered, the program begins
its automatic hull variation and evaluation process.
HULL VARIATION
The process of hull variation produces a derivative hull from a parent hull by
specifying new values for any of the following major parameters:
1. Length of the waterline (LWL)
2. Beam of the waterline (BWL)
3. Depth of the boat (Depth)
4. Draft (T)
5. Displacement (Disp)
6. Prismatic coefficient (Cp)
7. Longitudinal center of buoyancy (lcb)
8. Parallel middle body forward (Pfwd)
9. Parallel middle body aft (Paft)
10. Midship coefficient factor (Cmfact)
Because many of these parameters are interrelated, the designer must
choose whether the calculations are done for a fixed draft or for a fixed
displacement. These variables fall into one of the following hull variation
routines: Stretch, Balance, Lackenby, or CmVary. Each of these will be
discussed below.
STRETCH
05/08/2016 Westlawn
This hull variation routine varies any or all of the three major dimensions
(length, beam, and depth) by a scale factor. This is a very simple hull
variation applied to all offsets of the station definition.
BALANCE
This step doesn't actually change the shape of the station definition, but it
does modify some of the major parameters. If the user selects a constant
displacement hull variation constraint, then this routine will raise or sink the
hull to search for a new draft (T) which maintains a constant displacement.
This is done with a searching technique which maintains zero trim while
searching for the desired displacement. Note that if the draft changes, the
LWL and the BWL will likely change. If a constant draft option is selected,
this routine calculates the new displacement for the current hull shape
LACKENBY
This is a technique for hull variation developed by H. Lackenby [5] (see also
[6]), which allows the designer to vary any of the following variables, without
affecting the LWL, BWL, and the depth of the vessel.
o Prismatic coefficient (Cp)
o Longitudinal center of buoyancy (lcb)
o Parallel middle body forward (Pfwd)
o Parallel middle body aft (Paft)
The Lackenby method is a quadratic variation of the "one minus prismatic"
approach whereby the lengths of the parallel middle body can be controlled
independently of lcb and the prismatic coefficient. The sectional area curve is
calculated for the boat and the curve is shifted to achieve the target values.
Halfbreadths and heights of the offsets in the station definition are not
changed using this method; only the longitudinal locations of stations are
shifted.
It can take a few iterations of this method to zero in on the desired values.
The more stations in the definition, the more accurate it is and the less
iterations it takes. The program developed for this paper repeats the
Lackenby hull variation calculation until all four variables are within a small
tolerance of the target values.
Although the Lackenby hull variation technique allows the designer to vary
and set any one or all of these variables, the displacement does change for a
constant draft.
An example of this variation can be seen in the following two figures. Fig. 2
shows a parent sailboat canoebody hull shape with a prismatic coefficient of
0.534. Fig. 3 shows a derivative hull with a target prismatic coefficient of
0.60. Note that although the overall length may vary, the waterline length is
fixed and the lcb position is fixed.
Fig 2. Sailboat Hull With a Prismatic Coefficient of 0.534

Fig 3. Sailboat Hull With a Prismatic Coefficient of 0.60

This example of the Lackenby approach was applied to a Bspline surface
model of the sailboat to be able to show the smooth transition of buttock
05/08/2016 Westlawn
shapes. The hull variation program used for this paper, however, applies the
same technique to a station definition of a hull.
CMVARY
This is a hull variation technique, developed by the author, that allows the
midship shape of the vessel to change independently of the beam and depth
of each station. It uses a value called Cmfact which varies the shape of each
section diagonally in the direction of the bilge corner, defined as the
intersection of the maximum beam and depth of the station. A Cmfact value
of 1.0 means that each section shape is rectangular. (See Fig. 4)
Cmfact is related to the midship coefficient (Cm) of a vessel, except that it is
based on the overall maximum beam and depth of the vessel, rather than the
waterline beam and the draft. Since all of these hull variations affect the
entire hull shape, a Cmtype factor was created that also affects the entire
section, rather than just the area below the waterline. This makes the factor
independent of the draft and displacement.
Fig 4. Station showing Cmfact diagonal

The Cmfact value for a particular station is the percent distance of the station
curve from point P (0.0) towards point Q (1.0). The overall Cmfact for the hull
is the largest Cmfact of all of the stations and is the value used by the
CmVary routine to vary the shape of the hull.
CmVary Hull Variation Steps
1. Find the section with the largest Cmfact value. This is the one Cmfact
value that is used for the entire boat.
2. Given a new, target Cmfact, determine the percent increase or decrease of
the defining Cmfact section along the diagonal (PQ) variation line.
3. Decrease this Cmfact change percentage parabolically to zero at each end
of the boat. This means that this hull variation tapers off to zero change at
the ends of the boat.
4. Apply the appropriately decreased Cmfact change percentage to each
station. For each offset point (B), construct a line (RS) parallel to the main
station diagonal (PQ) and determine the intersections with the defining beam
depth station box (points R and S). Stretch or shrink each offset point along
this line by the appropriate Cmfact change factor. Point B is moved towards
(or away from) point S by the same percentage as point A is moved towards
(or away from) point Q. As the global value of Cmfact approaches 1.0, the
shape of each section approaches the rectangular shape of the defining
beamdepth box.
05/08/2016 Westlawn
Fig 5. Parent hull shape with a Cmfact of 0.76
Fig 6. Derivative hull shape with a Cmfact of 0.80
Fig 7. Derivative hull shape with a Cmfact of 0.72
Figs. 5, 6, and 7 show the parent and two derivative hulls with larger and
smaller values of Cmfact. Fig 5 shows the parent hull with a Cmfact of 0.76,
Fig. 6 shows a derivative hull with a Cmfact of 0.80, and Fig. 7 shows another
derivative hull with a Cmfact of 0.72.
There were difficulties with large changes in the Cmfact value due to its linear
transformation of each station toward either of its two diagonal corners. As
the change got larger, each section shape developed a corner knuckle or
dimple, depending on the direction of variation from the parent shape.
Rounding off the hard knuckle corner (at point Q) to use for a Cmfact value of
1 would improve this problem. It would give the vessel a small bilge radius for
a Cmfact of 1.0, and would smooth the section shape changes over a greater
range of Cmfact values.
OTHER VARIATIONS
There are many more potential avenues for hull variation, such as:
05/08/2016 Westlawn
o Variation of the deadrise angle
o Variation of the profile rocker of the boat
o Change sections from Ushapes to Vshapes
o Change section shapes while maintaining constant LWL, BWL, draft, and
section area.
Many of these hull variations are important in their own right, but for the
resistance evaluation routine described in this program, they play a smaller
role than varying the major hull shape parameters.
HULL CONSTRAINTS
The Stretch variation changes the length, beam, and depth of the boat, but
the displacement, Cp, lcb, etc. all change. Balance determines the new draft
(T) for a given displacement, but the length, beam, Cp, etc. all change.
Lackenby maintains constant LWL, BWL, and draft, while varying Cp, lcb,
Pfwd, and Paft, but displacement changes. CmVary maintains constant
length, beam, and draft, but varies the displacement and prismatic
coefficient. It is impossible to fix all of these major design variables to create
one specific derivative hull shape. If one variable is set or changed by the
program, then at least one other variable must change at the same time. The
goal, however, is to allow the designer to change the major design variables
in a controlled manner using constraints.
The following equations show the relationships among many of the major
design variables.
where sa(x) is the sectional area at x

In an ideal case, the designer should be able to vary any parameter in the
above equation and to select any other parameter to balance the equation so
that the rest of the parameters remain fixed. This may be possible, but it
might require a whole range of constraint maintenance routines. The program
described in this paper only allows the designer to vary either the draft or the
displacement to obtain target values of the major design parameters. For
example, a designer might vary LWL, while maintaining fixed values for the
rest of the parameters, except for draft, which would have to vary to maintain
constant displacement.
Another way of looking at the problem is to fix all parameter values but one,
and then solve (search) for a derivative hull that meets those set values. That
is what the program in this paper does. Specifically, this program can
generate a derivative hull shape with any values for the major variables,
except for displacement and draft. If the draft constraint is set by the
designer, the program will vary displacement to achieve all of the other target
values. If the displacement constraint is set, the draft of vessel changes
while achieving the rest of the target variables. This hull variation and
constraint search loop is shown in Fig. 8.
Given target values for length, beam, depth, Cp, lcb, Pfwd, Paft, and Cmfact,
this search loop will vary either draft or displacement to create a derivative
hull with the desired values. This nonlinear Hull Variation and Constraint
05/08/2016 Westlawn
search loop has gone through many variations to speed up the search
process. It uses a form of a conjugate direction search technique to zero in
on a solution. The balance step is performed after each hull variation step,
since all parameters are very sensitive to draft and displacement.
This is just one approach to the constraint maintenance problem. One could
derive a hull variation and constraint search loop based on varying any of the
major design variables. Note that a new search technique would be needed by
this program if both the displacement and the draft of the vessel are to be
fixed. One could easily achieve this, however, by varying BWL, for example.
Fig. 8

There are also limits to the range of parameter values that can be achieved.
Some shapes are physically not possible, but then again, those shapes are of
no interest to the designer.
HULL INSPECTION ROUTINE
Once the hull variation and search loop is complete, this routine determines
all of the hull shape information that is required by the Hull Evaluation routine.
Exactly what is calculated here depends on the needs and sophistication of
the evaluation routine. For many resistance calculation programs, this might
mean calculating simple information, such as volume, wetted surface,
waterplane area, and the half angle of the waterplane entry. Most of these
values are determined automatically from the hydrostatic calculations in the
Balance routine.
In addition, this inspection routine can also calculate the righting moments
and righting arm areas of the vessel for any heel angle, with automatic
balancing for trim. This allows the designer to study the tradeoffs between
resistance and stability.
HULL EVALUATION ROUTINE
In discussing the automatic hull variation and optimization process, little was
said about the specific type of evaluation routine that would be used to
analyze the shape of the hull. For this paper, a resistance technique based on
the use of a "Geosim" coefficient approach is used. This technique estimates
the overall resistance of a vessel by splitting the resistance into component
parts, such as viscous resistance, residual resistance, and appendage
resistance.
05/08/2016 Westlawn
In general, however, this hull variation and constraint technique can be used
with any hull shape evaluation technique. A sample of the major evaluation
categories are given below. Following that is a more detailed description of
the Geosim technique used in this program.
1. Geosim Coefficient Resistance Evaluation These techniques break the
overall resistance of the vessel into their component parts, such as viscous
resistance (Cv), residual resistance (Cr), and appendage resistance. Residual
resistances are often determined from a regression analysis of tank test data.
2. Planing Hull Resistance This type of resistance calculation uses the
same force breakdown techniques as the Geosim approach, but adds the
moments of forces about the center of gravity of the boat. This defines a
steady state free body diagram of the boat that can be solved for the
resistance and trim of the boat.
3. Sailboat Velocity Prediction (VPP) This type of resistance prediction is
also based on a Geosim approach, but adds sail and hull lift and drag forces.
A search technique is used to determine the velocity and heel angle of the
boat for each wind speed and wind angle.
Note that for certain racing sailboats, the hull variation process is further
complicated by the need to meet the shape constraints of any applicable rule,
such as the America's Cup rule.
4. Computational Fluid Dynamics Methods (CFD) These techniques
typically use a polyhedron mesh generated from the shape of the hull to
perform a full 3D analysis of the resistance of the hull.
5. Finite Analysis Methods (FEM) These techniques use a polyhedron
mesh generated from the shape of the hull to perform a 3D structural finite
element analysis of the hull shell.
Geosim Coefficient Resistance Evaluation
The program described in this paper uses a Geosim approach to the
evaluation of the vessel's resistance. This technique breaks the overall
resistance into the following resistance components:
o Total Resistance (Rtot)
o Viscous Resistance (Rvisc)
Cf Based on ATTC or ITTC57 friction lines
k 3D viscous form factor
o Residual Resistance (Rresid)
o Correlation Allowance Resistance (Rcorr)
o Appendage Resistance (Rapp)
o Bulb Resistance (Rbulb)
o Transom Resistance (Rtrans)
o Air Resistance (Rair)
05/08/2016 Westlawn
The program contains several different choices for each of the categories of
resistance described above. The designer either selects an overall resistance
approach from a menu or creates a customized approach by selecting one
technique from each of the resistance categories.
Most of the results in this paper come from applying the Holtrop [14],[15] ship
resistance methods for each of the resistance components.
The details of these calculations are not presented here, since the goal of this
paper is to describe the overall hull variation, constraint, and evaluation
process, rather than the particular resistance calculation methods used.
PRODUCTION OF RESULTS
The designer determines whether one condition is calculated and printed, a
looping print is produced, a looping plot is produced, or a contour plot is
produced. Each of these choices is described below. First, input and output
variables and algebraic expressions will be briefly discussed.
Program Variables
All program input, intermediate, and final calculation variables are defined and
labeled for access by the designer. Input variables are also broken into two
categories: hull shape independent and hull shape dependent variables. Hull
shape dependent input variables include LWL, BWL, Depth, T, Disp, Cp, lcb,
Pfwd, Paft, and Cmfact. Hull shape independent variables include values
such as boat velocity, water type and temperature, and vertical center of
gravity (VCG).
Most intermediate and all final calculation values are also labeled for use by
the designer. This is useful if there is a need to study the details of the
resistance calculation technique itself. If some of the results seem
questionable, the designer may evaluate all of the individual variables of the
resistance calculation to see if some result values are abnormal. This is
important for both program verification and resistance model validation. No
calculation program should present itself to the designer as a "black box"
evaluation.
Algebraic Expressions
For any of the output choices, the designer can also specify any algebraic
combination of input and output variables to display or print. The program will
parse the expression after the resistance calculation is done and evaluate the
expression using the proper variables. For example, a designer might vary
LWL over a range of values using a constant draft constraint and request that
the program print the value for the expression (Rtot/Disp) as one of its output
variables. In addition, all algebraic and trigonometric functions, such as
SQRT, LOG, and TAN, can also be used.
Single Calculation
The designer selects the target values of all major hull shape parameters,
along with a required constraint: constant draft or constant displacement.
Input also consists of nonhull shape information, such as boat velocity,
water type and temperature, and vertical center of gravity.
The calculation section first searches for the single target hull shape, then
calculates the resistance information, and finally displays or prints all input,
intermediate, and final results.
Looping Print Calculation
The user specifies any single input variable and the range of values it will
take. The program automatically performs a complete hull variation for each
value of the input variable, calculates the results, and displays or prints the
designerselected input and output variables and expressions.
05/08/2016 Westlawn
The following output shows the results for varying BWL from 80 to 120 feet,
with constant displacement and variable draft. Note that the other major
design parameters are held constant, to within a onehalf percent search
tolerance.
BWL LWL Disp Cp LCB Rtot
80.02 307.51 15142 0.6794 0.0408 53.01
85.02 307.01 15147 0.6796 0.0409 51.51
90.02 306.56 15153 0.6797 0.0416 50.05
95.01 306.40 15158 0.6799 0.0402 48.82
99.97 305.79 15162 0.6801 0.0413 47.83
104.92 305.48 15162 0.6799 0.0415 47.17
109.88 305.08 15159 0.6799 0.0419 46.81
114.74 304.73 15159 0.6799 0.0419 46.74
119.93 305.76 15157 0.6799 0.0425 47.02
BWL T LWL/BWL LWL/T Rvisc Rresid
80.02 41.09 3.84 7.48 35.73 14.99
85.02 39.26 3.61 7.81 36.10 13.11
90.02 37.62 3.40 8.14 36.57 11.16
95.01 36.11 3.22 8.48 37.16 9.32
99.97 34.78 3.05 8.79 37.79 7.67
104.92 33.56 2.91 9.10 38.56 6.22
109.88 32.43 2.77 9.40 39.39 4.98
114.74 31.39 2.65 9.70 40.30 3.96
119.93 30.27 2.54 10.09 41.42 3.09
Also note that the purpose of this paper is to demonstrate the hull variation,
constraint and evaluation techniques, and not to evaluate the actual numbers
produced by the resistance part of the program.
Looping Plot Calculation
This function works the same as the Looping Print Calculation, except that
the results are plotted. In this case, however, the designer specifies the
independent input variable to vary and the data to be plotted.
The plotted data consists of one or more ordinate variables or expressions
and one abscissa variable or expression. Note that the abscissa variable
does not have to be the same as the independent input variable. The designer
can plot any variable or expression versus any other variable or expression.
This can be done for any input, intermediate, and final result variables. The
designer can also specify the title, labels, tick marks, and grid options of the
graph.
05/08/2016 Westlawn
Plus ‐ Total Resistance
Circle ‐ Viscous Resistance
Triangle ‐ Residual Resistance
Fig. 9 Example of the Looping Plot Output

Contour Plot Calculation
The contour plot function allows the designer to plot contour graphs of
variables or expressions over a range of two input variables. For example,
constant contour lines of Rtot can be plotted over a range of LWL and BWL
values, using a constant displacement constraint. The program will vary the
hull shape over a matrix of LWL and BWL values while maintaining constant
values for the rest of the major design parameters (except for draft, which
must vary to achieve a constant displacement).
Like the Looping Plot Calculation, this function allows you to specify multiple
contour variables or expressions to be plotted at one time. The abscissa and
ordinate values or expressions also do not have to be the same as the
independent variables.
Fig. 10 Example of the Contour Plot Output

This graph shows constant resistance contour lines over a range of LWL and
BWL values. This is drawn like a topographical map of total resistance, with
the lowest and highest points of resistance identified and labeled (in tons of
resistance). The lowest total resistance is located at the shortest length and
the widest beam. Note that the draft is also less at this point because of the
constant displacement constraint. Graphs like this might raise more
questions about the resistance calculation than they answer, but that is
preferable to using a resistance calculation program like a black box
calculator. The designer can explore other variations in shape and compare
the results with the equations used by the resistance model. In addition, this
hull variation and evaluation approach can be invaluable to those developing
new resistance techniques based on regression analysis techniques.
CONCLUSIONS
The computer program described in this paper demonstrates the ability to
automatically vary the shape of a parent hull to obtain target values for the
following major hull shape variables: LWL, BWL, depth, draft, displacement,
Cp, lcb, parallel middle bodyforward (Pfwd), parallel middle bodyaft (Paft),
and Cmfact. Target values are achieved using a constant displacement or
constant draft constraint. If a constant draft constraint is selected, then all of
the target values are obtained by varying the displacement of the vessel. If a
constant displacement constraint is selected, then the target values are
obtained by varying the draft of the vessel.
The program also demonstrates the process of automatically varying a parent
hull shape over a range of target values, evaluating the hull shape using a
05/08/2016 Westlawn
"Geosim" resistance calculation routine, and printing, plotting, or contouring
the results.
FUTURE WORK
This paper only scratches the surface in the area of automatic hull variation
with constraints. As mentioned previously, the designer should be able to
achieve the desired target values for all major design variables by varying just
one selected parameter. In this paper, this was achieved by varying the draft
or displacement. It should be a straightforward change, however, to vary
another variable, such as LWL, to achieve the desired target values.
There are also an infinite variety of other hull variations to investigate, such
as variable bilge radius, variable deadrise angle, adjustable rocker shape, and
adjustable section shape. This paper focused on variations of the major
design parameters, since those variables had the greatest influence on the
resistance calculation technique.
An associated area of development is the automatic creation of hull shapes
from a set of standard form parameters. One could automatically create an
approximate hull shape from form parameters and use the automatic hull
variation process to achieve the exact target values.
Another area of development is to separate the hull variation routine, the hull
inspection routine, the hull evaluation routine, and the output results routine
into separate modules or programs, linked by a simple data and geometry file.
This would allow designers to replace the existing evaluation routine or
program with their own, but still use the standard hull variation and results
evaluation framework.
Other versions of this program are under development; one for the planing
boat model and another for the Velocity Prediction Program (VPP) model for
sailboats. Each of these hull types have their own special hull variation and
constraint requirements.
Another interesting area of development is in the automatic variation of CFD
or FEM hull meshes. Rather than remeshing after each hull variation (which
may not be automatic), the hull variation could be performed directly on a
parent hull mesh. This would eliminate the need for remeshing after each step
and would allow the analysis program to analyze many hull variations without
human intervention.
REFERENCES
1. Todd, F., "Series 60, Methodized Experiments with Models of SingleScrew Merchant Ships"
DTMB Report 1712, July, 1963
2. Gertler, M., "A Reanalysis of the Original Test Data for the Taylor Standard Series", DTMB
Report 806, March, 1954
3. Moor, D., Parker, M., and Pattulo, R., "The BSRA Methodical Series An Overall Presentation",
Trans. RINA, vol 103, 1961
4. Lap, A., "Diagrams for Determining the Resistance of Single Screw Ships", International
Shipbuilding Progress, vol 1, no. 4, 1954
5. Lackenby, H., "On the Systematic Geometrical Variation of Ship Forms", Trans. INA, Vol 92,
1950, pp 289315
6. Botting, M., "Hull Form Derived From Parent", DTMB Report 2328, Feb, 1967
7. Volker, H., "Systematic Variation of Usual Ship Form", International Shipbuilding Progress, vol
1, no. 1, 1954
8. Reed, A. and Nowacki, H., "Interactive Creation of Fair Ship Lines", Journal of Ship Research,
vol 18, 1974, pp 96112
9. Kuiper, G. "Preliminary Design of Ship Lines by Mathematical Methods", Journal of Ship
Research, vol 14, 1970, pp 5266
10. Nowacki, H., Creutz, G., and Munchmeyer, F., "Ship Lines Creation by Computer Objectives,
Methods and Results", First International Symposium on ComputerAided Hull Surface Definition
(SCAHD77), pp 118, SNAME, Anapolis, MD, 1977
11. Soding, H. and Rabien, U., "Hull Surface Design by Modifying an Existing Hull", First
International Symposium on ComputerAided Hull Surface Definition (SCAHD77), pp 1929,
SNAME, Anapolis, MD, 1977
05/08/2016 Westlawn
12. Nowacki, H. and Reese, D., "Design and Fairing of Ship Surfaces", Surfaces in Computer
Aided Geometric Design, North Holland, Eds. Barnhill, R. and Boehm, W., 1983, pp 121134
13. Standerski, N., "The Generation of Ship Hulls With Given Design Parameters Using Tensor
Product Surfaces", Theory and Practice of Geometric Modeling, Eds. Strasser, W. and Seidel, H.,
Springer Verlag, 1989, pp 6579
14. Holtrop, J. and Mennen, G., "An Approximate Power Prediction Method", International
Shipbuilding Progress, Vol 29, July, 1982
15. Holtrop, J. "A Statistical ReAnalysis of Resistance and Propulsion Data", International
Shipbuilding Progress, Vol 31, Nov, 1984

© 2015, Westlawn Institute of Marine Technology. All rights reserved

High Speed Craft

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

High Speed Craft

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

05/08/2016 Westlawn

You might also like