Journal of

Marine Science
and Engineering

Article
The Effect of Hull Form Parameters on the Hydrodynamic
Performance of a Bulk Carrier
Rui Deng 1,2 , Shigang Wang 1,2 , Yuxiao Hu 1,2 , Yuquan Wang 1,2 and Tiecheng Wu 1,2, *

1 School of Marine Engineering and Technology, Sun Yat-sen University, Zhuhai 519000, China;
[email protected] (R.D.); [email protected] (S.W.); [email protected] (Y.H.);
[email protected] (Y.W.)
2 Southern Marine Science and Engineering Guangdong Laboratory (Zhuhai), Zhuhai 519000, China
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +86-187-4514-7797

Abstract: In this study, the effect of joint optimization of the principal dimensions and hull form on
the hydrodynamic performance of a bulk carrier was studied. In the first part of the joint optimization
process, fast principal-dimension optimization of the origin parent ship considering the integrated
performance of ship resistance, seakeeping, and maneuverability, as well as their relationships
with the principal dimensions were analyzed in detail based on the ship resistance, seakeeping
qualities, and maneuverability empirical methods of Holtrop and Mennen, Bales, and K and T
indices, respectively. A new parent ship was chosen from 496 sets of hulls after comprehensive
consideration. In the remaining part, a further hull form optimization was performed on the new
parent ship according to the minimum wave-making resistance. The obtained results demonstrate
that: (a) For the case in which the principal dimension of the original parent-type ship is different





 from that of the owner’s target ship, within the bounds of the relevant constraints from the owner, an
Citation: Deng, R.; Wang, S.; Hu, Y.; excellent parent ship can be obtained by principal-dimension optimization; (b) the joint optimization
Wang, Y.; Wu, T. The Effect of Hull method considering the principal dimension and hull form optimization can further explore the
Form Parameters on the optimization space and provide a better hull.
Hydrodynamic Performance of a
Bulk Carrier. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2021, 9, Keywords: principal-dimension optimization; ship resistance; seakeeping; maneuverability; Holtrop
373. https://doi.org/10.3390/ and Mennen’s empirical methods; towing tank test
jmse9040373

Academic Editor: Kostas

A. Belibassakis 1. Introduction
To reduce maritime greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to reach the International Mar-
Received: 13 March 2021
Accepted: 30 March 2021
itime Organization (IMO) 2050 target, new energy-efficient ships are urgently needed.
Published: 1 April 2021
Although these energy-efficient designs have a higher newbuild cost, the savings on fuel
consumption and, in turn, the cost, tend to be considerably larger than the additional
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
newbuild cost [1–4].
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
Among the various aspects of ship performance, hull form optimization has long
published maps and institutional affil- focused on minimizing ship resistance. For certain hull forms, hull form optimization
iations. can reduce resistance. Sariöz [5] presented an optimization approach to be used in the
preliminary design stage to create a high-quality ship hull form geometry. Hong et al. [6]
developed a self-blending method to modify and optimize a bulbous bow. The shape
of the bulbous bow of a fishing vessel was optimized, and the resistance was reduced
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
by 2%. Rotteveel et al. [7] analyzed the optimization of propulsion power for various
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
water depths using a parametric inland ship stern shape. Cerka et al. [8] presented a
This article is an open access article
numerical simulation of hull form optimization of a multi-purpose catamaran-type research
distributed under the terms and vessel based on the method of successive approximations. Deng et al. [9] used nonlinear
conditions of the Creative Commons programming and genetic algorithms to optimize the hull form and achieved promising
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// results. Cheng et al. [10] used a new hull surface automatic modification method based
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ on Delaunay triangulation to perform hull form optimization, which can significantly
4.0/). improve the optimization efficiency. Hou [11] presented the hull form optimization design

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2021, 9, 373. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse9040373 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/jmse

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2021, 9, 373 2 of 16

method for minimum Energy Efficiency Operation Index (EEOI), and four case studies were
conducted to verify the feasibility and superiority of the novel approach. Zheng et al. [12]
took numerical functions and the surface combatant model DTMB 5415 as the research
objectives for knowledge extraction by combining the partial correlation analysis and self-
organizing map (SOM) based on optimization data. Kim et al. [13] studied an efficient and
effective hull surface modification technique for the Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD)-
based hull form optimization. Numerical results obtained in this study have shown that the
present hull surface modification technique can produce smooth hull forms with reduced
drag effectively and efficiently in the CFD-based hull form optimization. Feng et al. [14]
performed an experimental and numerical study of multidisciplinary design optimization
to improve the resistance performance and wake field quality of a vessel. Lin et al. [15]
set up an automatic design optimization of a small waterplane area twin-hull (SWATH)
that provides accurate flow prediction and is integrated into the optimization module.
They obtained lower resistance than the original hull, which shows the effectiveness of the
optimization. Seok et al. [16] applied the design of experiments and CFD to improve the
bow shape of a tanker hull. The results show that the added resistance of the improved hull
form is reduced by 52%. Priftis et al. [17] applied a holistic optimization design approach
to study the parametric design and multi-objective optimization of ships under uncertainty.
Papanikolaou et al. [18] performed a numerical and experimental optimization study on a
fast, zero-emission catamaran. Jeong et al. [19] proposed two methods for comparing the
mesh deformation method for hull form optimization. Various bow shapes of the Japan
Bulk Carrier were applied to validate the applicability of the methods. The proposed mesh
deformation method was efficient and effective for CFD-based hull form optimization.
However, in general, hull form optimization does not result in significant changes to
the original hull form, and the corresponding effect on the resistance reduction becomes
increasingly limited with the improvement in the hull form. Compared with hull form
optimization, the principal dimensions of the hull can have a more significant impact
on the hydrodynamic performance of the ship; however, they are usually determined
by the usage requirements, parent ship dimensions, and other constraints in the initial
stage of ship design, following which the modification of the principal dimensions is
seldom considered. Therefore, few researchers have conducted studies on resistance
reduction based on principal-dimension optimization. Zhang et al. [20] used regression
analysis to study the sensitivity of the resistance to the principal dimension of the hull
form; the principal dimension parameters with the most significant effects on the total
resistance were identified, and the ship resistance was significantly reduced by changing
the principal dimensions. Pechenyuk [21] proposed a wave-based optimization method
for hull form design, which changes the displacement volume distribution by varying
the principal dimensions and thus optimizes the transverse and scattered waves induced.
The optimized design of the hull provided the best displacement volume distribution,
and the resistance was reduced by 8.9% compared with that of the parent ship. Lindstad
et al. [1,4,22–24] studied how hull forms can be made more energy efficient for realistic
sea conditions by modifying the main ratios among beam, draught, and length to reduce
the block coefficients while keeping the cargo-carrying capacity unchanged. In addition
to resistance optimization, Ouahsine et al. [25,26] proposed a numerical method based
on c the combination of a mathematical model of nonlinear transient ship maneuvering
motion in the horizontal plane and mathematical programming techniques; this method
was validated by the turning circle and zigzag maneuvers based on experimental data
of sea trials of the 190,000 dwt oil tanker. Subsequently, they developed a numerical
model to predict ship maneuvering in a confined waterway using a nonlinear model with
optimization techniques to identify the hydrodynamic coefficients accurately.
Some studies have been performed for hull form and principal-dimension optimiza-
tion of ships. Few scholars have conducted relevant research on the joint optimization
of principal dimensions and hull form of ships considering the integrated performance
of ship resistance, seakeeping, and maneuverability. Thus, there are still some important
 J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2021, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 16

Some studies have been performed for hull form and principal-dimension optimiza-
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2021, 9, 373 tion of ships. Few scholars have conducted relevant research on the joint optimization of
3 of 16
principal dimensions and hull form of ships considering the integrated performance of
ship resistance, seakeeping, and maneuverability. Thus, there are still some important as-
pects that need to be investigated further regarding this topic, such as the accuracy and
aspects that need
applicability to be investigated
of empirical methods for further regarding
the rapid this topic,
prediction such
of ship as the accuracy
resistance, seakeeping,and
applicability of empirical methods for the rapid prediction of ship
and maneuverability; accuracy correction of empirical methods for given ship types; and resistance, seakeep-
ing, and maneuverability;
relationships of resistance,accuracy
seakeeping,correction of empirical methods
and maneuverability for given
performance withshipthetypes;
prin-
and relationships of resistance, seakeeping, and maneuverability performance with the
cipal dimensions.
principal dimensions.
In this study, the effect of joint optimization of the principal dimensions and hull
In this study, the effect of joint optimization of the principal dimensions and hull form
form on the hydrodynamic performance of a bulk carrier (origin parent ship) is studied
on the hydrodynamic performance of a bulk carrier (origin parent ship) is studied based on
based on empirical methods and towing tank tests, considering the integrated perfor-
empirical methods and towing tank tests, considering the integrated performance of ship
mance of ship resistance, seakeeping, and maneuverability. First, empirical methods of
resistance, seakeeping, and maneuverability. First, empirical methods of ship resistance,
ship resistance, seakeeping, and maneuverability are introduced, and then the accuracy
seakeeping, and maneuverability are introduced, and then the accuracy correction of the
correction of the resistance empirical method based on CFD for the given ship is studied.
resistance empirical method based on CFD for the given ship is studied. Second, the
Second, the resistance, seakeeping, and maneuverability of 496 sets of hulls with different
resistance, seakeeping, and maneuverability of 496 sets of hulls with different principal
principal dimensions are calculated using the modified empirical methods, and the rela-
dimensions are calculated using the modified empirical methods, and the relationships of
tionships of resistance, seakeeping, and maneuverability of the hull with the principal di-
resistance, seakeeping, and maneuverability of the hull with the principal dimensions are
mensionsinare
analyzed analyzed
detail. in detail.
Thereafter, a new Thereafter,
parent ship a new
with parent
L = 136.0 ship withBL= =18.38
m and 136.0mm is and
chosenB=
18.38 m is chosen through the systematic analysis of principal-dimension
through the systematic analysis of principal-dimension optimization. Finally, further hull optimization.
Finally,
form further hull
optimization andform optimization
verification based and
on verification
the new parent based onby
ship thethe
new parent
towing ship
tank by
test
the towing tank test are presented. The remainder of this paper
are presented. The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section 1 discusses is organized as follows.
Section
the 1 discusses
literature review theofliterature
the form review of the form and principal-dimension
and principal-dimension optimization ofoptimization
ships. The
of ships. The
geometric model geometric
and offset model
point and offset point
information of theinformation
parent shipof arethe parent in
described ship are de-
Section 2.
scribed in Section 2. In Section 3, the ship resistance, seakeeping
In Section 3, the ship resistance, seakeeping qualities, and maneuverability empirical qualities, and maneuver-
ability empirical
methods of Holtrop methods of Holtrop
and Mennen, Bales,and
andMennen,
K and T Bales,
indicesandareKdescribed,
and T indices are de-
respectively.
scribed, respectively. The accuracy correction of Holtrop and Mennen’s
The accuracy correction of Holtrop and Mennen’s empirical method based on CFD for the empirical method
basedship
given on CFDtype for the given
is studied ship type
in detail. is studied
Section in detail.
4 presents Section 4 presents
the relationships betweenthe relation-
resistance,
ships between
seakeeping, andresistance, seakeeping,
maneuverability and maneuverability
performance performance
with the principal with the
dimensions. princi-
Section 5
pal dimensions.
describes Section 5 describes
the optimization procedure. theFurther
optimization procedure.
hull foam Furtherand
optimization hullverification
foam opti-
mization
based on theandselected
verification
newbased
parent onship
the selected new parent
are discussed ship 6.
in Section areSection
discussed in Section
7 provides a
6. Section 7 provides
summary of this study. a summary of this study.

2.2. Geometric
GeometricModelModeland andInformation
Informationof ofthe
theParent
ParentShip
Ship
In
In this
this study,
study, a bulk carrier
carrierwas
wastreated
treatedasasthe
theorigin
origin parent
parent ship,
ship, with
with a length
a length of
of 132
132 +m, width of 18.2 m, and draft of 5.9 m, block coefficient of 0.6025, displacement
m, width of 18.2 m, and draft of 5.9 m, block coefficient of 0.6025, displacement of 8806.6 of
8806.6
t, and t, and designed
designed speed speed of 19
of 19 kn. Thekn.3-dimensional
The 3-dimensional geometric
geometric modelmodel
and theand the offset
offset points
points used for calculation are shown
used for calculation are shown in Figure 1. in Figure 1.

Figure1.1.Geometric
Figure Geometricmodel
modeland
andoffset
offsetpoints
pointsofofthe
theparent
parentship:
ship:(a)(a)Side
Side view
view ofof the
the geometric
geometric model
model of the parent ship; (b) top and side views of the offset points of the parent ship; (c) front
of the parent ship; (b) top and side views of the offset points of the parent ship; (c) front and stern
and stern views of the geometric model of the parent ship; (d) front and stern views of the offset
views of the geometric model of the parent ship; (d) front and stern views of the offset points of the
points of the parent ship.
parent ship.

The required offsets were extracted and calculated by the software GAMBIT which is
a registered trademark of Fluent, Inc (now owned by ANSYS Inc, Canonsburg, PA, USA)
(Figure 1). The stations were set every 0.2 m for the bow, every 1.0 m for the hull, and every
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2021, 9, 373 4 of 16

0.5 m for the stern, such that the underwater part of the hull was divided into 161 stations
from the bow apex to the stern. A total of 70 offset points were obtained for each station
line, and the maximum distance between the offset points was approximately 0.14 m. A
total of 13,651 offset points were obtained from the waterline, and the maximum distance
between the offset points was approximately 0.44 m. This yielded a total of 24,921 offset
points to ensure that the hull geometric information was accurately captured.

3. Methodology
Owing to the large Reynolds numbers of full-scale ships, the numerical calculation
of their viscous wake fields based on the CFD method requires many cells and specific
turbulence models, 2-phase flow models, and degree of freedom motion models, leading
to a high threshold of numerical skills and long computation time. Therefore, this method
is not applicable for the comparison of multiple schemes in the preliminary design stage.
In contrast, existing empirical methods based on regression analysis of model tests and
trial data of many ships have good usability and are less time-consuming. Although
the calculation accuracy for a particular hull form is limited, it can accurately reflect the
changes in the hydrodynamic performance of the ship as the principal dimension changes.
Therefore, in this study, the empirical methods of Holtrop and Mennen, Bales, and K and
T exponents were used in principal-dimension optimization to calculate the resistance,
seakeeping, and maneuverability of a series of hull forms.

3.1. Holtrop and Mennen’s Empirical Methods of Ship Resistance

At present, there are many empirical formula methods for resistance, such as Ayre’s
method, Lap–Keller’s method, and Holtrop and Mennen’s method. Ayre and Lap–Keller’s
methods are based on the statistical data of ship types of the 1940s and 1950s. Thus, obvious
errors arise from new types of ships in the estimation after the late 1980s. In the early
1980s, Holtrop and Mennen developed a resistance prediction method based on regression
analysis of model tests and trial data of Marine Research Institute Netherlands (MARIN),
the model basin in Wageningen, The Netherlands [27–31]. Holtrop and Mennen’s method
was arguably the most popular method for estimating the resistance and horsepower of
displacement-type ships. It was based on the regression analysis of a vast range of model
tests and trial data, which provided wide applicability [32]. Holtrop and Mennen’s method
defines the total resistance as:

R T = R F + R P + RW , (1)

where RT is the total resistance, and RF , RP , and RW represent the frictional, pressure,
and wave resistances, respectively. The friction resistance is corrected by introducing the
form factor k, which affects the estimation of the residuary resistance, and the pressure
resistance is included in the friction resistance. The frictional resistance RF is computed on
the basis of the international towing tank conference (ITTC) 1957 model–ship correlation
line coefficient CF as the resistance of a flat plate with wetted surface S:

R F (1 + k ) = R F + R P , (2)

R F = 1/2CF ρV 2 S, CF = 0.075/(log Re − 2)2 , (3)

To estimate the wave resistance RW , Holtrop defines RW as the range of Froude
numbers into 3 sections:
d −2


 c1 c2 c5 ρg∇ · em1 Fr +m4 cos (λFr ) if Fr ≤ 0.4
(20Fr −8)
RW = RW (0.4)+ 3 [ R W ( 0.55 ) − R W ( 0.4 )] if 0.4<Fr ≤ 0.55 . (4)

m Fr d + m cos ( λFr −2 )
c17 c2 c5 ρg∇ · e if Fr > 0.55
 3 4

In Equations (2)–(4), ρ is the density of sea (fresh) water, V is the velocity of the ship,
∇ is the volumetric displacement, and Re and Fr are the Reynolds and Froude numbers,
  m Fr  m4 cos   Fr 
c1c2 c5  g   e 1 if Fr  0.4

 (20 Fr  8)
RW   RW (0.4)+  RW (0.55)  RW (0.4) if 0.4<Fr  0.55 . (4)
 3
 m3 Fr d  m4 cos   Fr 2 
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2021, 9, 373  c17 c2 c5  g   e if Fr  0.55 5 of 16

In Equations (2)–(4), ρ is the density of sea (fresh) water, V is the velocity of the ship,
 is the volumetric displacement, and Re and Fr are the Reynolds and Froude numbers,
respectively. Furthermore,
Furthermore,c1c,1c, 2c, 2c,5,cc517 d,, λ,d,mλ,
, ,c17 1, m31,, and
m3 , m 4 are
and m4coefficients for thefor
are coefficients wave
the
resistance computation
wave resistance in Equation
computation in Equation (4), and (4),the
anddetailed description,
the detailed definition,
description, and and
definition, cal-
culation equations
calculation of the
equations above
of the coefficients
above coefficients cancanbe be
foundfoundin references
in references[27–32].
[27–32].
For the
theempirical
empiricalformula
formula methods
methods proposed
proposed in theinshiptheresistance
ship resistance
evaluationevaluation
method
section, section,
method the methods should should
the methods be firstbe compared to determine
first compared the one
to determine thetoone
be to
applied. The
be applied.
resistance
The of 3of
resistance types of ships
3 types [33]
of ships (25,000
[33] (25,000 t tanker,
t tanker,82,000
82,000t tbulk
bulkcarrier,
carrier,and
and 900
900 TEU
container ship) was predicted by the empirical formula methods and compared with the
experimental data, as shown in Figure 2.

(a) (b)

(c)
Figure 2.
Figure 2. Comparison
Comparison between
between thethe results
results of
of the
the Ayre’s,
Ayre’s, Lap–Keller’s,
Lap–Keller’s, Holtrop
Holtrop and
and Mennen’s
Mennen’s methods
methods and
and experimental
experimental
data. (a)
data. 25,000 tt tanker;
(a) 25,000 tanker; (b)
(b) 82,000
82,000 tt bulk
bulk carrier;
carrier; (c)
(c) 900
900 TEU
TEU container
container ship.
ship.

From the comparison of the results in Figure 2, it can be observed that the calculation
results of various empirical formula methods can basically maintain the tendency as the
experimental results and can reflect the resistance
resistance characteristics
characteristics of
of the
the ship.
ship. Owing to the
different applicability of each method, the errors
errors for different
different ship types
types are
are also
also different;
different;
Ayre and Lap–Keller’s methods have better accuracy at low speeds and gradually become
misaligned as the speed increases. These methods are based on the statistical data of ship
types in the 1940s and the 1950s, and the resistance estimation errors for emerging ship
types are relatively large. Although the Holtrop and Mennen’s method has certain errors,
it is generally better than the other two methods. In chronological order, this method
was also the latest resistance empirical formula method, which has certain credibility for
the estimation of modern ship types. Therefore, in terms of resistance prediction, the
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2021, 9, 373 6 of 16

Holtrop and Mennen’s method can be recommended as a credible method for estimating
the resistance of the target ship.

3.2. Brief Description of Bales’s Empirical Method for Ship Seakeeping Performance
Bales calculated the seakeeping properties of 20 destroyers, used 6 geometric char-
acteristics CWF , CWA , Td /L, C/L, CVPF , and CVPA as variables for regression analysis, and
established the relationship between the seakeeping rank factor R and geometric character-
istics. The seakeeping prediction model proposed by N.K. Bales [34,35] was adopted by
the ship design department of the US Navy and was later promoted and can be used in a
variety of ship types. The rank factor R is defined as follows:
∧ Td C
R = 8.422 + 45.104CWF + 10.078CWA − 378.465 + 1.273 − 23.501CVPF − 15.875CVPA (5)
L L
∧
where R is the estimated value of R; C is the distance from Station 0 to the cut-up point;
Td and L are the draft and length between the perpendiculars of the ship; CWF and CWA
represent the water-plane coefficients forward and aft of amidships, respectively; and CVPF
and CVPA are the vertical prismatic coefficients forward and aft of amidships, respectively.
The rank factor R indicates the degree of seakeeping performance: A larger value indicates
better performance. The detailed description, definition, and calculation equations of the
above coefficients can be found in references [34,35].

3.3. Brief Description of K and T Indices Empirical Methods for Ship Maneuverability
Nomoto [36,37] studied the problem of ship maneuverability from the viewpoint
of control engineering based on the linear equation of ship maneuverability motion and
regarded the various maneuvering motions caused by changing the rudder angle as the re-
sponse of the output maneuvering motion to the input rudder angle. In addition, a second-
order maneuvering motion equation was derived, which was also called K. Nomoto’s
model. The exponents K and T of K. Nomoto’s model can define the maneuverability of
the ship, which has a clear physical meaning. The K index reflects the turning ability of the
ship and is called the turning ability index; the T index represents the ship’s rapid response
to the rudder and navigation stability and is called the turning lag index. K and T are
collectively referred to as the ship’s maneuverability index. Ships with good maneuverabil-
ity should have a large positive K value and a small positive T value. Zhang et al. [38,39],
based on the research of Hong [40] and Yao [41] by increasing the number and types of
statistical ships, and considering the influence of nonlinear factors between the data vol-
umes, used the parameters of 59 ships as samples, established the quaternion second-order
polynomial regression mathematical model, and obtained a statistical regression formula.
The results of this formula were compared with the Z-shaped experimental results of the
ship, which were not in the statistical samples, to verify the validity of the equation. The
estimation formulae for K and T are defined as follows:
∧ L LT L B
K = 47.875 − 2.64 + 0.004 d + 66.589Cb2 − 112.702Cb + 3.826Cb − 0.393Cb , (6)
B AR B Td
∧ LTd L LTd L
T = 26.464 + 0.408Cb − 0.033 − 79.114Cb + 0.757 + 46.129Cb2 . (7)
AR B AR B
∧ ∧
where K and T are the estimated values of K and T, respectively; Td , B, and L are the draft,
breadth, and length between the perpendiculars of the ship, and Cb and AR represent the
block coefficient and rudder area, respectively. The maneuverability index P is defined as
P = K/T, in which a larger P-value indicates better ship maneuverability.
 T  26.464  0.408Cb  0.033  79.114Cb  0.757 +46.129Cb . (7)
AR B AR B
 
where K and T are the estimated values of K and T, respectively; Td, B, and L are the
draft, breadth, and length between the perpendiculars of the ship, and Cb and AR represent
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2021, 9, 373 the block coefficient and rudder area, respectively. The maneuverability index P is defined
7 of 16
as P = K/T, in which a larger P-value indicates better ship maneuverability.

3.4. Accuracy Correction of Holtrop and Mennen’s Empirical Method Based on CFD for the
3.4. Accuracy Correction of Holtrop and Mennen’s Empirical Method Based on CFD for the Given
Given
Ship Ship Type
Type
In the
In the principal-dimension
principal-dimension optimization
optimization part, part, the
the resistance
resistance performance
performance was was thethe
most important aspect of the hydrodynamic performance,
most important aspect of the hydrodynamic performance, followed by seakeeping and followed by seakeeping and
maneuverability. Accuracy
maneuverability. Accuracy correction
correction was was only
only performed
performed for for the
the empirical
empirical method
method of of
resistance. Because the ship used in the establishment of Holtrop
resistance. Because the ship used in the establishment of Holtrop and Mennen’s empirical and Mennen’s empirical
method was
method was somewhat
somewhatdifferentdifferentfrom
fromthe theoneoneused
usedin inthisthis
study,
study,andand as described
as described in Sec-
in
tion 3.1, directly using this method to calculate the resistance of a ship
Section 3.1, directly using this method to calculate the resistance of a ship will result in will result in certain
potential
certain errors. Therefore,
potential it was necessary
errors. Therefore, to improve
it was necessary the accuracy
to improve of Holtropofand
the accuracy Men-
Holtrop
nen’s
and empiricalempirical
Mennen’s method method
according to the ship
according used
to the shipin used
this study.
in thisIn the process
study. of correc-
In the process of
tion for thefor
correction empirical method
the empirical of resistance,
method the toolbox
of resistance, commercial
the toolbox commercialCFD software
CFD softwareSTAR
CCM+CCM+
STAR was usedwas to calculate
used the total
to calculate resistance
the total of theofparent
resistance shipship
the parent at speeds
at speedsof 9,of11, 13,
9, 11,
15, 17, 19, 21, and 23 kn, and the detailed experience and description
13, 15, 17, 19, 21, and 23 kn, and the detailed experience and description the numerical of the numerical
calculation strategy
calculation strategy can canbe befound
foundininour ourprevious
previous research
research [42,43].
[42,43].TheThetotaltotal
resistance was
resistance
composed
was composed of friction andand
of friction residual
residual resistances.
resistances.Because
Becausethe thefrictional
frictional resistance
resistance in the the
Holtrop and Mennen’s
Holtrop Mennen’s method methodwas wascalculated
calculatedusingusingthe theITTC-1957
ITTC-1957 formula,
formula, it can be as-
it can be
sumed that
assumed thatthethe
frictional
frictional resistance
resistance waswascorrect
correctafter
afterconsiderable
considerable experience,
experience, andandthetheer-
ror ofof
error the method
the method only
only comes
comes from
fromthethe
residual
residualresistance.
resistance. Subsequently,
Subsequently, thethe
residual
residual re-
sistance was
resistance wasseparated
separatedfrom fromthethenumerical
numericalresults,
results, and
and thethe residual resistance calculated
calculated
by Holtrop
by Holtrop was was compared.
compared. The ratio of the the two
two parts
parts was was used
used to to establish
establish aa correction
correction
coefficient
coefficient related
related to the Fr
to the Fr number,
number, and and then
then the
the residual
residual resistance
resistance term term ofof Holtrop
Holtrop and and
Mennen’s
Mennen’s empirical
empiricalmethod methodwas wascorrected.
corrected.Finally, principal-dimension
Finally, principal-dimension optimization
optimizationwas
performed
was performed basedbased
on the onmodified method
the modified with with
method acceptable
acceptableaccuracy.
accuracy.
A comparison
A comparison between between the prediction
prediction results of the original and
results of the original and modified
modified Holtrop
Holtrop
and
and Mennen’s method and the CFD results of the full-scale ship is presentedin
Mennen’s method and the CFD results of the full-scale ship is presented inFigure
Figure3.3.

Figure 3.
Figure 3. Comparison
Comparisonbetween
betweenthe
theresults of of
results thethe
original andand
original modified Holtrop
modified and and
Holtrop Mennen’s
Mennen’s
method and the CFD data.
method and the CFD data.

As indicated
As indicated by
by Figure
Figure 3,
3, the
the modified
modified Holtrop
Holtrop and
and Mennen’s
Mennen’s method
method demonstrates
demonstrates
good agreement
good agreement with
with the
the CFD
CFD results,
results, better
better pertinence,
pertinence, and
and accuracy.
accuracy. Thus,
Thus, itit can
can be
be
adopted as a reliable approach for subsequent research. Although the correction coefficient
for Holtrop and Mennen’s empirical formula in this study is only suitable for the parent ship
and is not applicable to all the ships, the correction strategy employed can be implemented
for specific ship types and has universal applicability.

4. Relationships of Resistance, Seakeeping, and Maneuverability Performance with

the Principal Dimensions
The variation of the principal dimensions in the study was constrained to within ±15%
and +15% of the original ship length, beam: The length varied between 112.2 m ≤ L ≤ 151.8 m,
with one length selected every 1% of the baseline length (132 m), for a total of 31 lengths;
 implemented for specific ship types and has universal applicability.

4. Relationships of Resistance, Seakeeping, and Maneuverability Performance with

the Principal Dimensions
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2021, 9, 373 8 of 16
The variation of the principal dimensions in the study was constrained to within
±15% and +15% of the original ship length, beam: The length varied between 112.2 m ≤ L
≤ 151.8 m, with one length selected every 1% of the baseline length (132 m), for a total of
31 lengths;
the ship beamthe ship beam
varied varied
within thewithin
range the rangemof≤18.20
of 18.20 B ≤m ≤ B ≤m,20.93
20.93 withm,onewith onebeam
ship ship
beam selected
selected every every
1% of 1%
the of the baseline
baseline ship beam
ship beam (18.20(18.20 m),
m), for for a of
a total total
15 of 15 beams.
ship ship beams.
The
The ship’s
ship’s length
length andand
beambeam
werewere considered
considered as as
thethe mainvariables,
main variables,and
andthe
thedraft
draft was
was con-
sidered as aa secondary
secondary variable.
variable. The draft was determined
determined after selecting
selecting different
different ship
ship
lengths and beams, while keeping the displacement constant at 8600 t, yielding yielding a total
total of
of
496 sets of hulls with different principal
principal dimensions.
dimensions. Among
Among them,
them, the
the change
change in in principal
principal
regulations and owner requirements,
dimensions met the regulations requirements, and
and the
the general
general arrangement
arrangement of of
the ship. The relationships of the the total
total hull
hull resistance,
resistance, seakeeping,
seakeeping, andand maneuverability
maneuverability
with
with the
the length
length and
and beam
beam atat the
the design
design speed
speed (19
(19 kn)
kn) are
are shown
shown inin Figure
Figure4.4.

(a) (b)

(c)
Figure 4.
Figure 4. Relationships
Relationships of
of various
various hydrodynamic
hydrodynamic performances
performances with
with the
the principal
principal dimensions:
dimensions: (a)
(a) ship
ship resistance;
resistance; (b)
(b) rank
rank
factor R
factor R of
of seakeeping
seakeeping performance;
performance; (c)
(c)maneuverability
maneuverabilityindex
indexPP(P
(P== K/T).
K/T).

As shown in Figure 4, while the displacement was kept constant, the resistance
monotonically increased with the hull beam and monotonically decreased with increasing
ship length. The seakeeping index rapidly increased with ship length and slightly increased
with increasing hull beam, which may be resulted from a decrease in the draft. The
maneuverability index exhibited opposite change tendencies: as the ship length increased,
the maneuverability index first increased and then decreased, whereas as the ship beam
increased, the maneuverability index first decreased and then increased.
 As shown in Figure 4, while the displacement was kept constant, the resistance mon-
otonically increased with the hull beam and monotonically decreased with increasing ship
length. The seakeeping index rapidly increased with ship length and slightly increased
with increasing hull beam, which may be resulted from a decrease in the draft. The ma-
neuverability index exhibited opposite change tendencies: as the ship length increased,
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2021, 9, 373 9 of 16
the maneuverability index first increased and then decreased, whereas as the ship beam
increased, the maneuverability index first decreased and then increased.

5. Optimization5. Procedure
Optimization Procedure
5.1. Rough SelectionRough
5.1. Selection
from Large from Large
Amounts Amounts of Data
of Data
A rough
A rough selection selection
from large from of
amounts large
dataamounts of data setisofdiscussed
set of performance performance
in thisis discussed in
this subsection. The schematic diagram of the optimization
subsection. The schematic diagram of the optimization process is shown in Figure 5. process is First
shown in Figure 5.
First of all, we established 496 sets of hulls with different
of all, we established 496 sets of hulls with different principal dimensions based on the principal dimensions based
original parentonship,
the original
with theparent ship,interval
variation with theofvariation interval
the principal of the principal
dimension dimension as the
as the con-
constraint
straint condition. condition.
The variation Theofvariation
interval interval
the principal of the principal
dimension dimension
was described was described in
in detail
detail in the
in Section 4. Secondly, Section
hull 4. Secondly,seakeeping,
resistance, the hull resistance, seakeeping, and
and maneuverability maneuverability
indices were indices
were calculated for 496 selected sets of principal dimensions
calculated for 496 selected sets of principal dimensions using resistance, seakeeping qual- using resistance, seakeeping
qualities, andempirical
ities, and maneuverability maneuverability
methods empirical
of Holtropmethods of Holtrop
and Mennen, Bales,and
andMennen,
K and Bales, and K
and T indices, respectively. In addition, we got a data set of
T indices, respectively. In addition, we got a data set of ship performance. Thirdly, a roughship performance. Thirdly,
a rough selection from large amounts of data was carried
selection from large amounts of data was carried out based on constraints and selection out based on constraints and
selection conditions. The constraints and selection conditions
conditions. The constraints and selection conditions were as follows: (a) The resistance of were as follows: (a) The
resistance
the hulls should be smallerof than
the hulls should
that of be smaller
the parent ship at than
the that of the
design parent
speed ship(b)
(19 kn); at the
the design speed
change ranges of seakeeping and maneuverability are within 21% and 9%, respectively. 21% and 9%,
(19 kn); (b) the change ranges of seakeeping and maneuverability are within
Finally, we gotrespectively. Finally,
five sets of hulls we gotthe
through five sets of
rough hulls through the rough selection.
selection.

Figure 5. Schematic diagram of rough selection from large amounts of data in the optimization
Figure 5. Schematic diagram of rough selection from large amounts of data in the optimization process.
process.
The performance parameters for the five sets of principal dimensions and the parent
The performance
ship at aparameters
speed of 19for
knthe
are five sets of in
presented principal
Table 1.dimensions and the parent
ship at a speed of 19 kn are presented in Table 1.
Table 1. Performance parameters for the different principal dimensions and parent ship at 19 kn.
Table 1. Performance parameters for the different principal dimensions and parent ship at 19 kn.
NO. L (m) B (m) T (m) CB CP CWP S (m2 ) RT (KN) Seakeeping (R) Maneuverability (P)
NO. L (m)
1
B (m) T141.2
(m) CB
18.38
C P
5.555
C0.6027
WP S (m 2)
0.6158
RT0.7089
(KN) Seakeeping
2838
(R)
345.1
Maneuverability
13.90
(P) 0.9051
1 141.2
2
18.38 5.555
139.9
0.6027
18.38
0.6158
5.608
0.7089
0.6025
2838
0.6514
345.1
0.7114 2822
13.90347.9
0.9051
13.62 0.9173
2 139.9
3
18.38 5.608
138.6
0.6025
18.38
0.6514
5.661
0.7114
0.6025
2822
0.6507
347.9
0.7596 2806
13.62350.9
0.9173
13.32 0.9291
3 138.6
4
18.38 5.661
137.3
0.6025
18.38
0.6507
5.715
0.7596
0.6025
2806
0.6502
350.9
0.7161 2790
13.32354.2 0.9291
13.03 0.9406
4 137.3
5
18.38 5.715
136.0
0.6025
18.38
0.6502
5.771
0.7161
0.6023
2790
0.6496
354.2
0.7814 2774
13.03357.7 0.9406
12.72 0.9518
5 136.0 18.38 5.771
Original parent ship 132.0
0.6023
18.20
0.6496
6.003
0.7814
0.6025
2774
0.6256
357.7
0.7724 2723
12.72368.1 0.9518
11.57 0.9851
inal parent ship 132.0 18.20 6.003 0.6025 0.6256 0.7724 2723 368.1 11.57 0.9851

As indicated inAsTable
indicated
1, the in Table
hulls of 1,
thethe hulls
five of theprincipal-dimension
selected five selected principal-dimension
combina- combina-
tions had a lower resistance in the 16–20 kn speed range and also
tions had a lower resistance in the 16–20 kn speed range and also larger seakeeping and larger seakeeping and
maneuverability indices. This indicates that the vessels of these five principal-dimension
combinations had better seakeeping and maneuverability.

5.2. Effect Analysis of Principal-Dimension for the Selected Five Sets of Hulls
To analyze the effects of principal-dimension optimization on the resistance, seakeep-
ing, and maneuverability, the resistance of the five hull forms and the parent ship within
the speed range of 4–25 kn were analyzed, and the results are shown in Figure 6.
 to reduce the resistance at high speed, an optimal value can be obtained for the ship beam.
In addition, it is helpful to increase the ship length and reduce the draft for resistance
reduction at high speed. For the selection of one hull form from the five sets of principal-
dimension combinations, if the key consideration is the resistance at the design speed (19
kn), the principal dimensions of the hull form with the minimum resistance are L = 141.24
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2021, 9, 373 10 of 16
m and B = 18.38 m, indicating a 6.7% reduction in resistance, 18.4% improvement in sea-
keeping, and 8% reduction in maneuverability compared with the parent ship.

(a) (b)
Figure
Figure 6.6. Comparison
Comparisonof ofthe
thetotal
totalresistance
resistance and
and resistance
resistance reduction
reduction rates
rates before
before and and
afterafter principal-dimension
principal-dimension optimi-
optimization:
zation:
(a) total(a) total resistance;
resistance; (b) resistance
(b) resistance reduction reduction
rates. rates.

Based on the
As shown in comparison
Figure 6, when of the
theresistance
speed was performance before
lower than 17.5 kn,and
theafter
effecttheof principal-
principal-
dimension
dimension optimization,
optimization was the insignificant,
seakeeping and andmaneuverability
the resistance of of
thethe five selected
optimized hull
hull form
forms
was notwithin the rangelower
significantly of 16–20
thanknthat
wereof further compared,
the parent and the
ship. When the results
speedare was shown
higherin
Figure 7. When
than 17.5 kn, thethe shipofbeam
effect was fixed, the seakeeping
the principal-dimension gradually
optimization was increased with the
more significant,
increasing ship length,
and the resistance andhull
of the the seakeeping
forms after index was maximized
the principal whenwere
dimensions shipchanged
length was was L
=significantly lower than
141.2 m, indicating thatthat of the parent
increasing ship.
the ship Furthermore,
length the resistance
and reducing the draft can is decreased
improve
when
the the ship length
seakeeping underisthe increased, mainly because
same displacement (see wave-making
Figure 7a). Asresistance
shown incan be reduced
Figure 7b, the
by increasing the exhibited
maneuverability ship length theatopposite
high speed. Additionally,
tendency the ship beams
when increasing were identical
ship length within thefor
the five
speed hull forms,
range withWhen
of interest. good resistance
the speed performance.
was less than This implies
17 kn, that for the hullindex
the maneuverability form
adopted
was in thiswith
increased study,
theif ship
the displacement remains
length, indicating adopted
better and the principal
maneuverability; whendimensions
the speed
was higher than 17 kn, the maneuverability index was decreased with shipobtained
are altered to reduce the resistance at high speed, an optimal value can be for the
length. Hence,
ship beam. In addition, it is helpful to increase the ship length and reduce the draft for
resistance reduction at high speed. For the selection of one hull form from the five sets of
principal-dimension combinations, if the key consideration is the resistance at the design
speed (19 kn), the principal dimensions of the hull form with the minimum resistance are
L = 141.24 m and B = 18.38 m, indicating a 6.7% reduction in resistance, 18.4% improvement
in seakeeping, and 8% reduction in maneuverability compared with the parent ship.
Based on the comparison of the resistance performance before and after the principal-
dimension optimization, the seakeeping and maneuverability of the five selected hull
forms within the range of 16–20 kn were further compared, and the results are shown in
Figure 7. When the ship beam was fixed, the seakeeping gradually increased with the
increasing ship length, and the seakeeping index was maximized when ship length was
L = 141.2 m, indicating that increasing the ship length and reducing the draft can improve
the seakeeping under the same displacement (see Figure 7a). As shown in Figure 7b, the
maneuverability exhibited the opposite tendency when increasing ship length within the
speed range of interest. When the speed was less than 17 kn, the maneuverability index
was increased with the ship length, indicating better maneuverability; when the speed
was higher than 17 kn, the maneuverability index was decreased with ship length. Hence,
the maneuverability did not vary monotonically with ship length over a wider speed
range, and increasing the ship length at high speed did not benefit the maneuverability
of the examined hull form. The variation of the maneuverability with respect to the ship
beam was more significant when the ship beam was smaller than 17 m. For the hull with
L = 141.2 m and B = 18.38 m, the maneuverability was good at a low speed but poor at
high speed. The hull with L = 136.0 m and B = 18.38 m yielded the best maneuverability at
high speed, and the maneuverability was improved by 5.16% when the speed was 19 kn
compared with the case of the hull with L = 141.2 m and B = 18.38 m.
 range, and increasing the ship length at high speed did not benefit the maneuverability of
the examined hull form. The variation of the maneuverability with respect to the ship
beam was more significant when the ship beam was smaller than 17 m. For the hull with
L = 141.2 m and B = 18.38 m, the maneuverability was good at a low speed but poor at
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2021, 9, 373
high speed. The hull with L = 136.0 m and B = 18.38 m yielded the best maneuverability at
11 of 16
high speed, and the maneuverability was improved by 5.16% when the speed was 19 kn
compared with the case of the hull with L = 141.2 m and B = 18.38 m.

(a) (b)
Figure
Figure7.
7.Variation
Variationof
ofseakeeping
seakeepingand
andmaneuverability
maneuverabilitywith
withthe
theprincipal
principaldimensions:
dimensions:(a)
(a)Seakeeping;
Seakeeping;(b)
(b)maneuverability.
maneuverability.

5.3. Further Selection from the Five Sets of Principal-Dimension Combinations

5.3. Further
A further Selection fromfrom
selection the FivetheSets
fiveofsets
Principal-Dimension
of principal-dimension Combinations
combinations is dis-
cussed A in
further selection from
this subsection. the five sets
According to the of law
principal-dimension combinations cost,
of actual ship manufacturing is discussed
the in-
in this subsection. According to the law of actual ship manufacturing
crease of ship length under the same conditions will directly lead to the increase in ship- cost, the increase of
ship length under the same conditions will directly lead to the
building cost. In the further selection process, in addition to considering the ship’s re- increase in shipbuilding
cost. In seakeeping,
sistance, the further and selection process, in performance,
maneuverability addition to considering the ship’s resistance,
it also comprehensively consid-
seakeeping, and maneuverability performance, it also
ers the additional construction costs caused by the increase in the length of the comprehensively considers
ship. the
additional construction costs
By comprehensively caused bythe
considering theship’s
increase in the
length, length of seakeeping,
resistance, the ship. and ma-
By comprehensively considering the ship’s length, resistance,
neuverability, we have established a comprehensive optimization index, and the compre- seakeeping, and maneu-
verability, we have established a comprehensive
hensive optimization index Z is defined as follows: optimization index, and the comprehen-
sive optimization index Z is defined as follows:
Li  L0 Rti  Rt0 Ri  R0 Pi  P0
Z  L2.5  Rt0 |  0.8Ri − R0  0.8 PPi − P0 (8)
i − L0 L0 | Rti −Rt R
Z = −2.5 + 0 + 0.8 0 + 0.8 0 (8)
L0 Rt0 R0 P0
Note: Compared with the parent ship, the five ship types have negative effects on the
Note:
relative Compared with
comprehensive the parentindexes
optimization ship, the offive
shipship
lengthtypes andhave negative effects
maneuverability, and on“−”
the
relative comprehensive optimization indexes of ship length
should be added, and the weights of length, resistance seakeeping, and maneuverability and maneuverability, and “ −”
should be added, and the weights
are 2.5, 1, 0.8, and 0.8, respectively. of length, resistance seakeeping, and maneuverability
are 2.5, 1, 0.8,
Where Li,and
Rti, 0.8, respectively.
Ri, and Pi are the length, resistance, rank factor of seakeeping perfor-
mance Where Li , Rti , Ri , and Pindex
and maneuverability i are the length,
of the resistance,
selected five sets rank factorand
of hulls, of seakeeping
L0, Rt0, R0, and perfor-
P0
mance and maneuverability index of the selected five sets
are the length, resistance, rank factor of seakeeping performances and maneuverabilityof hulls, and L 0 , Rt 0 , R 0 , and P0
are the length, resistance, rank factor of seakeeping performances
index of the parent ship, respectively. The calculation results of the comprehensive in- and maneuverability
index of the parent ship, respectively. The calculation results of the comprehensive index
dex of the selected five sets of hulls are shown in Table 2.
of the selected five sets of hulls are shown in Table 2.

Table 2. Comprehensive optimization calculation results of the selected five sets of hulls.

NO. L (m) B (m) Li − L0 |Rti −Rt0 | Ri −R0 Pi −P0 Z

L0 Rt0 R0 P0
1 141.2 18.38 0.0697 0.0625 0.2014 −0.0812 −0.01559
2 139.9 18.38 0.0598 0.0549 0.1772 −0.0688 −0.00788
3 138.6 18.38 0.0500 0.0467 0.1513 −0.0568 −0.0027
4 137.3 18.38 0.0402 0.0378 0.1263 −0.0452 0.00218
5 136.0 18.38 0.0303 0.0283 0.0994 −0.0338 0.00503

According to the comparative analysis of the five optimized hull forms, the hull form
with L = 141.2 m and B = 183.38 m exhibited a good ship resistance but also a loss of
maneuverability due to the increase in the ship length, which increased the production
costs. By comprehensively considering the foregoing factors, it was found that while the
 5 136.0 18.38 0.0303 0.0283 0.0994 −0.0338 0.00503

According to the comparative analysis of the five optimized hull forms, the hull form
with L = 141.2 m and B = 183.38 m exhibited a good ship resistance but also a loss of ma-
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2021, 9, 373 neuverability due to the increase in the ship length, which increased the production 12 costs.
of 16
By comprehensively considering the foregoing factors, it was found that while the dis-
placement was kept constant and only the principal dimensions were changed, five hull
forms outperformed the parent ship with regard to the resistance performance, seakeep-
displacement was kept constant
ing, and maneuverability. The and
shiponly
beam the
ofprincipal
these fivedimensions
hull forms were changed,
was 18.38 five hull
m, which was
forms outperformed the parent ship with regard to the resistance performance,
higher than that of the parent ship. This is acceptable because an increase in the beam is seakeeping,
and maneuverability.
helpful for improving The ship beam
stability. Bothofthe
these five hullperformance
resistance forms was 18.38andm, which waswere
seakeeping higher im-
than that of the parent ship. This is acceptable because an increase in the
proved with an increase in the length, but the maneuverability exhibited an initial im- beam is helpful
for improvingfollowed
provement, stability.by
Both the resistance
deterioration withperformance and seakeeping
increasing length. wereonly
In this study, improved
the dis-
with an increase in the length, but the maneuverability exhibited an initial
placement was kept constant. However, in practice, an excessive ship length increased the improvement,
followed
lightshipbyweight
deterioration with increasing
and reduced its effectivelength.
loading Incapacity.
this study, only the displacement
Furthermore, a long andwas slen-
kept constant. However, in practice, an excessive ship length increased the
der hull requires further strengthening of the hull structure. Therefore, although the lightship weight
main
and reduced
objective of its
thiseffective
study wasloading capacity.
to improve theFurthermore, a long and slender
resistance performance, hull necessary
it was also requires
further strengthening of the hull structure. Therefore, although the main objective of this
to consider the improvement of other aspects of the performance and the practical value
study was to improve the resistance performance, it was also necessary to consider the
of the optimized hull form. According to the calculation results in Table 2, it can be
improvement of other aspects of the performance and the practical value of the optimized
seen that the No.5 ship hull has the largest comprehensive optimization index Z.
hull form. According to the calculation results in Table 2, it can be seen that the No.5 ship
Therefore, after comprehensive consideration, the optimized hull form (new parent ship)
hull has the largest comprehensive optimization index Z. Therefore, after comprehensive
with L = 136.0 m and B = 18.38 m was chosen.
consideration, the optimized hull form (new parent ship) with L = 136.0 m and B = 18.38 m
was chosen.
6. Further Hull Foam Optimization and Verification Based on the Selected New Par-
6.ent Ship Hull Foam Optimization and Verification Based on the Selected New
Further
ParentAfter
Shipthe principal dimensions were optimized, further hull form optimization was
performed
After the onprincipal
the new parent ship (L
dimensions = 136.0
were m and B further
optimized, = 18.38 m) according
hull to the minimum
form optimization was
performed
wave-making on the new parent
resistance. ship (Lprevious
Several = 136.0 m and B reported
studies = 18.38 m)results
according to the
in this minimum
area, and thus
wave-making resistance.
will not be described Several
here. Afterprevious
hull form studies reportedno
optimization, results in this changes
significant area, andwere
thus made
will
not
to the hull form. The optimized hull form was compared with the new parent ship,toas
be described here. After hull form optimization, no significant changes were made
the hull form.
shown The 8,
in Figure optimized
in whichhull
the form was compared
red dashed with the
line indicates the new
bodyparent ship, of
plan lines as the
shown
opti-
inmized
Figurehull
8, inform,
whichand thethe
redsolid
dashed lineline
black indicates the body
indicates planplan
the body linesline
of the
of optimized hull
the new parent
form,
ship.and
On the
thissolid
basis,black line indicates
the ship model ofthe thebody
new plan lineship
parent of the
andnew
theparent
optimizedship.hull
On this
form
basis, the ship model of the new parent ship and the optimized hull form
were created at a scale ratio of λ = 22, and a towing tank test was performed. The mainwere created at a
scale ratio of = 22, and a towing tank test was performed. The main parameters
parameters of the optimized hull ship in the model and the full scale are presented in
λ of the
optimized
Table 3. hull ship in the model and the full scale are presented in Table 3.

Figure8.8.Ship
Figure Shipmodel
modelforfortowing
towingtank
tankexperiment:
experiment:(a)
(a)side
sideview
viewofofthe
theship
shipmodel
modelofofthe
theoptimized
optimized
hull from new parent ship; (b) sketch of the bow; (c) front and stern views of the ship plan line of
hull from new parent ship; (b) sketch of the bow; (c) front and stern views of the ship plan line of
hulls; (d) sketch of the stern.
hulls; (d) sketch of the stern.

Table 3. Main parameters of the optimized hull from the new parent ship.

Parameters Symbols Model Scale Ship Scale

Length overall (m) Loa 6.5818 147.80
Length on waterline (m) Lwl 6.1791 136.00
Beam (m) B 0.8354 18.38
Depth (m) D 0.4095 9.00

Figure 9 shows the resistance of the hull before and after optimization, including the
experimental data, empirical formula data, and resistance reduction. The red line is the
experimental data of the new parent ship, the green line is the experimental data of the
optimized hull of the new parent ship, and the purple diamond points are the Holtrop and
Mennen’s empirical formula (modified) data. Because the new parent ship was formed
 Beam (m) B 0.8354 18.38
Depth (m) D 0.4095 9.00

Figure 9 shows the resistance of the hull before and after optimization, including the
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2021, 9, 373 experimental data, empirical formula data, and resistance reduction. The red line13isofthe 16
experimental data of the new parent ship, the green line is the experimental data of the
optimized hull of the new parent ship, and the purple diamond points are the Holtrop
and Mennen’s empirical formula (modified) data. Because the new parent ship was
by the principal-dimension
formed optimization
by the principal-dimension of the original
optimization parent ship,
of the original theship,
parent newthe
parent
newship
par-
had undergone a round of resistance optimization. Under the condition that
ent ship had undergone a round of resistance optimization. Under the condition that the the hull form
type did not
hull form change
type significantly,
did not the maximum
change significantly, resistance reduction
the maximum resistanceofreduction
the hull optimized
of the hull
from the new parent ship was 1.5%. In addition, a comparison
optimized from the new parent ship was 1.5%. In addition, a comparison between the experimental
between the
data and Holtrop
experimental dataand
and Mennen’s
Holtrop empirical formula
and Mennen’s (modified)
empirical data of
formula the new parent
(modified) data ofship
the
shows that the
new parent shipaccuracy
shows thatcorrection of thecorrection
the accuracy empiricalofmethod based method
the empirical on CFD based
for theongiven
CFD
ship type
for the is reliable.
given ship type is reliable.

Figure 9.
Figure 9. Resistance
Resistance of
ofthe
thehull
hullbefore
beforeand
andafter
afteroptimization,
optimization,including
includingexperimental
experimental data,
data, empiri-
empirical
cal formula data, and resistance reduction.
formula data, and resistance reduction.

Figure 10 shows the

Figure the waveform
waveformof ofthe
thehull
hullininthe
thetowing
towingtank
tankbefore
beforeand
andafter optimi-
after opti-
zation, including
mization, includingthethe
bowbowwave, shoulder
wave, shoulder wave,
wave, and andwave scars.
wave From
scars. Fromthethe
waveform
waveform in-
formation ofofthe
information thesame
sameviewing
viewingangle
angleininFigure
Figure9,9,itit can
can bebe seen that the optimized
optimized ship
ship
has aa smaller
has smaller wave-making
wave-making range.
range. Because
Because the
the length
length of of the waterline
waterline remains
remains unchanged
unchanged
before and
before and after
after the
the optimization,
optimization, the
the frictional
frictional resistance
resistance (1957
(1957 ITTC
ITTC empirical
empirical formula)
formula)
of the
of the ship
ship remains
remains unchanged,
unchanged, andand the
the reduction
reduction in in the
the resistance
resistance of
of the
the ship
ship is
is mainly
mainly
reflected in
reflected in the
the residual
residual resistance
resistance component,
component, including
includingthe the wave-making
wave-makingresistance.
resistance.The
The
above
above waveform
waveform information
information also
also provides
provides this
this evidence.
evidence.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2021, 9, 373 14 of 16
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2021, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 16

Figure10.
Figure 10. Wave
Waveform
formofof the
the ships
ships under
under different
different speeds:
speeds: (a)
(a) Wave
Wave form
form of
of the
the new
new parent
parent ship
ship at
at
the speed of 13 kn; (b) wave form of the optimized hull from new parent ship at the speed of 13
the speed of 13 kn; (b) wave form of the optimized hull from new parent ship at the speed of 13 kn;
kn; (c) wave form of the new parent ship at the speed of 19 kn; (d) wave form of the optimized
(c) wave form of the new parent ship at the speed of 19 kn; (d) wave form of the optimized hull from
hull from new parent ship at the speed of 19 kn.
new parent ship at the speed of 19 kn.
7. Conclusions
7. Conclusions
Joint optimization
Joint optimization of of the
the principal
principal dimensions
dimensions andand hull
hull form
formon onthe
thehydrodynamic
hydrodynamic
performanceofofaabulk
performance bulkcarrier
carrier(origin
(originparent
parent ship)
ship) considering
considering thethe integrated
integrated performance
performance of
of ship
ship resistance,
resistance, seakeeping,
seakeeping, andand maneuverability
maneuverability waswas studied
studied based
based on empirical
on empirical meth-
methods
ods towing
and and towing
tank tank
tests.tests. The following
The following conclusions
conclusions werewere
drawn:drawn:
1. Holtrop
1. Holtrop and
and Mennen’s
Mennen’s method
method is is arguably
arguably the
the most
most popular
popular method
methodfor forestimating
estimating
the resistance ofof displacement-type
displacement-type ships. ships. The results obtained
obtained by by the
the modified
modified
Holtrop method based on CFD for the given ship in the present
method based on CFD for the given ship in the present study exhibited study exhibited good
agreement
good with the
agreement CFD
with theand experimental
CFD data of the
and experimental datatowing
of thetank, goodtank,
towing pertinence
good
accuracy. accuracy.
pertinence
2. Variations of
2. of the
theprincipal
principaldimensions
dimensionsaffected
affectedship
shipresistance, seakeeping,
resistance, seakeeping, andand
ma-
neuverability. Within
maneuverability. Within thetherequirements
requirementsofofregulations,
regulations, owner’s requirements, and
owner’s requirements, and
general arrangement of the ship, ship, principal-dimension
principal-dimension optimization
optimization can can improve
improvethe the
performance of the original parent ship and and provide
provide aa new
new parent
parent ship
ship for
forfurther
further
hull form optimization.
3.
3. The joint optimization
optimization method
method considering
considering thethe principal
principal dimension
dimension and and hull
hull form
form
optimization can further explore the optimization
optimization space
space and
and provide
provide aa better
better hull.
hull.
Some
Some research limitations
limitations in inthis
thispaper:
paper:AllAll
thethe optimization
optimization in this
in this paperpaper
werewere
per-
performed conditions
formed conditions of of calm
calm water,without
water, withoutconsidering
consideringthetheinfluence
influence of of wind and waves;
waves;
Optimization
Optimization targets
targets only
only focus
focus onon resistance,
resistance, seakeeping,
seakeeping, andand maneuverability.
maneuverability.There Thereisis
no verification and attempt to adopt more updated empirical
no verification and attempt to adopt more updated empirical formula methods. formula methods.

Author Contributions:Conceptualization,
AuthorContributions: Conceptualization,R.D.
R.D.and
andT.W.; methodology,
T. W.; methodology, R.D.; software,
R.D.; R.D.;
software, valida-
R.D.; vali-
tion, Y.H. and Y.W.; formal analysis, R.D.; investigation, R.D.; resources, T.W.; data curation,
dation, Y.H. and Y.W.; formal analysis, R.D.; investigation, R.D.; resources, T.W.; data curation, T.W.;
writing—original draft preparation,
T.W.; writing—original S.W., R.D.
draft preparation, andR.D.
S.W., T.W.;and
writing—review and editing,
T.W.; writing—review andR.D. and T.W.;
editing, R.D
visualization, S.W.; supervision,
and T.W.; visualization, R.D.; project R.D.;
S.W.; supervision, administration, R.D.; funding R.D.;
project administration, acquisition,
fundingR.D. and T.W.
acquisition,
All authors
R.D. have
and T.W. read
All and agreed
authors to the
have read andpublished
agreed toversion of the manuscript.
the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This
Funding: Thisresearch was
research funded
was by the
funded by Key-Area Research
the Key-Area and Development
Research ProgramProgram
and Development of Guang-of
dong
Guangdong Province (Grant No. 2020B1111010002); National Natural Science Foundation of(Grant
Province (Grant No. 2020B1111010002); National Natural Science Foundation of China China
No. 51679053;
(Grant 12002404);
No. 51679053; Opening
12002404); Fund for
Opening FundState
for Key
StateLaboratory of Shipping
Key Laboratory Technology
of Shipping and
Technology
Security; Guangdong
and Security; Basic and
Guangdong BasicApplied Basic Research
and Applied Foundation
Basic Research (2019A1515110721),
Foundation the China
(2019A1515110721), the
Postdoctoral ScienceScience
China Postdoctoral Foundation (No. 2019M663243);
Foundation the Fundamental
(No. 2019M663243); Research
the Fundamental Funds
Research for the
Funds for
Central Universities
the Central (No.20lgpy52).
Universities (No.20lgpy52).
Data
DataAvailability Statement:Data
AvailabilityStatement: Dataisiscontained
containedwithin
withinthe
thepresent
presentarticle.
article.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2021, 9, 373 15 of 16

Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design
of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or
in the decision to publish the results.

References
1. Lindstad, H.; Jullumstro, E.; Sandaas, I. Reductions in cost and greenhouse gas emissions with new bulk ship designs enabled by
the Panama Canal expansion. Energy Policy 2013, 59, 341–349. [CrossRef]
2. Lindstad, H. Assessment of Bulk Designs Enabled by the Panama Canal Expansion. Trans. Soc. Nav. Arch. Mar. Eng. 2015, 121,
590–610.
3. Lindstad, H.E.; Rehn, C.F.; Eskeland, G.S. Sulphur Abatement Globally in Maritime Shipping. Transp. Res. Part D 2017, 57,
303–313. [CrossRef]
4. Lindstad, E.; Bø, T.I. Potential power setups, fuels and hull designs capable of satisfying future EEDI requirements. Transp. Res.
Part D 2018, 63, 276–290. [CrossRef]
5. Sariöz, E. An optimization approach for fairing of ship hull forms. Ocean Eng. 2006, 33, 2105–2118. [CrossRef]
6. Hong, Z.C.; Zong, Z.; Li, H.T.; Hefazi, H.; Sahoo, P.K. Self-blending method for hull form modification and optimization. Ocean
Eng. 2017, 146, 59–69. [CrossRef]
7. Rotteveel, E.; Hekkenberg, R.; Auke, V.D.P. Inland ship stern optimization in shallow water. Ocean Eng. 2017, 141, 555–569.
[CrossRef]
8. Cerka, J.; Mickeviciene, R.; Ašmontas, Ž.; Norkevičius, L.; Žapnickas, T.; Djačkov, V.; Zhou, P. Optimization of the research vessel
hull form by using numerical simulation. Ocean Eng. 2017, 139, 33–38. [CrossRef]
9. Deng, R.; Huang, D.B.; Yu, L.; Cheng, X.K.; Liang, H.G. Research on factors of a flow field affecting catamaran resistance
calculation. J. Harbin Eng. Univ. 2011, 32, 141–147.
10. Cheng, X.D.; Feng, B.W.; Liu, Z.Y.; Chang, H.C. Hull surface modification for ship resistance performance optimization based on
Delaunay triangulation. Ocean Eng. 2018, 153, 333–344. [CrossRef]
11. Hou, Y.H. Hull form uncertainty optimization design for minimum EEOI with influence of different speed perturbation types.
Ocean Eng. 2017, 140, 66–72. [CrossRef]
12. Zheng, Q.; Chang, H.C.; Feng, B.W.; Liu, Z.Y.; Zhan, C.S. Research on knowledge-extraction technology in optimization of ship-
resistance performance. Ocean Eng. 2019, 179, 325–336.
13. Kim, H.; Chi, Y. A new surface modification approach for CFD-based hull form optimization. J. Hydrodyn. Ser. B 2010, 22, 520–525.
[CrossRef]
14. Feng, Y.K.; Chen, Z.G.; Dai, Y.; Wang, F.; Cai, J.Q.; Shen, Z.X. Multidisciplinary optimization of an offshore aquaculture vessel
hull form based on the support vector regression surrogate model. Ocean Eng. 2018, 166, 145–158. [CrossRef]
15. Lin, Y.; Yang, Q.; Guan, G. Automatic design optimization of SWATH applying CFD and RSM model. Ocean Eng. 2019, 172,
146–154. [CrossRef]
16. Seok, W.; Kim, G.H.; Seo, J.; Rhee, S.H. Application of the design of experiments and computational fluid dynamics to bow design
improvement. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2019, 7, 226. [CrossRef]
17. Priftis, A.; Boulougouris, E.; Turan, O.; Atzampos, A. Multi-objective robust early stage ship design optimization under uncertainty
utilising surrogate models. Ocean Eng. 2020, 197, 106850. [CrossRef]
18. Papanikolaou, A.; Xing-Kaeding, Y.; Strobel, J.; Kanellopoulou, A.; Zaraphonitis, G.; Tolo, E. Numerical and Experimental
Optimization Study on a Fast, Zero Emission Catamaran. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 657. [CrossRef]
19. Jeong, K.L.; Jeong, S.M. A Mesh Deformation Method for CFD-Based Hull form Optimization. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 473.
[CrossRef]
20. Zhang, H.; Liu, Z.Y.; Zhan, C.S.; Feng, B.W. A sensitivity analysis of a hull’s local characteristic parameters on ship resistance
performance. J. Mar. Sci. Technol. 2016, 21, 592–600. [CrossRef]
21. Pechenyuk, A.V. Optimization of a hull form for decrease ship resistance to movement. Comput. Res. Model. 2017, 9, 57–65.
[CrossRef]
22. Lindstad, H.; Sandaas, I.; Steen, S. Assessment of profit, cost, and emissions for slender bulk vessel designs. Transp. Res. Part D
Transp. Environ. 2014, 29, 32–39. [CrossRef]
23. Lindstad, H.E.; Sandaas, I. Emission and Fuel Reduction for Offshore Support Vessels through Hybrid Technology. J. Ship Prod.
Des. 2016, 32, 195–205. [CrossRef]
24. Lindstad, E.; Alterskjær, S.A.; Sandaas, I.; Solheim, A.; Vigsnes, J.T. Open Hatch Carriers—Future Vessel Designs & Operations.
In Proceedings of the Conference proceedings SNAME 2017, Houston, TX, USA, 24 October 2017.
25. Du, P.; Ouahsine, A.; Toan, K.T.; Sergent, P. Simulation of ship maneuvering in a confined waterway using a nonlinear model
based on optimization techniques. Ocean Eng. 2017, 142, 194–203. [CrossRef]
26. Khanh, T.T.; Ouahsine, A.; Naceur, H.; Wassifi, K.E. Assessment of ship maneuverability by using a coupling between a nonlinear
transient maneuvering model and mathematical programming techniques. J. Hydrodyn. 2013, 25, 788–804. [CrossRef]
27. Holtrop, J. A statistical analysis of performance test results. Int. Shipbuild. Prog. 1977, 24, 23–28. [CrossRef]
28. Holtrop, J. A statistical re-analysis of resistance and propulsion data. Int. Shipbuild. Prog. 1984, 31, 272–276.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2021, 9, 373 16 of 16

29. Holtrop, J. A statistical resistance prediction method with a speed dependent form factor. In Proceedings of the Scientific and
Methodological Seminar on Ship Hydrodynamics (SMSSH ’88), Varna, Bulgaria, 1 October 1988.
30. Holtrop, J.; Mennen, G. A statistical power prediction method. Int. Shipbuild. Prog. 1978, 25, 253–256. [CrossRef]
31. Holtrop, J.; Mennen, G. An approximate power prediction method. Int. Shipbuild. Prog. 1982, 29, 166–170. [CrossRef]
32. Birk, L. Fundamentals of Ship Hydrodynamics: Fluid Mechanics, Ship Resistance and Propulsion; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ,
USA, 2019; pp. 611–627.
33. Deng, R. Optimization of ship principal dimensions based on empirical methods. In House Report; Harbin Engineering University:
Harbin, China, 2017; pp. 29–30.
34. Bales, N.K.; Cumins, W.E. The Influence of Hull Form on seakeeping. Trans. SNAME 1970, 78, 00007480.
35. Bales, N.K. Optimizing the seakeeping performance of destroyer type hulls. In Proceedings of the 13th Symposium on Naval
Hydrodynamics, Tokyo, Japan, 6–10 October 1980.
36. Nomoto, K.; Taguchi, K.; Honda, K.; Hirano, S. On the Steering Qualities of Ships. J. Zosen Kiokai 1956, 99, 75–82. [CrossRef]
37. Nomoto, K.; Taguchi, K. On Steering Qualities of Ships (2). J. Zosen Kiokai 1957, 101, 57–66. [CrossRef]
38. Zhang, X.K.; Li, Y.K. Prediction of Ship Maneuverability Indices. Navig. China 2009, 32, 96–101.
39. Li, Z.B.; Zhang, X.K.; Zhang, Y. Prediction of maneuver ability indecis for ships using SPSS. Mar. Technol. 2007, 32, 2–5.
40. Hong, B.G.; Yu, Y. Ship’s, Kand T indices statistics analysis. J. Dalian Marit. Univ. 2000, 26, 29–33.
41. Yao, J.; Ren, Y.Q.; Li, X. Statistical Analysis of Fishing Vessel’s Maneuverability Indexes K and T. Navig. China 2003, 54, 31–33.
42. Guo, C.Y.; Wu, T.C.; Zhang, Q.; Lou, W.Z. Numerical simulation and experimental studies on aft hull local parameterized
non-geosim deformation for correcting scale effects of nominal wake field. Brodogradnja 2017, 68, 77–96. [CrossRef]
43. Deng, R.; Huang, D.B.; Li, J.; Cheng, X.K.; Lei, Y. Discussion on flow field CFD factors influencing catamaran resistance calculation.
J. Mar. Sci. Appl. 2010, 9, 187–191. [CrossRef]