Advertisement

Journal of Marine Science and Application

, Volume 11, Issue 1, pp 59–67 | Cite as

Optimal structural design of the midship of a VLCC based on the strategy integrating SVM and GA

  • Li Sun
  • Deyu Wang
Research Papers

Abstract

In this paper a hybrid process of modeling and optimization, which integrates a support vector machine (SVM) and genetic algorithm (GA), was introduced to reduce the high time cost in structural optimization of ships. SVM, which is rooted in statistical learning theory and an approximate implementation of the method of structural risk minimization, can provide a good generalization performance in metamodeling the input-output relationship of real problems and consequently cuts down on high time cost in the analysis of real problems, such as FEM analysis. The GA, as a powerful optimization technique, possesses remarkable advantages for the problems that can hardly be optimized with common gradient-based optimization methods, which makes it suitable for optimizing models built by SVM. Based on the SVM-GA strategy, optimization of structural scantlings in the midship of a very large crude carrier (VLCC) ship was carried out according to the direct strength assessment method in common structural rules (CSR), which eventually demonstrates the high efficiency of SVM-GA in optimizing the ship structural scantlings under heavy computational complexity. The time cost of this optimization with SVM-GA has been sharply reduced, many more loops have been processed within a small amount of time and the design has been improved remarkably.

Keywords

very large crude carrier (VLCC) structural scantlings structural optimization metamodel support vector machine (SVM) genetic algorithms (GA) double-hull oil tanker common structural rules (CSR) 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Andric J, Žanić V (2010). The global structural response model for multi-deck ships in concept design phase. Ocean Engineering, 37(8–9), 688–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arai M, Shimizu T, Suzuki T (2000). Optimization of transverse bulkhead design by response surface methodology. Journal of the Kansai Society of Naval Architects of Japan, 234, 237–244.Google Scholar
  3. Chang Chihchung, Lin Chinjen (2011). LIBSVM: a library for support vector machines. ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology (TIST), 2(3), 27:1–27:27.Google Scholar
  4. Desai KM, Survase SA, Saudagar PS, Lele SS, Singhal RS (2008). Comparison of artificial neural network (ANN) and response surface methodology (RSM) in fermentation media optimization: case study of fermentative production of scleroglucan. Biochemical Engineering Journal, 41(3), 266–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Gou Peng, Liu Wei, Cui Weicheng. (2007). A comparison of approximation methods for multidisciplinary design optimization of ship structures. Journal of Ship Mechanics, 11(6), 913–923.Google Scholar
  6. Haykin SS (1999). Neural networks: a comprehensive foundation. Prentice Hall, 72–339.Google Scholar
  7. Hughes OF (1983). Ship structural design: a rationally-based, computer-aided, optimization approach. Wiley, New York, 368–389.Google Scholar
  8. Hughes OF, Mistree F, Žanić V (1980). A practical method for the rational design of ship structures. Journal of Ship Research, 24(2), 101–113.Google Scholar
  9. Jones DR, Schonlau M, Welch WJ (1998). Efficient global optimization of expensive black-box functions. Journal of Global Optimization, 13(4), 455–492.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Li Weihong, Liu Lijuan, Gong Weiguo (2010). Multi-objective uniform design as a SVM model selection tool for face recognition. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(6), 6689–6695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Liu Xu, Lu Wencong, Jin Shengli, Li Yawei, Chen Nianyi (2006). Support vector regression applied to materials optimization of sialon ceramics. Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems, 82(1–2), 8–14.Google Scholar
  12. Nandi S, Badhe Y, Lonari J, Sridevi U, Rao BS, Tambe SS (2004). Hybrid process modeling and optimization strategies integrating neural networks/support vector regression and genetic algorithms: study of benzene isopropylation on Hbeta catalyst. Chemical Engineering Journal, 97(2–3), 115–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Satish Kumar YV, Mukhopadhyay M (2000). Finite element analysis of ship structures using a new stiffened plate element. Applied Ocean Research, 22(6), 361–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Shao Xiongfei, Yu Minghua, Guo Xiaodong (2008). Structure optimization for very large oil cargo tanks based on FEM. Ship Building of China, 49(2), 41–51.Google Scholar
  15. Suzuki T, Arai M, Shimizu T (2000). On the application of response surface methodology to the optimization of ship structural design. Journal of the Society of Naval Architects of Japan, 188, 545–557.Google Scholar
  16. Vapnik VN (1998). Statistical learning theory. Wiley-Interscience, New York, 401–570.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. Vapnik VN (2000). The nature of statistical learning theory. Springer Verlag, New York, 93–224.zbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Harbin Engineering University and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.State Key Laboratory of Ocean EngineeringShanghai Jiao Tong UniversityShanghaiChina

Personalised recommendations