Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 14

Artificial Intelligence in Engineering 1 (1996) 213-226

Copyright C 1996 Elsevier Science Limited


Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved
0954-1810(95)00030-5 0954-1810/96/%15.00

Neural network applications in naval architecture


and marine engineering
T. Ray, R. P. Gokarn & 0. P. Sha
Department of Naval Architecture, IIT Kharagpur, India

(Received 18 November 1993; revised version received 13 September 1994; accepted 26 October 1995)

Neural nets have recently become the focus of much attention, largely because of
their wide range of applicability and the ease with which they can handle
complicated problems. Neural nets can identify and learn correlated patterns
between sets of input data and corresponding target values. After training, such
nets can be used to predict the outcomes from new input data. Neural nets mimic
the human learning process and can handle problems involving highly nonlinear
and complex data even if the data are imprecise and noisy. They are ideally suited
for pattern recognition and do not require a prior fundamental understanding of
the process or phenomenon being modelled. These features make neural nets
rightly suited for solving problems in the area of ship design, marine engineering,
marine hydrodynamics and as such in all the spheres of ocean engineering where
the current methods rely on statistical and empirical correlations. The present
study is restricted to the use of a back propagation network model which
undergoes supervised training. This paper briefly outlines the structure of the
neural nets and its method of implementation. Two case studies have been taken
up to illustrate its capabilities. The example problems include the prediction of the
container capacity of a ship and the estimation of added mass coefficients for
asymmetric bodies of revolution.

Key words: artificial neural networks, ship design, container capacity, added mass
coefficient, nonlinear optimization.

1 INTRODUCTION artificial neural networks refers to the back propagation


network.
Neurocomputing is now a widely publicized information The advantages claimed for artificial neural networks
processing paradigm. Artificial neural networks (ANN) are many,’ and include the following:
have been used for a variety of purposes, such as
detecting faults in control systems, solving nonlinear (4 An artificial neural network uses a generic model
optimization problems, for control engineering appli- which covers a wide class of problems. It does not
cations, for pattern recognition, and so on. This paper require a prior understanding of the process or
looks into the scope of application of artificial neural phenomenon being studied.
networks in the field of naval architecture and marine An artificial neural network can handle complex
engineering as a tool for the solution of design related and nonlinear models.
problems where one relies on empirical or statistical It is robust to noisy data.
relations or databases. The concept here can be also It leads to parallel implementation.
extended to other related fields. It mimics the human learning process.
Among the many existing artificial neural network
paradigms, the back propagation network (BPN) is the present a complete perspective, the counter claims
most widely used network for general engineering or disadvantages include the following:
applications. The BPN is classified as a supervised
learning network, in which the knowledge is captured in (a) Little or no guidance is available for ANN
the strength of its interconnections between a set of structure selection.
artificial neurons. The interconnections are referred to (b) A large number of varying parameters lead to
as weights and they are modified iteratively in order to overfitting of the model. It is not yet clear how to
minimize the error in prediction. In this study the term avoid overfitting of data in such cases.
213
214 T. Ray, R. P. Gokarn, 0. P. Sha

(c) No guidelines are available to avoid getting stuck chances of the minimization process getting stuck
at local optima during minimization of error. at these local minima.
(d) Long training periods may be required.
As yet there is no guideline to fix the number of
(e) Weights and the bias values cannot be interpreted hidden layers or the number of neurons in each
physically.
hidden layer. A model structure is only satisfactory
Having reviewed the different applications of neural if the error in predictions for a test data set (different
networks, they seem to be powerful tools for the from the training data set) is within the acceptable
solution of problems where data sets of various inputs limits.
and corresponding outputs are available but no ana-
lytical expressions exist which can correlate the outputs
to the input variables. References regarding the 2.1 Structure of neural networks
fundamentals of neural networks and the scope of
application can be had from Refs 2-5. This also In general, neural networks are characterized by the
indicates the applicability of neural nets as an following major parts:9
alternative to statistical correlations or empirical
(a) the network topology
relations. Such problems are quite common in the
(b) the computational characteristics of its elements
areas of design in the field of naval architecture and also
(c) the training rule
in other branches of engineering.
An artificial neural network structure with a training Figure 1 shows the basic structure of a back propagation
module has been developed which undergoes supervised network. The circles represent the nodes or the neurons,
training and the error is minimized based on the also referred to as the computational elements. The lines
modified Marquardt Levenberg algorithm. joining the circles represent the weighted information
Two examples are taken up which include the transfer from the input layer to the hidden layer and
prediction of the container carrying capacity of a ship from the hidden layer to the output layer of nodes. The
and the prediction of added mass coefficients of asym- number of nodes in the input layer is equal to the
metric bodies in unsteady flow. A comparison of the number of inputs for the problem whereas the number
results obtained using the artificial neural network of output nodes is equal to the number of outputs for
model and a linear regression model is presented to the problem. The network as shown in Fig. 1 is of the
highlight the ability of such networks in solving several feedforward type. This means that the output of the
problems in the domain of naval architecture and network is not included as a part of the input to any of
marine engineering. the network nodes. The interconnections between the
nodes at each layer retain the weights which are credited
for the predictive performance of the network. As there
2 NEURAL NETWORKS is no guideline to fix the number of hidden layers or the
number of neurons in each hidden layer a variational
The standard architecture of the BPN consists of an study has been conducted to identify a suitable structure
input slab, one or more hidden slabs and an output slab. of the network.
The input slab consists of simple distributing nodes, The input slab having the number of nodes equal to
while the other two slabs have nodes with sigmoidal the number of inputs in the problem at hand is merely
nonlinearities. Cybenko6 showed that any mapping used for distributing the inputs of the network. The
from an input space R” to an output space R” could node i in the input layer receives the ith input parameter
be achieved with two layers of hidden nodes. Later and transfers the ith input to all the interconnections
Hornik et a1.7 showed that with one hidden layer and a associated with it. The jth node in the hidden layer first
sufficient number of nodes, any mapping could be performs a weighted summation of the inputs received
achieved with an arbitrary degree of accuracy.s from all the input layer nodes. The summation is
The main aim of using more complex networks is to computed as follows:
improve upon the mapping accuracy. However if one
proceeds to model the network in a more complex form
the following difficulties may arise: j=l

(4 With a large number of weights which can be where Zj is the weighted sum at the jth node, N is the
varied there is a strong tendency to overfit the number of input layer nodes, wii is the connecting
training data set, resulting in a poor performance weightage between node i of the input layer and node j
on the test set data. of the hidden layer, Xi is the input to the i th input node,
(b) A large number of parameters leads to a greater Bj is the bias associated with the jth hidden layer
possibility of error in estimating the weights. node.
(cl The number of local minima increases with the After computing the weighted sum, as shown in eqn
size of the network and subsequently increases the ( I), each node of the hidden layer performs a sigmoidal
Neural network applications in naval architecture and marine engineering 215

INPUT LAYER

HIDDEN LAYER

OUTPUT LAYER

LEGEND
W~~N+l).l). W((N+l).N)... : Weights for the connections

B(1). BG!).... : Bias of the neurons


Fig. 1. The neural network structure.

transformation of the form The problem can be subsequently modelled as a


minimization problem, where the aim is to arrive at the
Oj = l/(1 + e-q) (2) values of the weights of all the interconnections and the
where Oj is the output of the jth hidden layer node. biases (of both the hidden layer and the output layer
All the outputs of the hidden layer nodes subse- nodes) such that the error function shown in eqn (3) is a
quently become the inputs for the output layer nodes minimum or within acceptable limits.
and a similar sigmoidal transformation is carried out
after the weighted summation. The outputs of a
sigmoidal transformation as shown in eqn (2) can only
3 MODELLING AND IMPLEMENTATION
vary from 0 to 1 whereas the input can be from -cr to
+a. Therefore a scaling of the data is essential.
A feedforward supervised neural network structure has
Based on the nature of training of the network, a
been developed. This neural network has a single hidden
neural network can be classified as a supervised or an
layer of nodes with the scope of varying the number of
unsupervised net depending upon whether it needs a
nodes in the hidden layer. The behaviour of the network
teacher or not. The feedforward network is of the
with its prediction capabilities has been studied by
supervised learning type and the modifications of the
varying the number of hidden layer nodes and has been
weights and the bias values are based on the minimiza-
illustrated with the help of two case studies.
tion of the error function, which is of the form:
In both the case studies the number of nodes in the
input layer is equal to the number of inputs and the
erf = 5 fJu,(i) - yy(i)12 (3) number of nodes in the output layer is equal to the
j=l i=l
number of outputs for the problem analysed. The
where yj”“(i ) is the jth output of the neural net for the modified Marquardt Levenberg algorithm” has been
ith training data set, yj(i) is the actual output from the employed to minimize the error function. The appli-
training data set, Q is the number of training points, R is cation of this algorithm for the minimization of the
the number of outputs for the neural net. error function reduces the training time substantially.
216 T. Ray, R. P. Gokam, 0. P. Sha

INPUT LAYER

HIDDEN LAYER

OUTPUT LAYER

LEGEND

L : Length of the vessel


B : Breadth of the vessel
D : Depth of the vessel
Dwt : Deadweight of the vessel
V : Speed of the vessel
NTEU : Number of containers

Fig. 2. Network structure for case study I.

The use of the modified Marquardt Levenberg algo- this method, whereas in other algorithms the user has to
rithm is also particularly attractive as the initial step provide the initial step sizes for all the variables. The use
sizes for the variables (which in this case are the weights of any nonlinear optimization method for the mini-
and the bias values) are implicitly taken into account in mization of the error function suffers from the drawback

aa~aa ERROR IN PREDICTION LINEAR REGRESSION MODEL


w&m ERROR IN PREDICTION ANN MODEL ( 3 Hidden Layer Neurons )
4.00
1 Q

2.00

z
E
w 0.00

k!i
3 -2.00

-6.00

1000 15 00 XT-T 30 00
POINTS

Fig. 3. Comparison of error in prediction of container capacity using the linear regression model and the neural network model with
different hidden later neurons.
Neural network applications in naval architecture and marine engineering 217

Table 1. (A) The training data sets for case study 1 Table 1. (B) Prediction of container capacity in TEU (number of
neurons in the hidden layer, 3; allowable % error in train& set,
Dwt speed NTEU
0.03%)
(t) (knots)
Data Actual number Predicted number % error
6148 110.5 8.8 18.6 14.9 300
set no. of TEU of TEU
7915 122.3 9.8 20.0 15.5 400
9 628 132.3 10.6 21.2 16.0 500 1 300 317.48 -5.8286
12937 148.8 12.0 23.1 16.8 700 2 400 403.23 -0.8096
14 546 156.0 12.5 23.9 17.2 800 3 500 493.33 1.3339
16 131 162.6 13.1 24.6 17.4 900 4 600 579.11 3.4805
19239 174.4 14.0 25.9 18.0 1100 5 700 683.24 2.3934
20 766 179.8 14.5 26.5 18.2 1200 6 800 782.9 1 2.1351
22 278 184.9 14.9 27.0 18.4 1300 7 900 906.32 -0.7027
25261 194.5 15.7 28.0 18.8 1500 8 1000 1000~11 -0.0113
26 734 198.9 16.1 28.5 18.9 1600 9 1 100 1 10160 -0.1461
28 195 203.2 16.4 28.9 19.1 1700 10 1200 1202-41 -0.2013
31088 211.3 17.1 29.8 19.4 1900 11 1300 1 3 14.20 - 1.0926
32 520 215.1 17.4 30.2 19.6 2000 12 1400 1416.74 -1.1957
6148 110.5 8.8 18.6 14.9 300 13 1500 1510.49 -0.6993
7915 122.3 9.8 20.0 15.5 400 14 1600 1609.76 -0.6102
9 628 132.3 10.6 21.2 16.0 500 15 1700 1707.22 -0.4247
12937 148.8 12.0 23.1 16.8 700 16 1800 1 787.69 0.6836
14 546 156.0 12.5 23.9 17.2 800 17 1900 1888.58 0.6008
16 131 162-6 13.1 24.6 17.4 900 18 2000 1979.71 1.0141
19239 174.4 14.0 25.9 18.0 1 100 19 2 100 2 086.41 0.647 1
20 766 179.8 14.5 26.5 18.2 1200 20 2 200 2 188.56 0.5197
22 278 184.9 14.9 27.0 18.4 1300 21 2300 2 29646 0.1536
25 261 194.5 15.7 28.0 18.8 1500 22 2400 2400.18 -0.0077
26 734 198.9 16.1 28.5 18.9 1600 23 2 500 2511.11 -04444
28 195 203.2 16.4 28.9 19.1 1700 24 2 600 2 630.79 -1.1843
31088 211.3 17.1 29.8 19.4 1900 25 2700 2727.15 - 1.0056
32 520 215.1 17.4 30.2 19.6 2 000 26 2800 2 818.88 -0.6746
33 943 218.9 17.7 30.5 19.7 2 100 27 2900 2 886.10 0.4790
36 765 226.0 18.3 31.3 20.0 2 300 28 3000 2941.10 1.9631
38 165 229.4 18.5 31.6 20.1 2400
Average absolute error: 1.122 238 99.
39 558 232.7 18.8 31.9 20.2 2 500
Average global test set error: 1.726 795 9.
42 323 239.0 19.3 32.6 20.4 2700
43 696 242.1 19.6 32.9 20.5 2 800
45 064 245.1 19.8 33.2 20.6 2900 of getting stuck at the local optima. This is avoided in
46 425 248.0 20.1 33.5 20.7 3000 the present model by allowing the nonlinear tool to start
with different starting points, which in turn refers to a
random multistart process.

A 0 a~ A ERROR IN PREDICTION : LINEAR REGRESSION MODEL


W+m ERROR IN PREDICTION : ANN MODEL ( 4 Hidden Layer Neurons )
2.00 7 fB e
_ &
e
$ @ e

-6.00 1

Fig. 4. Comparison of error in prediction of container capacity using the linear regression model and the neural network model with
different hidden layer neurons.
218 T. Ray, R. P. Gokarn, 0. P. Sha

Table 1. (C) Prediction of contaioer capacity in TEU (number of Table 1. (D) Prediction of container capacity in TEU (number of
neurons in the bidden layer, 3; aUowabk error in training set, neurons in the hidden layer, 4; allowable error in the training set,
045%) 045%)
Data Actual number Predicted number % error Data Actual number Predicted number % error
set no. of TEU of TEU set no. of TEU of TEU
1 300 315.87 -5.2923 1 300 314.40 -4.8018
2 400 396.93 0.7668 2 400 400.76 -0.1911
3 500 492.37 1.5255 3 500 494.8 1 1.0373
4 600 572.07 4.6548 4 600 588.02 1.9964
5 700 696.75 0.4630 5 700 690.65 1.3356
6 800 781.63 2.2953 6 800 791.81 1.0234
7 900 909.93 -1.1039 7 900 897.38 0.2900
8 1000 1016.99 - 1.6992 8 1000 1003.72 -0.3720
9 1 100 1099.16 0.0760 9 1 100 1 103.66 -0.3327
10 1200 1216.32 - 1.3602 10 1200 121044 -0.8700
11 1300 1 307.00 -0.5385 I1 1300 1308.09 -0.6230
399.11 0.0633 12 1400 1406.90 -0.4935
13 1500 493.73 0.4177 13 1500 1506.54 -0.4363
14 1600 613.69 -0.8557 14 1600 1612.62 -0.7888
15 1700 689.36 0.6253 15 1700 1700.84 -0.0496
16 1800 784.88 0.8395 16 1800 1801.14 -0.0634
17 1900 893.25 0.3547 17 1900 1899.28 0.0377
18 2000 981.48 0.9259 18 2 000 1991.27 0.436 1
19 2 100 2 084.64 0.7310 19 2 100 2 083.21 0.7991
20 2 200 2 202.78 -0.1264 20 2 200 2 189.35 0.4837
21 2300 2 302.74 -0.1191 21 2 300 2294.16 0.2535
22 2 400 2413.05 -0.5439 22 2400 2 392.40 0.3163
23 2 500 2 526.5 1 - 1.0605 23 2 500 2 505.96 -0.2384
24 2 600 2637.12 - 1.4279 24 2 600 2 625.70 -0.9887
25 2 700 2 729.53 - 1.0938 25 2 700 2 723.21 -0.8599
26 2 800 2811.30 -0.4038 26 2 800 2 822.04 -0.7873
27 2 900 2 873.97 0.8974 27 2 900 2 890.80 0.3171
28 3 000 2 922.28 2.5906 28 3000 2 946.99 1.7668
Average absolute error: 1.153 597 4. Average absolute error: 0.758 307 87.
Average global test set error: I.760403 8. Average global test set error: 1.179 919 0.

The capability of the network for prediction at the chosen to be a subset of the test data with a uniform
end of its learning process is to be tested only on a test distribution within the test data set. The input and the
data set. The test data set should be exclusive from the output columns of the training data and the test data set
training data set. Therefore the training data set is have been scaled to a maximum value of 1.

.A n *A a ERROR IN PREDICTION LINEAR REGRESSION MODEL


@@e@@ ERROR IN PREDICTION ANN MODEL ( 5 Hidden Layer Neurons )

-6.00 4

15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00


POINTS

Fig. 5. Comparison of error in prediction of container capacity using the linear regression model and the neural network model with
different hidden layer neurons.
Neural network applications in naval architecture and marine engineering 219

Table 1. Q P&ktion of mntaher capacity ia TEU (number of Tabie 1. (F) F’redictioa of cootaher capacity ia TEU (remits
mprollsintbeMdleaIayer,5;~wabke~rintbe~aet, fromthelkarIegmahmodel)
O-05%)
Data Actual number Predicted number % error
Data Actual number Predicted number % error set no. of TEU of TEU
set no. of TEU of TEU
1 300 305.05 1.6847
1 300 3 14.74 -4.9158 2 400 399.04 -0.2394
2 400 39860 @3477 3 500 498.13 -0.3723
3 500 488.82 2.2345 4 600 598.03 -0-3267
4 600 599.97 0.0432 5 700 697.78 -0.3169
5 700 698.47 @2184 6 800 798.17 -0.2283
6 800 799.4 1 O-0726 7 900 895.10 -0.5441
7 900 881.35 2.0719 8 1000 998.27 -0.1725
8 1000 1005*01 -0.5018 9 1100 098.74 -0.1143
9 1100 1 104.81 -0.4378 10 1200 200.15 0.0126
10 1200 1220.69 - 1.7248 11 1300 297.98 -0.1552
11 1300 1302.67 -0.2054 12 1400 396.35 -0.2604
12 1400 1397.13 0.2046 13 1500 1497.94 -0.1368
13 1500 1 505.66 -0.3776 14 1600 1600-20 0.0129
14 1600 1604.11 -0.2508 15 1700 1697.88 -0.1243
15 1700 1682.93 1.0037 16 1800 1803.68 0.2047
16 1800 1793.96 0.3352 17 1900 1902.13 0.1123
17 1900 1898.34 0.0869 18 2000 2 003.85 0.1926
18 2000 2 00340 -0.1700 19 2 100 2 097.06 -0.1396
19 2100 2079.17 0.9917 20 2200 2 198.57 -0.0648
20 2200 2 188.42 0.5260 21 2300 2 302.05 0.0893
21 2300 2 308.89 -0.3868 22 2400 2 398.67 -0.0553
22 2400 2 387.32 0.5280 23 2 500 2 495.83 -0.1665
23 2500 2 507.01 -0.2807 24 2600 2 600.07 0.0027
24 2600 2 636.47 -14030 25 2 700 2 698.79 -ON45
25 2700 2 723.35 -0,865 1 26 2 800 2 796.85 -0.1124
26 2800 2824.11 -0.8611 27 2900 2 895.93 -0.1400
27 2900 2 885.90 0,486 1 28 3000 2 995.57 -0.1475
28 3000 2 94444 1.8518
Average absolute error: 0648 485 60.
Average global test set error: 1.147 246 0.

Table 2. (A) The training data sets for case study 2

LID m RA RI CP Fit. ratio 4 K2 K3

4.00 0.40 0.5 0.100 O-65 31.910 8.66E-02 O-854 0.598


5.00 0.40 0.5 0.100 0.65 20.430 6.29E-02 0.889 0.693
6.00 0.40 0.5 0.100 0.65 14.180 4.80E-02 0.913 0.757
7.00 0.40 0.5 0.100 0.65 10.420 3.81E-02 0.930 0.802
10.0 0.40 0.5 0.100 0.65 5.1059 2.19E-02 0.958 0.880
7.00 0.36 0.5 0.100 0.65 10.420 3.85E-02 0.929 0.800
7.00 0.5 0.100 0.65 10.420 3.78E-02 0.93 0.803
7.00 8:: 0.5 0.100 0.65 10.420 3.75E-02 0.931 0.805
7.00 0.40 0.5 0.100 0.55 8.8159 4GIE-02 0.927 0.814
7.00 0.40 0.5 0.100 OHI 9.6169 3.82E-02 0.930 0.810
7.00 0.40 0.5 0.100 0.70 11.220 3.95E-02 0.928 0.791
7.00 0.40 0.0 0.100 0.65 10.420 3.99E-02 0.927 0.795
7.00 0.40 0.7 0.100 0.65 10.420 3.83E-02 0.929 0.801
7.00 0.40 1.0 0.100 0.65 10.420 3.94E-02 0.928 0.796
7.00 0.40 0.5 0.000 0.65 10.420 3.89E-02 0.928 0.798
7.00 0.40 0.5 0.050 0.65 10.420 3.85E-02 0.929 0.800
7.00 0.40 0.5 0.200 0.65 10.420 3.74E-02 0.93 1 0.804
5.00 0.40 0.5 O*lOO 0.60 18.850 6.32E-02 0.889 0.704
5.00 0.40 0.5 0.100 0.55 17.280 6.70E-02 0.885 0.710
7.00 0.34 0.5 0.100 0.65 10.420 3.87E-02 0.929 0.799
7.00 0.40 0.5 0.400 0.65 10.420 3.65E-02 0.932 0.808
7.00 0.40 0.5 0.500 0.65 10.420 3.63E-02 0.933 0.809
6.00 0.36 0.5 0.000 0.55 12.000 5.27E-02 0.907 0.762
7.00 0.36 0.5 0.000 0.55 8.8159 4.17E-02 0.924 0.805
10.0 0.40 0.5 0.000 0.60 4.7119 2.24E-02 0.958 0.882
220 T. Ray, R. P. Gokarn, 0. P. Sha

Table 2. (B) Prediction of added mass coefficient K, for unsteady Table 2. (C) Prediction of added mass coefficient K2 for unsteady
longitudinal or surging motion, parallel to the x-axis (number of lateral or sliding motion, parallel to paxis (number of neurons in
neuroos in the hidden layer, 3; allowable error in the training set: the hidden layer, 3; allowable error in the training set, O-01or 30
0.01 or 30 cycles) cycles)
Data Actual value Predicted value % error Data Actual value Predicted value % error
set no. of K, of K, set no. of Kz of K2
0.0866 0.086 30 0.336 007 1 0.8540 0.856 42 -0.283 750
0.0629 0.632 32 -0.528 032 2 0.8890 0.890 38 -0.155 220
0.0480 0.488 54 -1.778 314 3 0.9130 0.912 30 0.076 272
0.0381 0.038 79 -1.829381 4 0.9300 0.928 89 0.119017
0.0310 0.030 67 1.060 452 5 0.9420 0.942 38 -0.040 926
0.0219 0.022 10 -0.933 772 6 0.9580 0.955 99 0.209481
0.0385 0.039 23 -1.913696 7 0.9290 0.928 25 0.080 43 1
8 0.0378 0.038 36 -1.491289 8 0.9300 0.929 5 1 0.052 023
9 0.0375 0.037 93 -1.165261 9 0.9310 0.930 12 0.094 407
10 0.0374 0.037 49 -0.246 019 10 0.9310 0.930 70 0.031 505
11 0.0404 0.040 29 0.265 095 11 0.9270 0.927 5 1 -0.055 052
12 0.0382 0.039 53 -3.497 589 12 0.9300 0.928 32 0.180314
13 0.0395 0.038 07 3.598 102 13 0.9280 0.929 30 -0.140 135
14 0.0399 0.040 13 -0.594 693 14 0.9270 0.926 47 0.057 181
15 0.0384 0.039 32 -2.409 593 15 0.9290 0.928 12 0.094 732
16 0.0383 0.038 30 -0.016448 16 0.9290 0.929 14 -0.015 309
17 0.0394 0.039 99 -1.519030 17 0.9280 0.927 69 0.032 802
18 0.0389 0.039 65 -1.936758 18 0.9280 0.927 52 0.05 1 223
19 0.0385 0.039 22 -1.875 156 19 0.9290 0.928 25 0.080 040
20 0.0377 0.038 37 -1.801944 20 0.9300 0.929 45 0.058 707
21 0.0374 0.037 97 - 1.525 457 21 0.93 10 0.929 95 0.112263
22 0.0632 0.065 36 -3.421597 22 0.8890 0.888 58 0.47 1 740
23 0.0670 0.067 49 -0.741911 23 0.8850 0.886 07 -0.121 162
24 0.0387 0.039 45 - 1.961457 24 0.9290 0.927 92 0.155460
25 0.0369 0.037 19 -0.807 439 25 0.9230 0.930 82 -0.847 904
26 0.0365 0.036 60 -0.275 233 26 0.9320 0.93 1 58 0445 120
27 0.0363 0.036 79 -1.361825 27 0.9330 0.932 28 0.076 662
28 0.0527 0.052 75 -0.100 724 28 0.9070 0.906 56 0.048 334
29 0.0417 0.04165 0.100 628 29 0.9240 0.924 57 -0.062 507
30 0.0340 0.032 41 4.657 336 30 0.9370 0.940 77 -0.402417
31 0.0224 0.022 40 1~001031 31 0.9580 0.955 78 0.231413
Average absolute error: 1.490 179 5. Average absolute error: 0.126 103 01.
Average global test set error: 1,783 449 8. Average global test set error: 0.203 198 46.

The average global test set error is defined as The details of the network structure, the method of
//‘u \ I \2 learning and the necessary inputs and outputs are
AGTSE = ((ge(i)‘)/M) outlined in the subsequent sections.

where M is the number of records in the test data set. 4.1 Prediction of container capacity
e(i) is the error in the prediction of the ith test data set.
The variation of average global test set error with The estimation of container capacity has always been a
different training cycles has been analysed in detail by baffling problem for ship designers at the preliminary
Pollard et al.” For the two case studies the average design stage. A container stowage plan can provide the
global test set error (AGTSE) is computed at regular correct number of containers which can be loaded in a
intervals of the random multistart process to identify the ship. However, with very little information at the initial
stopping condition for the learning process. stage of design it is not possible to develop a container
stowage plan. At the preliminary design stage it is
difficult to know whether the principal dimensions of the
4 CASE STUDIES
vessel arrived at would accommodate the number of
containers given in the owner’s requirements.
The following two case studies have been taken up to
An artificial neural network is constructed to solve
illustrate the behaviour of the neural network:
this problem. The number of containers which can be
(4 Prediction of the container capacity of a container accommodated on a vessel having a set of principal
ship. dimensions can be predicted after the neural net has
(b) Estimation of added mass coefficients and the been trained by a database of previously built ships. A
added mass moment of inertia of asymmetric database of container ships obtained from an MSC
bodies. reportI forms the training data set and is shown in
Neural network applications in naval architecture and marine engineering 221

Table 2. (D) Prediction of added mass moment of inertia ability of neural networks to replace standard statistical
coellkient KS for rotation in pitch, nose up and nose down, about correlations in a better form. This example problem is
the horizontal transverse axis at midlength (number of neurons in
based on the theoretical work of Landweber and
the hidden layer, 3; allowable error in the training set, O-01or 30
cycles) Winzer.i3 The added mass coefficients used for the
training of the neural net have been computed using
Data Actual value Predicted value % error
potential theory for a series of streamlined bodies of
set no. of K3 of K3
revolution having fore and aft asymmetry. A typical
1 0.5980 0.598 01 -0.002 053 body of revolution is shown in Fig. 6. The x-axis
0.6930 0.693 40 -0.058 960
0.7570 0.757 13 -0.018 385
coincides with the axis of revolution and the origin is
0.8020 0.799 3 1 0.334685 located at the nose. With L as the length of the body,
0.8350 0.838 19 -0.382 105 and D its maximum diameter, the nondimensional
0.8800 0.878 92 0.122494 coordinates become x’ = x/L and y ’ = y/D. Figure 7
0.8000 0.797 43 0.320 144 shows the input to this neural net which includes L/D,
8 0.8030 0.80123 0.220 062
m, R& Ri, C,, and V. The outputs are Kt, K2 and K3,
9 0.8050 0.803 18 0.225 417
10 0.8050 0.805 16 -0.020 873 where the variables are defined as follows: m is the
11 0.8 140 0.81224 0.215258 nondimensional abscissa occurring at y ’ = 0.5, L/D is
12 0.8100 0.805 58 0.544 970 the length to diameter ratio of the body, RA is the
13 0.7910 0.793 57 -0.325 294 nondimensional radius of curvature at the nose and is
14 0.7950 0.792 73 0.285 240
0.798 88
equal to R,, * L/D2, where Rs is the absolute radius of
15 0.8010 0.263 615
16 0.8010 0.798 13 0.357 479 curvature at the nose, Ri is the nondimensional radius
17 0.7960 0.794 96 0.130 127 of curvature at the tail and is equal to RI * L/D2, where
18 0.7980 0.796 35 0.206 577 RI is the radius of curvature at the tail; CP is the
19 0.8000 0.797 88 0.264 220 prismatic coefficient of the body, V is the flatness ratio,
20 0.8030 0.800 65 0.292 226
21 0.8040 0.80191 0.259 829
Ki is the added mass coefficient for unsteady longi-
22 0.7040 0.702 17 0.259 568 tudinal or surging motion, parallel to the x-axis, K2 is
23 0.7100 0.71068 -0.096 148 the added mass coefficient for unsteady lateral or sliding
24 0.7990 0.796 5 1 0.310 787 motion parallel to the y-axis, and K3 is the added mass
25 0.8060 0.804 22 0.219 997 moment of inertia coefficient for rotation in pitch, nose
26 0.8080 0.806 33 0.206 300
27 0.8090 0.808 28 0.088 574
up and nose down, about the horizontal transverse axis
28 0.7620 0.760 3 1 0.220 764 at midlength.
29 0.8050 0.807 20 -0.274 270 Table 2(A) provides the training data set for this
30 0.8380 0.847 84 -1.175 122 network. The network has been trained separately for
31 0.8820 0.879 15 0.322 994 each of the outputs K1, K2 and K3. Three nodes in the
Average absolute error: 0.229 460 51. hidden layer have been found to predict satisfactory
Average global test set error: 0.26159006. results. Tables 2(B), 2(C) and 2(D) refer to the solutions
obtained for K,, K2 and K3 respectively. Table 2(E)
Table l(A). The input to the network includes the length,
presents the estimates of K,, K2 and K3 using a linear
breadth, depth, deadweight and speed of the vessel,
regression model. The corresponding percentage error is
whereas the output is the container capacity in TEU.
also presented in Figs 8, 9 and 10.
Figure 2 shows the network structure for this problem.
The network behaviour has been studied with the
number of nodes in the hidden layer varying from 3 to 5.
5 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The network has also been studied by varying the
acceptable error in prediction on the training set. Tables
Table l(B) shows the nature of the predictions with
1(B)- l(E) give the solutions obtained. The training data
three hidden layer nodes (neurons) after having under-
set is given in Table l(A). The data sets in Tables l(B)-
gone training with an allowable error of 0.03% in the
l(E) contain the training data sets along with different
training data set. With an increase in the allowable error
test data sets distributed uniformly within the entire
in the training data set from 0.03% to 0.05%, the
range. Table l(F) presents the estimates of the container
average global test set error (AGTSE) value moves to a
carrying capacity using a linear regression model. The
higher value of 1.76 from 1.726. An increase in the
percentage errors of the linear regression model and the
allowable error in prediction from 0.03 to 0.05 reduces
neural network model with different hidden layer neurons
the computational time and also provides satisfactory
are presented in Figs 3, 4 and 5.
results, as shown in Table l(C). The results in Tables
l(D) and l(E) show the effect of varying the number of
4.2 Prediction of added maw coefficients for asymmetric nodes in the hidden layer to 4 and 5. It can be clearly
bodies identified that there is no substantial improvement in the
individual predicted values or the AGTSE value. Thus
This particular case study has been taken up to show the an increase in the number of nodes in the hidden layer
222 T. Ray, R. P. Gokarn, 0. P. Sha

Table 2. (E) Liiar regression model for K,, K2 and KS


Point Actual Pred % Err. Actual Pred. % Err. Actual Pred. % Err.
K1 KI E(z K2 K3 4

1 0.0866 0.092 42 6.727 0.8540 0.86104 0.824 0.5980 0.626 19 4.715


2 0.0629 0.064 05 1.834 0.8890 0.889 46 0.052 0.6930 0.698 32 0.768
3 0.0480 0.048 23 0.488 0.9130 0.91004 -0.324 0.7570 0.75162 -0.709
4 0.038 1 0.038 39 0.763 0.9300 0.926 88 -0.335 0.8020 0.795 96 -0.752
5 0.0310 0.03 170 2.284 0.9420 0.94174 -0.027 0.8350 0.835 55 O-066
6 0.0219 0.023 17 5.838 0.9580 0.968 45 1.090 0.8800 0.907 49 3.124
7 0.0385 0.038 18 -0.812 0.9290 0.924 70 -0.462 0.8000 0.789 29 -1.338
8 0.0378 0.038 59 2.103 0.9300 0.929 05 -0.101 0.8030 0.802 63 -0.045
9 0.0375 0.038 79 3464 0.9310 O-93123 0.024 0.8050 0.809 30 0.535
10 0.0374 0.039 00 4.286 0.9310 0.933 40 0.258 0.8050 0.81597 1.363
11 OMO4 0.04184 3.567 0.9270 0.924 06 -0.316 0.8140 0.808 58 -0.664
12 0.0382 0.040 11 5.009 0.9300 0.925 47 -0.486 0.8100 0.802 27 -0.953
13 0.0395 0.036 66 -7.187 0.9280 0.928 29 0031 0.7910 0.789 65 -0.169
14 0.0399 0.037 44 -6.162 0.9270 0.923 18 -0.412 0.7950 0.785 56 -1.187
15 0.0384 0.038 01 -1.012 0.9290 0.925 40 -0.387 0.8010 0.79180 -1.148
16 0.0383 0,038 77 1.229 0.9290 0.928 36 -0.068 0.8010 0.800 12 -0.109
17 0.0394 0,039 34 -0.149 0.9280 0.930 58 0.278 0.7960 0.806 36 1.301
18 0.0389 0.038 5 1 -0.999 0.9280 0.924 56 -0.370 0.7980 0.789 48 - 1.067
19 0.0385 0.038 45 -0-127 0.9290 0.925 72 -0.353 0.8000 0.792 72 -0.909
20 0.0377 0.038 33 1.673 0.9300 0.928 04 -0.210 0.8030 0.799 20 -0.472
21 0.0374 0.038 27 2.328 0.9310 0.929 20 -0.193 0.8040 0.802 44 -0.193
22 0.0632 0.063 9 1 1.126 0.8890 0.88922 0.025 0.7040 0.707 44 0.488
23 0.0670 0.063 79 -4.784 0.8850 0.888 97 0.448 0.7100 0.716 51 0.917
24 0.0387 0.038 08 -1.589 0.9290 0.923 6 1 -0.579 0.7990 0.785 95 - 1.632
25 0.0369 0.038 15 3.390 0.9230 0.93 1 52 0.923 0.8060 0.808 92 0.362
26 0.0365 0.038 03 4.194 0.9320 0.933 84 0.197 0.8080 0.81540 0.916
27 0.0363 0.037 91 4.438 0.9330 0.936 16 0.338 O-8090 0.82188 I-592
28 0.0527 0.050 2 1 -4.708 0.9070 0.903 59 -0.375 0.7620 0.753 17 -1.158
29 0.0417 0.04175 0.137 0.9240 0.919 57 -0.479 0.8050 0.795 43 -1.188
30 0.0340 0.035 97 5.821 0.9370 0.933 86 -0.334 0.8380 0.833 67 -0.516
31 0.0224 0.026 00 16.08 0.9580 0.964 11 0.637 0.8820 0.905 85 2.704

from 3 to 4 or 5 adds only to the computational time Table 2(E) presents the results obtained using the
without any improvement in the prediction. linear regression model for the added mass coefficients
Table l(F) shows the results obtained using a linear K,, K2 and Kj. It can be noted that the data are
regression model. The data used for the prediction of the substantially better fitted using the neural network
container capacity were obtained from Ref. 9. It can be model with maximum absolute percentage errors of
easily seen that these data collected from real life have 4657, 0.8479 and 1.175 for K,, K2 and K3 as
been presented after necessary transformation in a compared to the maximum absolute percentage
manner which supports easy manual estimation. The errors of 16.08, 1.090 and 4.715 predicted by the
linear regression model provides a good fit for the data linear regression model. One can note that the
with the maximum absolute percentage error of 16847, absolute maximum error in predicting added mass
whereas the maximum absolute percentage errors for the coefficient K1 is as high as 4.657. It is possible to
network models with 3,4 and 5 hidden layer neurons are reduce this by allowing the network to train over a
5.2923, 4.8018 and 4.9158 respectively. larger number of training cycles or by varying the
Though there are no guidelines for the allowable error network structure.
in the prediction of the container carrying capacity of a There is no fixed limiting guideline for the allowable
vessel at the preliminary design stage, one may consider error in the prediction of the added mass coefficients KI ,
it to be around 5%. E(2, Kj. An allowable percentage error of l-2% is
Tables 2(B)-2(D) refer to the predictions of the adequate to identify an estimation method as efficient
network for the added mass coefficients with the number and acceptable.
of nodes in the hidden layer being equal to three. The In both the case studies the network model had a
AGTSE values of 1.783, 0.203 and 0.2615 and the single output. In the second case study one could have
individual predictions for the coefficients K, , K2 and K3 also chosen a network with three output neurons for a
are within the range of acceptance. Allowing a larger better representation of the procedure. Multiple inter-
number of random multistart points and by varying the connected networks and networks with multiple outputs
number of neurons in the hidden layer it is possible to have been used in the artificial neural network model for
reduce the error in prediction. preliminary ship design by Sha et all4
Neural network applications in naval architecture and marine engineering 223

MIdlength portlon

Afterbody 7

Sudlng on Tranevcree Axis

Rotation Aboui Traneverre Axis. Coefficient i


K3

Surging on Fore and Aft AXIS

KZ

of tlaxbn sectionalArea XM-m*L

Mldlength portion

Fig. 6. Definition sketch of body of revolution with fore and aft asymmetry.

6 CONCLUSIONS nodes in each hidden layer, a variational study by


evaluating the AGTSE values for different neural net
The use of the modified Marquardt Levenberg algo- structures can provide an insight to the problem of
rithm for the minimization of the error function to selecting a suitable network structure.
arrive at the weights and the bias values provides a The case studies taken up clearly demonstrate the
faster training process as compared to conventional ability of neural networks to act as an alternative
methods of updating the weights which are based on method to statistical correlations. This also allows
back propagation minimization of error. Moreover, as revalidation of old statistical correlations or empirical
the initial step sizes are computed implicitly by the relations. Therefore, instead of providing a detailed
above method it is not necessary for the user to know estimation method or a database, only the weights and
about the range of variation of the weights and the bias the bias values of a trained neural net need to be stored
values. The use of the random multistart method and subsequently transferred thereby leading to com-
reduces the chances of the process getting stuck at pactness of data transfer. Updating the network weights
local optimal points. With the increase in the number of and the bias values can be achieved by retraining the
data sets or the number of inputs and outputs the size of network with the new available data. Hence neural
the network may be restrictive due to excessive compu- networks identify themselves as a potential tool for the
tational requirements. As there is no fixed guideline to solution of a wide variety of problems in the field of
select the number of hidden layers or the number of naval architecture and marine engineering.
224 T. Ray, R. P. Gokarn. 0. P. Sha

IRO’ lcpl [Fit.]


INPUT LAYER

HIDDEN LAYER

OUTPUT LAYER

LEGEND

L : Length of the body


D : Maximum diameter of the body
m : Nondimensional abcissa at y - 0.5

PO’ : Nondimensional radius of curvature at the nose


R1’ : Nondimensional radius of curvature at the tail

Cp : Prismatic coefficient of the body


Fit. ratio : Flatness ratio
Kl : Added mass coefficient for unsteady longitudinal motion

K2 : Added mass coefficient for unsteady lateral motion

K3 : Added mass moment of inertia for rotaionat motion

Fig. 7. Network structure for case study 2.

MODEL

-15.00 :,,,~,,,,,,,,,I,,,~,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,~~,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
0.00 5.00 10.00 15 00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00
POINTS

Fig. 8. Comparison of error in the prediction of Kl using the linear regression model and the neural network model.
Neural network applications in naval architecture and marine engineering 225

1.50 a a ~0 A ERROR IN PREDICTION : LINEAR REGRESSION MODEL


@BIB(B@~ERROR IN PREDICTION : ANN MODEL

Fig. 9. Comparison
-1.50 I_-!___...
0.00 5.00 IO 00
~‘1”““’
15.00
_lI’
20.00
POINTS
25.00
l!lr
30.F 35.00

of error in the prediction of K2 using the linear regression model and the neural network model.

6.00 AA A a A ERROR IN PREDICTION : LINEAR REGRESSION MODEL


ode@0 ERROR IN PREDICTION : ANN MODEL

-4.00 ml
0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00
POINTS
Fig. 10. Comparison of error in the prediction of K3 using the linear regression model and the neural network model.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS using artificial neural networks. Computers and Chemical


Engineering, 1992, 16(4), 371-7.
2. Kohonen, T., An introduction to neural computing.
The authors gratefully acknowledge the help received
Neural Networks, 1988, 1, 3-16.
from Dr A. N. Samanta and Mr S. Ray of the 3. Lippmann, R. P., An introduction to computing with
Department of Chemical Engineering, IIT, Kharagpur neural nets. Neural Networks, 1988, 1, 13-31.
in providing valuable information regarding the net- 4. Rumelhart, D. E. & McClelland, J. L., Parallel Distributed
work structure formulation. The help received from Dr Processing, Vol. 1. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1986.
5. Mehra, P. & Wah, B. W., Arttjicial Neural Networks:
S. Ghosh, Department of Computer Science IIT,
Concepts and Theory. IEEE Computer Society Press,
Kharagpur in understanding the model behaviour and California, 1992.
its possible interpretations is also gratefully acknowl- 6. Cybenko, G., Continuous valued neural networks with
edged. Finally the authors would like to thank the two hidden layers are sticient. Technical Report,
referees for their valuable comments for a better Department of Computer Science, Tufts University,
March, 1988.
presentation of the paper.
7. Hornik, K. K., Stinchcombe, M. & White, H., Multilayer
feedforward neural networks are universal approximators.
Neural Networks, 1989, 2, 359-66.
REFERENCES 8. Bhat, N. V. & McAvoy, T. J., Determining model
structure for neural models by network stripping. Compu-
1. Mah, R. S. H. & Chakravarthy, V., Pattern recognition ters and Chemical Engineering, 1992, M(4), 271-81.
226 T. Ray, R. P. Gokarn, 0. P. Sha

9. Hemandez, E. & Arkun, Y., Study of the control-relevant 12. Report on operational costs guidelines. Marine Structure
properties of backpropagation neural network models of Consultants (MSC), Sciedam, 1991.
nonlinear dynamical systems. Computers and Chemical 13. Landweber, L. & Winzer, A., ETT Stevens, Report No.
Engineering, 1992, 16(4), 227-40. 572, June, 1955.
10. Marquardt, D. W., An algorithm for least squares 14. Sha, 0. P., Ray, T. & Gokam, R. P., An artificial neural
estimation of nonlinear parameters. Society of Industrial network model for preliminary ship design. Proceedings of
and Applied Maths, 1963, 11(2), 431-41. the International Conference on Computer Applications in
11. Pollard, J. F., Broussard, M. R., Garrison, D. B. & Shipbuilding, 1994, Bremen, Germany.
San,K. Y., Process identification using neural networks.
Computers and Chemical Engineering, 1992, M(4), 253-70.