See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/320184120

DECISION SUPPORT FOR DESIGNING NEW LNG TERMINALS

Conference Paper · May 2014

CITATION READS

1 115

5 authors, including:

Michael Rustell Yaochu Jin

University of Surrey University of Surrey
6 PUBLICATIONS   10 CITATIONS    467 PUBLICATIONS   12,397 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Ben Gouldby
HR Wallingford
67 PUBLICATIONS   1,110 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Building Information Modelling Driven by Evolutionary Computing View project

SWARM-ORGAN-- A theoretical framework for swarms of GRN-controlled agents which display adaptive tissue-like organisation View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Michael Rustell on 03 October 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 PIANC World Congress San Francisco USA 2014

DECISION SUPPORT FOR DESIGNING NEW LNG TERMINALS

by
Michael Rustell1,2, Aurora Orsini1, Soon-Thiam Khu2, Yaochu Jin2 and Ben
Gouldby1
ABSTRACT
This paper introduces a decision support system for developing LNG terminal concept designs. The
system enables the engineer to undertake an automated search for designs that optimise key
objectives. These objectives can include both capital and maintenance costs for example. The system
avoids extensive redesign associated with the manual design process that can be time consuming and
hence costly. This allows greater efficiency in the design process to be achieved. In addition, as the
system automatically searches and compares a wide range of designs, greater confidence in the final
design is also achieved.
The software system comprises a main design calculation model which is linked to an evolutionary
optimisation algorithm. The optimisation algorithm generates potential design configurations. The
design calculation module then evaluates the performance of the design with regard to specified
objectives. This process is then iterated until designs that are optimised have been generated.
A case study of an LNG terminal concept designed using the traditional manual approach is used to
assess the performance of the system. The output from the automated systems suggests that moving
the terminal closer to the shore would result in a whole-life cost saving in the order of 30%, even
though there are additional maintenance dredging costs associated with the nearshore location.
INTRODUCTION
Natural gas is increasing in demand as its environmental impact is less than that of oil or coal and
there are abundant supplies, often in remote locations. When the temperature of natural gas is
th
reduced to its boiling point of -161°, it condenses into a liquid 1/600 the volume. As a liquid it can be
exported in dedicated shipping vessels and regasified at the destination. To load a vessel with LNG,
an exportation terminal is required to provide a safe environment for vessels to access the berthing
area and load LNG onto a vessel. Although LNG terminals are complex, there are a few key structures
that comprise the majority of the capital cost, these are the breakwater, channel and trestle (Figure 1).

Basin
Trestle Berth

Breakwater

Channel

Figure 1: Rendering of an LNG terminal

The cost of these structures is highly sensitive to the location of the berth. The further offshore the
berth, the longer the trestle, larger the breakwater cross-section and higher the capital costs. Inshore

1
HR Wallingford, UK, m.rustell@hrwallingford.com
2
University of Surrey, UK
1 of 13
 PIANC World Congress San Francisco USA 2014

locations require a longer access channel which can substantially increase the capital and
maintenance dredging costs. This increase needs to be considered with regard to the lower capital
costs associated with a smaller breakwater crest and armour due to depth limited wave breaking.
Judging the optimum berth location in terms of capital and maintenance costs is one of the most
important decisions of the design phase. Traditionally, this decision is made using judgement, intuition
and experience gained from similar projects and whilst robust designs are possible, only a handful of
concepts can be considered due to time and financial constraints. This approach has the potential to
leave many good and possibly better concepts undiscovered.
The importance of developing sound initial concepts cannot be underestimated as changes become
harder and more expensive to implement as time progresses. This is particularly important when
designing for the marine environment as conditions and processes are weather-dependent, subject to
significant uncertainty and have complex interactions. Generally, an LNG terminal design follows the
stages in Figure 2. Spending time ensuring that the concept is well thought through reduces the
chance of a redesign later. The ‘Concept Design’ and ‘pre-FEED’ stages are highlighted in Figure 2 as
these are the stages in which the concepts are generated and compared to one another. The software
system that has been developed focuses on these two stages.

Figure 2: Design stages of an LNG terminal

Numerical models exist for simulating many physical processes and providing key environmental
design parameters including extreme waves, nearshore transformed waves and sediment transport.
Often, the models are run by different specialists and it is therefore difficult for a single person to
simultaneously consider the impact of multiple studies with regard to how they are driving the cost,
especially when the concept is still in development. This is clearly a limitation on the design process.
Headland (2010) proposes a model for the probabilistic design of harbours including the effects of
sedimentation through modelling the processes required to develop concept design for harbours. In
the paper, he compares a range of harbour options ranging from onshore to offshore, concluding that
substantial cost savings can be achieved with an inshore option in the selected case study. This gives
an indication that models can be used effectively to support the early stage decision making process.
AIMS
This paper introduces a decision support system for the design of LNG terminals that enables the
engineer to consider the impact of multiple processes simultaneously and facilitates the systematic
exploration for designs that minimise key objectives such as capital cost and maintenance cost. This is
achieved by modelling the flow of information required to design a maritime terminal, automating many
of the key methodologies used to predict design conditions and perform calculations and structuring
them as a single algorithm that is able to generate LNG terminal layout concepts.

2 of 13
 PIANC World Congress San Francisco USA 2014

OVERVIEW OF THE SYSTEM

An overview of the model processes is shown in Figure 3. The individual steps a-i will be discussed
briefly. Each step requires several inputs, some of which are data files used to characterise the site
(Table 1) and others are the decision variables that the engineer is trying to optimise in order to
develop a safe and economical LNG terminal concept (Table 2).

Design Parameter Description

Start
Extreme Waves Joint probability conditions
Data from offshore wave
Wave Time Series buoys, usually 15 years+
Select [X,Y]
location
Current Data Time series or mean values
Bathymetry XYZ file from survey vessel
Find depth (Z), Vessel Data Design vessel
bed slope and
a
contour direction Breakwater Breakwater design inputs for
at point (X,Y)
Variables armour stability formulae
Cost Data Material unit rates
Propagate waves
b
Inputs to PIANC Approach
to location
Channel Variables Channels guidance formulae
Sediment Data From field studies
Table 1: Design parameter data inputs
Test operability of
c
berthed vessel

Decision Description
Design breakwater Breakwater Variable
Yes
cross-section required?
Berth Coordinates of the proposed berth
No
coordinates location
Channel Channel offset angle relative to
Calculate Calculate channel
f
Angle (°) contour normal
breakwater length width and depth
LHS Whether the channel originates from
(Boolean) the left or right side of the breakwater
e
Breakwater Breakwater offset angle relative to
Calculate channel Angle (°) contour normal
g
volume
Overdredge Additional dredging to accommodate
(m) sediment infill to channel and basin
Front Slope Front slope gradient of breakwater
Channel infill h (1:n)
Rear Slope Rear slope gradient of breakwater
(1:n)

Capital / Breakwater Length of the left hand side of the

i
maintenance cost Length LH breakwater
(m)
Breakwater Length of the right hand side of the
Length RH breakwater
End
(m)
Table 2: Decision variables for model
Figure 3: Flow diagram of LNG terminal design
algorithm

3 of 13
 PIANC World Congress San Francisco USA 2014

a. Depth, Slope Direction and Bedslope Gradient

The first step is to interrogate the bathymetry at the proposed location and extract the depth (h), slope
direction (to orientate the breakwater and channel) and bed slope gradient    /  (for refraction
and sediment infill). This is shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4: Plan of contour normal (LH), cross-section of water depth and bed slope (RH)

b. Wave Transformation
Next, the waves are transformed to the proposed berth location using a random wave transformation
model to predict wave heights and directions. This is performed for the extreme waves for designing
the breakwater and the time series of regular interval measurements over a sustained period to
estimate how much downtime the vessel will incur. Both processes use formulae found in Goda (2010)
although it is possible to use 2D or 3D models to obtain more accurate results if necessary.
c. Vessel Downtime
The transformed wave time series is now used to find the percentage downtime incurred by a moored
vessel without an breakwater. Threshold curves of Hs vs. Tp are used to test whether each wave is
within safe mooring limits. If a higher percentage of waves exceed the threshold than allowed, a
breakwater is required to provide additional protection to the vessel berth.
d. Breakwater Cross-Section
The breakwater cross-section is now calculated using Owens method of overtopping for the crest
height Rc (Besley, 1991) and van-der Meer’s or Hudson’s slope stability formulae (Hudson, 1958; van
der Meer, 1988) to determine the armour size using rock or concrete armour units respectively.

e. Breakwater Length
There are two methods available in the model for calculating the required breakwater length. The first
is to set a target amount of downtime (say 5%) and to use an iterative approach to find the
corresponding breakwater length (see (Rustell, 2014)). The second is to specify the length of each
side of the breakwater and find the corresponding level of downtime. The first approach can be used
on single objective problems whereas the second approach can be used in multi-objective problems to
minimise the breakwater length whilst simultaneously minimising other objectives. Both approaches
use Kraus’ approximation of Goda’s random wave diffraction method (Kraus, 1984).
f. Channel width / Depth
The channel width and depth are calculated using the guidance found in PIANC WG49 (2014) where
the dimensions of the design vessel are multiplied by factors derived through calculation.
g. Channel / Basin Volume
The channel outline is extruded from the specified side of breakwater (LHS/RHS) in the Slope
Direction ± Breakwater Angle until it reaches the safe depth that the vessel requires (usually around
17m). Superimposing the channel onto the bathymetric dataset allows the dredge volume to be easily
calculated. The basin and berth pocket shapes are calculated using rules of thumb that ensure there is
adequate manoeuvring space before calculating their volumes as per the channel.
h. Sediment infill
Sediment build-up in the channel and basin is then calculated using the Soulsby-van Rijn approach for
combined wave and currents (Soulsby, 1997) although other methods could equally be used.

4 of 13
 PIANC World Congress San Francisco USA 2014

i. Capital / Maintenance Cost

The capital costs are calculated by multiplying material volumes with user defined unit rates whilst the
maintenance costs of the breakwater and trestle are calculated as 1% of the capital per annum,
discounted to present value. The channel maintenance cost is calculated based on the volume of
deposited sediment, frequency of maintenance dredging and unit rate for removal of soft sediment.
OPTIMISATION
Genetic Algorithms (GA’s) have been used extensively to solve global optimisation problems since the
technique was first published by Holland in 1975. The GA is a stochastic search technique based on
Darwin’s theory of natural selection, whereby the first generation of a population of solutions
(chromosomes) are randomly generated, ranked according to how well they achieve the objective
function (fitness) and the “fittest” are then selected to become parents of the succeeding generation.
Child solutions are created with varying traits of each parent, often with an element of mutation and
randomness. Through this process, large search spaces can be covered and optimal solutions to
complex and non-linear problems found. Figure 5 (LH) shows the processes of a genetic algorithm.

Start

Initialise population of
chromosomes through
random sampling

Run model for each

chromosome in
population

Evaluate fitness of each

chromosome

Replace current
chromosome Stopping
Stop
population with criteria met
new population

Select parents
chromosomes from
mating pool

Crossover parent
chromosomes to generate
offspring

Mutate random genes in

offspring chromosomes

Figure 5: Genetic algorithm (LH), Pareto Front (RH)

To rank the fitness of the solutions, Pareto ranking is often used. Pareto ranking is where no single
solution can perform better in an objective without compromising its performance in another. The
graphical form of this is often the trade-off curve as shown in Figure 5 (RH) (source (Jin and Sendhoff,
2008)) where the blue solutions are optimal and the red and yellow solutions are not.

5 of 13
 PIANC World Congress San Francisco USA 2014

CASE STUDY
A pre-FEED was conducted by HR Wallingford to investigate the potential costs of developing an LNG
exportation facility in a remote location with a small annual construction window. Table 3 shows some
of the key input parameters to the design and Table 4 shows the estimated costs, which are high as
substantial uncertainty exists due to the lack of accurate cost data in this region and the uncertainty of
construction in a remote location within a limited window.

Vessel Parameters Value Unit

LOA 300 m
Beam 52 m
Draught 11.9 m
Throughput 6 MMT/annum

Design Wave Parameters Value Unit

Return Period 1000 years
Hs 7.4 m
Tp 12.5 s
WL 0.8 m

Sediment Transport Parameters Value Unit

Current Velocity 0.05 m/s average
d50 0.3 mm
d90 0.35 mm
Table 3: Input parameters

Material Rate £ Unit Description

Rock 150 m3 High level cost for all rock, concrete and core material
Dredging - Rock 20 m3 Removal and disposal of rock
Dredging - Sediment 8 m3 Removal and disposal of sediment
Trestle 42,000 m Cost/m for trestle, topside and cryogenic pipes
Table 4: Material costs accounting for sourcing and construction in arctic conditions

Figure 6 shows the general arrangement that resulted from the studies undertaken during pre-FEED.
The blue outline is the channel and basin perimeter, the green line is the trestle. The breakwater can
be considered as two structures: the one protecting the vessel from oncoming waves (main
breakwater) and the one connecting to shore (MOF breakwater). There is a groyne at the west to
minimise sediment transport and the terminal is integrated with the MOF and tug pen.
The majority of the waves in the time series are short-crested, only exceeding 10s peak period (Tp)
0.3% of the time and a 2m significant wave height (Hs) 7.7% of the time although some waves are
significantly larger (<6.5m Hs). As the current velocity is relatively low, this suggests that sediment
transport in the surf zone will be driven through wave action.
The breakwater is a rubble-mound structure, armoured with concrete armour units. It has a front slope
of 1:3, a rear slope of 1:1.5, a crest elevation of 10m and a crest width of 14m as shown in Figure 7.
The breakwater has a shallow front slope as requested by the client. The channel is 300m wide and
has a depth of 16.8m. The basin has a depth of 16.8m and a turning circle diameter of 600m. The
berth pocket has a depth of 14.2m and the MOF basin has a depth of 9m.

6 of 13
 PIANC World Congress San Francisco USA 2014

Figure 6: Pre-FEED output layout

B  14m

Rc  10m Not to scale

1: 3 1 : 1.5

Figure 7: Breakwater cross-section

MODEL RUN
To test the performance of the software system, the existing design obtained using the traditional
approach was parameterised using the variables defined in Table 1. The layout (shown in black) that
was generated from the software system has been superimposed onto the original diagram in Figure
8. There are slight differences although in practical terms it is identical. The associated capital costs of
both approaches are shown in Table 5 (maintenance costs were not developed using the traditional
approach during the pre-FEED).

7 of 13
 PIANC World Congress San Francisco USA 2014

Figure 8: Layout produced by the model superimposed onto the original layout

Pre-FEED Capital Software System

Item Accuracy
Cost (£m) Capital Cost (£m)
Main breakwater 153 152 0.99
MOF breakwater 131 100 0.76
Dredging 120 113 0.94
Trestle 82 83 1.01
Total 486 450 0.93
Table 5: Comparison of pre-FEED design and model design output

The costs produced by the model are generally within 6% of the original although there is a
discrepancy between the MOF breakwater costs. This is due to the volume being calculated using a
section at the -9m contour as an average section for the all length leading to an over-estimate of the
total volume during the pre-FEED, whereas the model calculates the cross-section at 25m intervals for
a more accurate value. There is also a 5% difference between the dredge volumes due to coding the
model in a manner that ensures robust and sensible designs are created for any realistic inputs.
OPTIMISING THE INPUTS
With the model validated by replicating the pre-FEED generated layout, a genetic algorithm can now
be used to find the decision variables that produce the most desirable layouts. The NSGA2 (Deb et al.,
2002), which is a well-established multi-objective evolutionary optimisation algorithm has
implemented. The aim is to simultaneously minimise 3 objectives: capital cost, maintenance cost and
vessel downtime due to waves. The algorithm will run for 100 generations of 250 solutions. Each
solution takes 3 seconds on a laptop with a 2.6ghz processor and 4gb or RAM running Windows 7 ,
taking a total of 21 hours until the final population of optimised layouts are generated. As requested by
the client, the front and rear slopes are 1:3 and 1:1.5 respectively. The optimisation algorithm is free to
develop layouts without user intervention or a priori knowledge of what an ‘optimised’ layout will look
like, meaning that a large number of potential solutions exists.

8 of 13
 PIANC World Congress San Francisco USA 2014

RESULTS
Figure 9 shows the proposed berth location of the 250 layouts optimised for capital cost, maintenance
cost and berth downtime. The original layout is also included for reference. Each point represents the
design of an entire LNG terminal concept performed autonomously by the model using Decision
Variables selected by the optimisation algorithm.
There is reasonable variation in the berth locations; some are close to shore and many more are
further located offshore. The model uses a simplified method for calculating sediment infill and has not
been calibrated with long term site measurements as these are not currently available. The algorithm
has not produced layouts with berth positions between the -5m contour and the -11m contour where
significant littoral drift may occur, instead it shows solutions either further offshore to reduce
sedimentation or inshore where the capital costs reduce enough to make it economically viable.
The optimised solutions are reasonably perpendicular to the trestle origin although there are a few
outlier results located to the east of the site which is to be expected when optimising for multiple
objectives simultaneously. These results are likely to be highly optimal for downtime (< 2%), however
would not necessarily be selected as a potential design options as they are not clearly feasible
locations .

Figure 9: Berth locations produced by the optimisation algorithm superimposed onto the bathymetry

Figure 10 shows box and whisker diagrams of capital and maintenance costs displaying the range,
mean, median and upper and lower quartiles of the 250 optimised layouts. There is a range of £400m
and £60m in the results respectively, which is large and indicative of a diverse population, albeit with
some layouts that could be deemed too expensive. Capital costs are spread evenly throughout the
range and the mean and median are both around £460m. The maintenance costs however are
skewed toward the minimum as many layouts are in deeper water where less maintenance dredging is
required. Channel infill is more prevalent in shallow water berth locations where sediment is agitated
through increased wave/seabed interaction, requiring more frequent maintenance dredging. The
original layout as produced by the model has a capital cost of £450m which is slightly lower than the
mean and median as produced by the optimisation algorithm. This signifies that the pre-FEED design
is representative of a ‘typical layout produced by the algorithm, performing reasonably well in all
criteria. The most economic layouts are located close to the shore where trestle costs reduce and
breakwater costs are exponentially lower, even when accounting for increased sedimentation.

9 of 13
 PIANC World Congress San Francisco USA 2014

Figure 10: Box and whisker diagrams of capital and maintenance costs of the 250 optimal layouts

Three-dimensional Pareto surfaces can be produced for the specified objectives. Figure 11 shows a
2D perspective i.e. a Pareto front with respect to capital cost and maintenance cost. It can be noticed
that many solutions lie on the Pareto front although there are also some results that are not optimal in
either capital or maintenance cost, due to achieving greater optimality in the third objective, downtime.
The Pareto front is a useful method of finding a solution that performs well enough in each objective to
satisfy design requirements.
Three solutions corresponding to different water depths and also increasing distances offshore have
been selected for comparison with the design solution resulting from the traditional design approach.
Each of the selected solutions are realistic and has less than 5% berth downtime which was a client
requirement for the project of the present case study. The layout resulted from a traditional design
approach is shown to be located on the edge of the Pareto front. Although is not optimal with respect
to capital and maintenance compared to the other solutions produced by the algorithm, it does have
low berth downtime of less than 3%.

Figure 11: Graph of capital vs. maintenance cost

The layouts generated by the optimisation algorithm are shown in Figure 12 with the colours green,
blue and red used to demonstrate layouts in 3m, 12.6m and 15.8m water depth respectively. For

10 of 13
 PIANC World Congress San Francisco USA 2014

reference, the original layout is shown in black. Tables 6, 7 and 8 show the Decision Variables used to
generate the layouts, physical characteristics and estimated costs of the selected layouts.

Option 4

Option 3

Option 1

Option 2

Figure 12: Berths in 3m (green), 12.6m (blue) and 15.8m (red) water depth. Original in 11.3m (black)

Option Location Channel LHS BW Overdredge Front Rear LH RH

Angle Angle (m) Slope Slope (m) (m)
1 (1600,1600) 4 true -2 0.5 1:3 1:1.5 440 300
2 (2200,1100) 15 false -5 0.4 1:3 1:1.5 300 225
3 (1800,1900) 14 false -7 1 1:3 1:1.5 300 255
4 (2100,2300) 13 false -12 0.9 1:3 1:1.5 300 239
Table 6: Decision Variables for designs derived from the optimisation algorithm

Option h (m) Bed Slope D (m) Rc (m) Slope Direction Hs (m) Tp (s) WL (m)
1 11.3 0.01 16.8 9.9 343 6.7 12.5 1.4
2 3 0.014 16.7 5.1 330 2.4 12.5 1.5
3 12.6 0.007 17.3 10.8 342 8.3 12.5 0.8
4 15.8 0.004 17.2 10.3 338 7.7 12.5 0.8
Table 7: Physical characteristics of the proposed locations

PLF MOF Sub-

Option Type Channel Trestle Total Downtime
BW BW total
Capital 152 100 114 83 450
1 497 0.03
Maintenance 11 7 22 6 47
Capital 27 9 215 43 294
2 349 0.03
Maintenance 4 1 44 6 55
Capital 137 105 77 93 412
3 448 0.04
Maintenance 10 8 11 7 36
Capital 155 207 25 115 503
4 543 0.05
Maintenance 12 16 4 9 40
Table 8: Output capital and maintenance costs and berth downtime

11 of 13
 PIANC World Congress San Francisco USA 2014

DISCUSSION
One of the first things to notice is that the algorithm generated layouts have a shorter breakwater and
smaller basin than the original. The reason for this is that the optimised layouts have aligned the
breakwater to directly face the predominant wave direction and optimised the length to provide enough
berth protection without overdesigning the breakwater. This has resulted in an average of 200m
reduction in the length of the breakwater compared to the original. This has also meant that the basin
area and volume is also reduced as this is partially determined by the breakwater length. Performing
this kind of iterative optimisation manually would only be possible if the client is willing to pay for the
additional man-hours and resources, but an optimisation algorithm can do this autonomously and
without knowledge of what an optimal design should look like. This facilitates the exploration of
solutions that a designer may not consider due to bias toward layouts encountered previously or
time/resource restrictions.
Option 2 is 30% cheaper than the manually designed layout even with such large capital and
maintenance dredging costs (73% and 80% respectively). The validity of this option would have to be
assessed further with regard to whether this amount of dredging is possible during the limited
operational window. This option would also require some onshore excavation for the basin which
could possibly be achieved with an onshore excavator rather than dredge vessel. The capital cost of
the channel (and basin) in Option 3 is 32% less than the original, even though the water depths are
comparable however, the breakwater crest height is also higher as the design wave has not yet
broken. 2D or 3D wave modelling during FEED would help to optimise the breakwater configuration.
Table 7 shows that it is more economical to minimise the overdredge depth at the near shore location
and to maximise it when further offshore. This is consistent across the entire population and indicates
the ability of the optimisation algorithm to find solutions that simultaneously minimise multiple
objectives. In each of the generated solutions the channel does not take the route of least distance to
the required depth contour. This is likely a combination of reducing the rate of sediment infill and
minimising the basin area as the channel alignment does have an effect on this.
The physical characteristics of each location show that the design wave starts to shoal until it starts to
break at around 12m water depth. Wave modelling could help to characterise the wave field more
accurately. Option 2 has the smallest design wave due to depth-induced nearshore wave
transformation which translates into a breakwater crest height that is a factor of two less than the other
options meaning that the breakwater capital cost is 15% of the next cheapest breakwater (Option 3).
Option 4 is the most expensive option, signifying that a deep water option with a breakwater
connected to the shore is not economic at this site. A detached breakwater protecting the berth and a
nearshore tug pen/MOF may make this an attractive option. This could be investigated further.
Overall, Option 2 the most economic and optimal design and is therefore recommended for further
investigation during the FEED. It is possible that through sediment modelling undertaken during the
FEED it is realised that greater levels of sediment infill are likely to occur, in which case, it may be
possible to limit this with a well-positioned groyne to the east. Running this model has allowed
significant information to be drawn from the site on how a range of layouts will perform and their
associated costs.
CONCLUSION
As a method of exploring a wide range of optimised layouts and obtaining first-order cost and berth
downtime estimates, this model has proven successful. The utility of a simple model used during the
conceptual design stage has been proven and its application to a real project has been demonstrated.
Overall, the optimisation algorithm was able to produce a diverse population of layouts that conformed
to standard design guidelines and rules of thumb in a range of locations demonstrating that a wide
range of solutions had been generated through the evolutionary approach. The trade-off between
capital cost, maintenance cost and downtime was explored and attractive options were generated and
investigated. Layouts that were more cost efficient than the original design were successfully
developed without any direction from the user showing that this approach can lead to potentially better
layouts than may have been considered previously. The findings of the results indicate that a 30%
cost saving may be possible with a nearshore terminal and this can be investigated further during the
FEED.

12 of 13
 PIANC World Congress San Francisco USA 2014

REFERENCES
Besley (1991). Overtopping of Seawalls, Design and Assessment Manual. Environment Agency,
Bristol. Wallingford, HR Wallingford Ltd.
Deb, K., A. Pratap, S. Agarwal and T. Meyarivan (2002). "A Fast and Elitist Multiobjective Genetic
Algorithm: Nsga-Ii." IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation 6(2): 182-97.
Goda, Y. (2010). Random Seas and Design of Maritime Structures. Advanced Series on Ocean
Engineering - Volume 33, Series, Editor London, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd.
Headland, J. (2010). Probablstic Optimisation of Ports Including Effects of Sedimentation. PIANC
MMX. Liverpool, UK, PIANC.
Holland, J. (1975). Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems. Series, Editor Ann Arbor, University of
Michigan Press.
Hudson, R. Y. (1958). "Design of Quarry Stone Cover Layer for Previous Term Rubble-Mound
Breakwaters " Research Report No. 2–2, Waterways Experiment Station, Coastal Engineering
Research Centre, Vicksburg, MS.
Jin, Y. and B. Sendhoff (2008). "Pareto-Based Multi-Objective Machine Learning: An Overview and
Case Studies." IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part C: Applications
and Reviews 38(3): 397-415.
Kraus, N. (1984). "Estimate of Breaking Wave Height Behind Structures." Journal of Waterway, Port,
Coastal and Ocean Engineering 110(2): 276-82.
PIANC WG49 (2014). Harbour Approach Channels Design Guidelines. Report of Marcom Working
Group 49, Series, PIANC.
Rustell, M. (2014). Breakwater Length Optimisation Using an Iterative Algorithm. 33rd PIANC World
Congress. San Francisco, PIANC.
Soulsby, R., Ed. (1997). Dynamics of Marine Sands. H R Wallingford. London, Thomas Telford.
van der Meer, J. W. (1988). "Stability of Breakwater Armour Layers — Design Formula." Coastal
Engineering 11: 219-39.

This project has been completeed as part of an Engineering Doctorate with HR Wallingford and the
University of Surrey. The authors would like to thank HR Wallingford and the EPSRC for funding
contributions.

13 of 13

View publication stats