Chatterjee, Ashok Kumar (1982) A computer model for preliminary

design and economics of container ships. PhD thesis.

http://theses.gla.ac.uk/4845/

Copyright and moral rights for this thesis are retained by the author
A copy can be downloaded for personal non-commercial research or
study, without prior permission or charge
This thesis cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first
obtaining permission in writing from the Author
The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any
format or medium without the formal permission of the Author
When referring to this work, full bibliographic details including the
author, title, awarding institution and date of the thesis must be given

Glasgow Theses Service

http://theses.gla.ac.uk/
theses@gla.ac.uk

A COMPUTER MODEL
AND ECONOMICS

FOR PRELIMINARY
OF CONTAINER

ASHOK KUMAR CHATTERJEE

Submitted

as

Doctor

Department
and Ocean

of Naval
Engineering

B. Tech.

Thesis

of

Architecture

for

DESIGN
SHIPS

(Hons.

the

),

degree

M. Sc.

of

Philosophy

University
July

of-Glasgow
1982

BEST COPY
AVAILABLE

TEXT IN ORIGINAL
IS CLOSE TO THE
EDGE OF THE
PAGE

TEXT
BOUND INTO THE
SPINE

PAGE
NUMBERS
CUT OFF
IN THE
ORIGINAL

CONTAINS
PULLOUTS

Acknowledgements

This

thesis'is

the

within

Department

Engineering,

the

based

Thanks
Mr

and

Naval

of

University

supervision

of
due

are

N. S.

Miller

R. M.

to

Dr

for

research

carried

out

and

Ocean

Architecture

Glasgow

of

Dr

the

on

from

1979

to

1982

under

Cameron.
R. M.

their

Cameron,

Professor

D.

help

considerable

and

Faulkner

encourage-

ment.

am indebted

Welfare,

New

to

the

Ministry

Delhi,

Government

thanks

are

of

of

Education

India

for

and
their

Social

financial

support.
Finally
excellent

due

to

Mrs

Lorna

Peedle

for

her

typescript.

This

thesis

is

dedicated

to

MY PARENTS

Author's
is

original

statement:
except

All
where

the

in

material

reference

is

this

made

to

thesis
other

sources.

TABLE

CHAPTER

OF CONTENTS

PAGE NO.

NO.

SUMMARY

AIMS

INTRODUCTION

DEVELOPMENT

xvii

OF THE

PROJECT

2
OF

4.0.

INTRODUCTION

4.1.

SHORT

4.2.

CHANGES

4.3.

ROUTE

4.4.

TECHNOLOGICAL

4.5.

CONTAINERS
MAIN

CONTAINERISATION

PREVIEW
IN

OF PAST

STRUCTURE

DEVELOPMENT
OF SHIPPING

9
23
26

DEVELOPMENT
DEVELOPMENT

35
44

DIMENSIONS

OF CONTAINER

SHIPS

51

5.0.

INTRODUCTION

51

5.1.

CONTAINER

59

5.2.

BREADTH

5.3.

DEPTH

5.4.

LENGTH

5.5"

DRAFT

5.6.

BLOCK

5.7.

STRUCTURAL

5.8.

GROSS AND NET

5.9.

FREEBOARD

TYPE-B

LIGHTSHIP
ESTIMATES

WEIGHT

STACKING
MOULDED

61
70

BP

78
97

COEFFICIENT

98

DESIGN

CONSIDERATION

100
101

TONNAGE

101
AND

CENTRE

OF GRAVITY

107

6. o.

INTRODUCTION

107

6.1.

STEEL

108

6.2.

OUTFIT

6.3.

MACHINERY

6.4.

GUIDE

6.5.

CENTRE OF GRAVITY
OF STEEL,
MACHINERY
AND GUIDE WEIGHT

6.6.

LIGHT

WEIGHT
AND HULL

ENGINEERING

WEIGHT

128

WEIGHT

142

WEIGHT

SHIP

122

WEIGHT

AND CENTRE

OUTFIT,
144
OF GRAVITY

153

CHAPTER

PAGE NO.

NO.

POWERING

157

ESTIMATES

157

7.0.

INTRODUCTION

7.1.

STANDARDS

7.2.

PROGRAM STRUCTURE

164

7.3.

EFFECTIVE

164

7.4.

SHIP

MOOR-SMALL

7.3.2.

COMPUTER

PREDICTION

164

ALGORITHM

166
168

BY BP-S

168

PROPELLER
DIAGRAM

7.4.2.

FIELD

7.4.3"

WAKE, THRUST DEDUCTION AND

RELATIVE
ROTATIVE
EFFICIENCY

174

DESIGN

174

SHAFT

DESIGN

POWER

7.4.1.

170

EFFICIENCY

PROCEDURE

176

POWER VALIDATION
AND CAPACITY

ESTIMATES

178
178

8.0.

INTRODUCTION

8.1.

ROUND VOYAGE

8.2.

CARGO DEADWEIGHT

181

TIME

182

ESTIMATE

182

8.2.1.

WEIGHT

OF CREW AND EFFECTS

8.2.2.

WEIGHT
STORES

OF PROVISIONS

8.2.3.

WEIGHT

OF FUEL

183

8.2.4.

WEIGHT

OF BALLAST

185

CAPACITY

AND

183

185

ESTIMATES

SHIPBUILDING

158

METHOD

OF DELIVERED

DEADWEIGHT

8.3.

PERFORMANCE

POWER ESTIMATES

7.3.1.

7.4.4.
7.5.

OF

192

COSTS

9.0.

INTRODUCTION

192

9.1.

LABOUR

COSTS

193

9.1.1.

STEEL LABOUR
AND COSTS

9.1.2.

OUTFIT
LABOUR
AND COSTS

9.1.3.

MACHINERY

9.1.4.

TOTAL

MANHOURS

LABOUR

LABOUR

11

MANHOURS

COSTS

COSTS

193

196
201

203

CHAPTER

NO.

PAGE NO.

9.2.

MATERIAL

COSTS

203

9.2.1.

STEEL

MATERIAL

9.2.2.

OUTFIT

9.2.3"

MACHINERY

COSTS

MATERIAL

COSTS

MATERIAL

COSTS

207
209
212

9.3.

MISCELLANEOUS

ITEMS

212

9.4.

TOTAL

COSTS

215

10

CAPITAL

SHIP'S

OPERATING

COSTS

222

10.0.

INTRODUCTION

222

10.1.

MANNING

224

10.2.

CREW COSTS

227

10.3.

INSURANCE

233

10.4.

MAINTENANCE

10.5.

STORES

10.6.

MISCELLANEOUS

10.7.

PORT

CHARGES

10.8.

FUEL

OIL

10.9.

CONTAINER

HANDLING

10.10.

OPERATING

COST

264

CONTAINER

COST MODEL

268

11

AND REPAIR

COSTS

INTRODUCTION

11.1.

NUMBER

11.2.

CAPITAL

11.3.

MAINTENANCE

11.4.

INSURANCE

11.5.

LIFE

11.6.

FINANCIAL

COSTS

252

AND DUES

253
261

COSTS

264

268

OF SETS

OF CONTAINERS

COST

269
272

AND REPAIR

COST

COST

272
273

OF CONTAINER

274
274

MODEL

ENGINEERING

245
248

COSTS

11.0.

12

COSTS

ECONOMY

279

12.0.

INTRODUCTION

279

12.1.

INTEREST

279

12.2.

RELATIONSHIPS

12.1.1.

SIMPLE

12.1.2.

COMPOUND INTEREST

TIME

ADJUSTING

INTEREST

MONEY VALUES

12.2.1.

COMPOUND AMOUNT FACTOR

AND PRESENT WORTH FACTOR

12.2.2.

CAPITAL
RECOVERY FACTOR
AND SERIES
PRESENT WORTH
FACTOR

111

280
280
280
280

281

CHAPTER

PAGE NO.

NO.

12.3.

ECONOMIC

MEASURE

OF MERIT

12.4.

ECONOMIC

COMPLEXITIES

288

12.4.1.

TAX

288

12.4.2.

INFLATION

290

12.4.3.

DEPRECIATION

290

12.5.

CALCULATION

12.6.

REQUIRED
FREIGHT
BEFORE TAX

RATE

12.7.

REQUIRED
FREIGHT
AFTER TAX

RATE

13

OF CAPITAL

CHARGE

13.0.

INTRODUCTION

13.1.

CONTAINER

SHIP

291
294

296

DETERMINISTIC
APPROACH
CONTAINER
SHIP DESIGN

TO

CAPACITY

301
301
302

13.1.1

EXISTING
METHODS

13.1.2.

DRAWBACKS
METHODS

13.1.3.

FACTORS DETERMINING
UNDER DECK CAPACITY

308

FACTORS DETERMINING
DECK CAPACITY

309

13.1.4.
13.2.

283

ESTIMATION
OF EXISTING

DESIGN
PHILOSOPHY
APPROACH ADOPTED
13.2.1.

MAXIMUM

13.2.2.

ACTUAL

OF THE

SLOT
LOAD

CAPACITY
CAPACITY

304

311
318
323
334

13.2.2.1.

INITIAL

13.2.2.2.

STATICAL

13.2.2.3.

INFLUENCE

13.2.2.4.

OF
INFLUENCE
GM
INITIAL

340

INFLUENCE
OF
WEIGHT
BALLAST

340

13.2.2.5.
13.3.

SEAKEEPING

13.4.

PARAMETRIC

13.5.

OPTIMISATION

iv

STABILITY

302

STABILITY
OF DRAFT

336
337

342
METHOD
TECHNIQUES

344
348

CHAPTER

NO.

14

PAGE NO.

PARAMETRIC
ANALYSIS

STUDY

AND SENSITIVITY

14.0.

INTRODUCTION

14.1.

SYSTEMATIC
VARIATION
SIZE AND SPEED

14.2.

OPTIMUM

SPEED

14.2.1.

EFFECT
PRICES

OF HIGHER

FUEL

374

14.2.2.

EFFECT
COSTS

OF HIGHER

CREW

374

14.2.3.

EFFECT OF HIGHER
DISCOUNT
RATE

14.2.4.

EFFECT
COST

14.3.

SENSITIVITY

354

355

373

OF HIGHER

374

FIRST

379

ANALYSIS
379

14.3.1.

MERIT

14.3.2.

VARIATION
IN NUMBER OF
PORTS,
SHIP SIZE AND SPEED

14.3.3"

VARIATION
IN DELAYS,
SIZE,
AND SPEED

14.3.4.

VARIATION
IN DISCOUNT
INCOME TAX,
AND SHIP'S

RANKING

EVALUATION
OF RISK
CAPITAL
INVESTMENT

15

OF SHIP

15.0.

INTRODUCTION

15.1.

APPROXIMATE

IN

SHIP

RATE,
LIFE

398

Ln 2

406

MARINE

408
ESTIMATE

OF RISK

409

15.1.1.

SENSITIVITY
DETERMINISTIC

ANALYSIS
IN
APPROACH

409

15.1.2.

SENSITIVITY
PROBABILISTIC

IN
ANALYSIS
APPROACH

411

15.1.3.

RANKING OF INFLUENCING
VARIABLES

418

CHAPTER

15.2.

15.3.

16

PAGE NO.

NO.

APPROACH

PROBABILISTIC
ANALYSIS

TO RISK

427
427

15.2.1.

ANALYTICAL

15.2.2.

OTHER

15.2.3.

MONTE CARLO

SIMULATION

432

15.2.4.

DEFINING
DISTRIBUTION
OF UNCERTAIN
VARIABLES

434

15.2.5.

DEALING

438

APPROACH

429

METHODS

WITH

APPLICATION
OF RISK
CAPITAL
INVESTMENT

DEPENDENCIES
ANALYSIS

TO

439

15.3.1.

COMPUTER

15.3.2.

PROGRAM STRUCTURE
INPUT/OUTPUT

15.3.3.

REQUIRED
ASSUMING

FREIGHT
RATE
NO DEPENDENCIES

15.3.4.

REQUIRED
ASSUMING

FREIGHT
RATE
DEPENDENCIES

ALGORITHMS

CONCLUSION
DISCUSSION,
DEVELOPMENT
LIST
OF REFERENCES

439

AND

AND FUTURE

440

444

448

452
459

BIBLIOGRAPHY

477

APPENDIX

478

APPENDIX

482

APPENDIX

487-

APPENDIX

489

V1

LIST

TABLE

OF TABLES

PAGE NO.

NO.

4.1.

Definition

4.2.

Outline
ment
of

sketch
of historical
containerisation

Definition
cellular

of different
container
ships

4.3.
4.4.
4.5.

Fully
cargo

of

cellular
capacity,

Chronology

major
4.7.

of

number,
22
of
27

container

on

ships

29

4.9.

Various
possible
use or proposed
on deck.

characteristics

Container

19

for
37

Main

5.2.

of

inauguration

investigations

of

4.8.

Container/cell

generations

routes

items
Major
development

5.1.

10

ships

Characteristics

trade

develop-

ships,
Teu/vessel

service

container

carriers

container
average

of

cellular
4.6.

load

unit

of

container

in
already
containers

concepts,
for
securing

tolerances
stacking

45

ships

and

48

60

clearances

characteristics

63

athwartships
5.3.

Estimation

5.4.

Container

breadth

of

stacking

by

different

methods
in

characteristics

74

tiers
5.5.

Estimation

5.6.

Container

5.7.

Length
A4
11 11

r-4.G1i

71

stacking
of

A-4
4

depth

of

engine
AI

lVG -

111

%11

by

methods
in

characteristics
..
G7

-..

room
1
G1

for
l

-+-,
.. 14114
1.!

5.8.

Length
geared

of engine
room
diesel
installation

5.9.

Length

of

6.1.

Summary

6.2.

Principal
container

6.3.

Calculation

6.4.

Steel
weight
methods

6.5.

Differences

of

different

4-

for

ships

with

ships

with

bays

07

95

steel

and

KMIN

and

calculations
actual

vii

109

equations

weight

particulars
ships

from

83
Qo

peaks.

of

79

weights

of

steel

113
114

KMAX
by

some

different
weights

119
120

TABLE
6.6.
6-7-

PAGE N 0.

NO.
Analysis
methods-

of

Summary
and hull

steel

of equations
engineering

6.8.

Wood/outfit
by different

6.9.

Differences
from
hull
engineering

6.1o.

6.12.

6.13.
6.14.
6.15.

Analysis

of

actual
weights

of

of

and

ships

132

of
with

types,
some engine
formulae
adopted
weight
of

guide
the

estimating

weight

centre

133
134

equations

143

of

146

gravity

6.16.

129

130

container

evaluation
for

127

weights

hull
and
methods

machinery

Comparative
Formulae

123

wood/outfit

wood/outfit
estimation

Specific
weights
and comparison
in the
program

121

of wood/outfit
weights

Propulsion
plants
till
November
1978

Summary

estimation

& hull
engineering
methods

engineering

6.11.

weight

Lightship
actual

weight
and
centre
versus
calculated

7.1.

Attributes

7.2.

Comparative
(calculated

7.3"

Comparison

8.1.

Double
and aft

8.2.

Comparative
volume.

the

of

of

156

bottom,
peak

shaft

wing
capacities
evaluation

9.1.

Comparison

of

steel

9.2.

Comparison

of

outfit

9.3.

Comparison

of

total

9.4.

K. R.

9.5"

Comparative
values
Fig.
updated
values

9.6.

Outfit

9.7.

Fairplay

9.8.

Comparative
cost.

Chapman's

standard

horse

power

tank,

fore

labour

evaluation

Viii

bottom

195

costs

200
zo6

costs

zoo

model

and

G1 and

211
214

comparison

of

188

manhours

cost

container

173
177

190

labour

of D1
9.5.

peak

double

labour

cost

material

efficiency
charts)

of

capital

165

programs

various

field
values
of
from
BP-b
and
of

gravity,

ship

prices

shipbuilding

218
219

TABLE

PAGE NO.

NO.

10.1.

Operating

10.2.

Representative
flags
different

10.3.

Typical

10.4.

Calculation
for
38 men

procedure
crew

10.5.

Summary

operating

10.6.

Insurance
price
of

cost

of
costs

manning

of

of

Insurance

10.8.

Maintenance
and
versus
calculated

10.9.

Comparative
and repair

10.10.

Actual
stores
estimated

10.11.

Summary
estimation

costs,

of
some

repair

formulae

crew

costs

costs,
of

228
234

formulae.

237
of

the

calculated

versus

243
244

actual

249

maintenance

250

supplies
for

226
ships

a percentage

actual

and

under

container

of

evaluation
costs

of

ships

cost

costs
as
the
ship

10.7.

225

ships

costs
port

versus

251

cost
254

10.12.

Port

10.13.

Labour

10.14.

Material

10.15.

Validation

10.16.

Index
cost

12.1.

Summary
of
in past
use

12.2.

Decision
criterion

12.3.

Builder's

cost

256

constants

259

ratio
and
of

labour
port

of operating
increase/annum.

for

260
262

costs
costs

economic
design

chart

indices

and

criteria
studies
choice

average

and
of

their

economic

266

284
286

293

Account

ix

TABLE

PAGE NO.

NO.

13.1.

Container

stacking

characteristics

13.2.

Container
different

capacity
methods

calculated

13.3.

Container

distribution

13.4.

Values

13.5.

Container

of

shape

on

305
by

306
0n

deck

Jul

coefficient

distribution

307
of

some

321

containerships
13.6.

Container

data

ship

ry

and

335

program

results

13.7.

Values

of

coefficients

at

various

338

angles
14.1.

Sensitivity
(Model II).

14.2.

Sensitivity

Analysis

(Model'II
14.3

). Weight

Sensitivity
(Model

14.4

Analysis

Summary of

Sensitivity

15.2.

Advantages

of

of

380

10% improvement

383

each

=10.5 tonnes

10% improvement

each

container

Analysis

Analysis

for

385

=7 tonnes
different

387

container.
Model

computer

and disadvantages

analysis

Different

with

Sensitivity

weight

15.1.

Risk

with

10% improvement
container
=14 tonnes

of each container

). Weight

II

average

15.3

Analysis
with
Weight of each

of

III

various

411
430

approach.

types

of distribution

435

LIST

FIGURE
4.1.

OF FIGURES

PAGE NO.

NO.
Chronological
dimensions,

change
power,

of
speed

principal
and
container

21

capacity

4.2.

trade

routes

commencing

effect
consumption

of

improvement

in

energy

The
form

effect

of

improvement

of

ship

The
ship

effect
size

Principal

since

31

1970
4.3.

4.4.
4.5.
4.6.

4.7.
4.8.

The

1,

improvement

of
speed

versus

Improvement
deck
loading
NVs

hull

39

SHP

39

and

in

in

K on

the

4o

4o

displacement

N/Q

by

contributed

the

42
42

versus

versus

capacity

r'irr

'z)nr
-s
KY

42
43

4.10.

Reduction

4. l1.

Containership

4.12.

Container

5.1.

Length

5.2.

Breadth

5.3"

Depth

5.4.

Length

BP

versus

Depth

mid.

56

5.5"

Length

BP

versus

Draft

(scantling)

57.

5.6.

Breadth

5.7"

Container

5.8.

Midship
dimensions

5.9"

Container
for
clearances
of precentring
arrangements

5.10.

Engine
direct

room
drive

length
diesel

vs.

horse

power:

91

5.11.

Engine
geared

room
drive

length
diesel

vs.

horse

power:

94

5.12.

Block
ratio

5.13.

LxBxD

5.14.

Gross
Register
Tonnage
Register
Tonnage.

in

hull

steel

weight

productivity

BP

mid.
mid.

Draft

versus

versus

moulded

52

mid.

54

(scantling)

55

draft.

scantling

versus

showing

versus

gross

X1

length
tonnage

register
versus

67

types

different

speed

58
62

arrangement
clearances

coefficient

tolerances

dimensions,
container
and

50

Depth

versus

mid.

development.

breadth

versus

50

development

productivity

68

99
102

Net
103

FIGURE

PAGE NO.

NO.

6.1.

E versus

6.2.

Actual
steel
180 plot

6.3.

Outfit

6.4.

Machinery
weight
drive
diesel
plant

of

6.5.

Machinery

of

weight

Guide
KG.

SNAME

versus

116

breadth)

weight

115

125
direct

speed

slow

138

drive

geared

139

plant
weight

L: gJai:

6.7.

(STEELF)

weight/(length

diesel
6.6.

factor

steel

versus

container

145

i. Uy
of

steel

of

outfit

weight/depth

versus

ihR

kengtn
6.8.

KG.
I G116
-L --

6.9.

7.1.
7.2_

KG. of
length

machinery

versus

IiJv tn

weight/depth

versus

I cz19

1-

Ship-model
ships
Chi

weight/depth

L'AL
-4-1"

correlation

r\-mnricl

single
+i. rirr

r+nrrcIn+inri

--r
ships

....,...

,.

7.3.

Main

structure

7.4.

Determination
from
B -b
P

9.1.

Average
hourly
shipbuilding

9.2.

Steel
values

9.3.

Outfit
values

. .

cr,

A -IS

the

of

screw

161

rcw

powering

...

162

program

165
a

9.4.

of
charts.

field

efficiency

172

(annual)

earnings
industry

197

for
various
overheads

labour
cost
constant
of wage rates
and

198

for
labour
various
cost
constant
and overheads
of wage
rates

Machinery
various

labour
values

9.5.

Structural

steel

9.6.

Steel
values

material
of steel

9.7.

Outfit

material

9.8.

Machinery

material

9.9.

Container

ship

9.10.

Ship

costs

for
and overheads

constant
cost
of wage rates

cost
constant
cost/tonne
cost

price

annual

for
various
wastage
and

202
210
210

constant

versus
escalation.

xii

208

constant
cost

202

indices

price

wholesale

198

year

of

order

217
221

FIGURE

PAGE NO.

NO.
the

total

ship

manning

level

10.1.

Breakdown

10.2.

Representative

10.3.

Daily
cost
running
23 knot
containership

10.4.

Crew

costs
containership

10.5.

Insurance
Knot

of

for

of
1288

for

costs

container

229

1288

Teu,

Teu,

23

1288

11.1.

Box/slot
round

11.2.

Container

12.1(a)

Compound
amount
factor
worth

12.1(b)

Capital
present

12.2.

Average
representative
rates
per
container

ratios
voyages/year

and

cost

factor

and

13.1.

Beam

13.2.

Influence
on the

13.3.

Total
container
capacity
for
a 205
m containership

13.4.

Bale

13.5.

Length
stacking

versus
in

13.6.

Length
stacking

breadth
versus
in
rows

capital

of draft,
containership

program

292

298

ballast

GM, and
capacity

depth
tiers

289

312

no.

and

the
the

of

the

in

Cb

container

and

distribution

314
draft

versus

cubic

XiiI

charter

draft

design

variation
ballast

282

the
rate

calculating
freight

versus

series

charge

276
282

unit

Flow
for
chart
minimum
required

cubic

present

time

12.4.

versus

271
model

and

Flow
chart
CAPCI-E2

of

u6

?
'

of

financial

and

12.3.

Parametric
GMT and

236

for

number

factor
recovery
factor
worth

13.8.

23

232

snip

Repair
and maintenance
costs
Teu,
23 knot
1288
containership

Container
section

230
knot

Teu,

10.6.

13.7.

223

costs

317
319
326

container
327

draft,

midship
initial

328
339

FIGURE

13.9.
13.10.

13.11.

13.12.

NO.

PAGE NO.

Effect
under

of
the

freeboard
GZ curve

the

on

area

341

Program
deterministic
structure
phase
with
parametric
variation
independent
(Computer
of
variables
Model
I)
Input
and
(deterministic

output

by Computer
phase)

347

Model

349

Program

deterministic
structure
phase
with
application
of
(Computer
techniques
optimization
Model
II)

352

14.1.

Speed

variation

series

500

Teu

14.2.

Speed

variation

series

750

Teu

14.3.

Speed

variation

series

1000

Teu

14.4.

Speed

variation

series

1250

Teu

14.5.

Speed

variation

series

1500

Teu

362

14.6.

Speed

variation

series

1750

Teu

363

14.7.

Speed

variation

series

2000

Teu

14.8.

Speed

variation

series

2250

Teu

364
365

14.9.

Speed

variation

series

2500

Teu

366

14.10.

Size

variation

series

14.11.

Size

variation

series

14.12.

Size

variation

series

24 knots

370

14.13.

Size

variation

series

27

371

14.14.

Effect
1500

of higher
Teu ship

14.15.

Effect
speed

14.16.

Effect
optimum
Effect

interest
of higher
speed
of shipbuilding

Variation
(Number

in number
of
of ports
versus

14.17.
14.18.

price

18

358
359
360
361

368

knots

369

knots

21

knots

on

the

optimum

of increase
of crew
costs
(Relative
in
Increase
crew

xiv

rate
cost
ports,
RFR)

on

speed

on optimum
per
costs
on

the

optimum
size

and

375
376
annum)
377

speed
speed

378
399

FIGURE

14.19.

PAGE NO.

NO.

Variation
speed
and

of number
of ports,
(Speed
size
versus

14.20.

Variation
and
speed

of

14.21.

Effect
of delays
on
freight
and required

14.22.

Variation

in

size,

14.23.

Variation
delays

of

ship

14.24.

Variation
(interest
and life

15.1.

Program
structure,
sensitivity
phase,
Computer
Model

ship

size,

ports

size,
rates
speed

size,

RFR)

400

401

403

speed

and

delays

404

speed

and

405

in discount
rate
income
tax
rate),
in years
probabilistic
analysis
III.

407

416
-

15.2.

Input
data,
sensitivity
2250
container
capacity
18 knots

15.3.

Output,
sensitivity
container
capacity
18 knots
speed

analysis,
2250 Teu,

419

15.4.

Output
sensitivity
analysis,
1500
Teu,
container
capacity
(steel
18 knots
speed
weight
4)
estimation
method

425

15.5.

Output,
sensitivity
analysis,
1500 Teu,
container
capacity
(steel
18 knots
weight
speed
8)
estimation
method

15.6.

Monte-Carlo

15.7.

437

15.8.

437

15.9.

Triangular
approximation
distribution

15.10.

Program
structure,
phase,
risk
analysis,
Model
IV

15.11.

Input
data,
risk
container
capacity
18 knots
speed

15.12.

Output,
capacity

technique

simulation

distribution
to highly

xv

as an
skewed

probability
computer

analysis,
2250

risk
profile,
2250 Teu,

analysis,
Teu,
speed

417

426

433

437

441

Teu,

443

container
18 knots
speed

445

FIGURE

15.13.

PAGE NO.

NO.

Output,

risk

1500
capacity
(No
dependencies)
15.14.

Output
capacity
(Assuming

risk

profile,
Teu,

profile,
1500
Teu,
dependency)

container
18 knots
speed

18

446

container
knots

15.15.

Cumulative

16.1.

A complete
overview
of
design
aided
procedure

16.2.

Decision

449

probability.

chart

for

xvi

450
the

evaluation

453

computer

of

Risk.

456

1.

SUMMARY

This

thesis

computer
of

for

container

ship

The

an

There

design

algorithm

is

based

variation

of

principal

with

minimum

porates

be

on

the

search

of
parametric

faith

in

answer
model

introduced.

deficiencies

of

the

ity

is

carried

model
has

of

computer

identified

influences
third

the

model

the

total

risk

an

simple
are
of

required
variables

model

of

design

ship
the

to

risk

can

evaluate

the

third

the

third

model

in

the

first

and

the

In

this

risk

model

that

be

of

which,

The

the

designer

identifying

involved

risk

incorporates

also

by

the

of

sensitivity

total

second

designer

use
in

with

the

third

the

adequate

compared
the

sensitivin

once

most.

However

analysis

xvii

used

model

analysis.

the

The

Together

in

incorporates

simulation.

may

sensitiv-

variation

variation
rate

project.

since

approach

the

the

be

may

the

the

out

variation.

little

third

once

sense

achievable

arbitrary

freight

designer

investment

for

required

The

overcomes

the

in

cost,

check

carry

approach

the

has

to

used

to

approach

ship.

computing

aid

be

can

approach,

design

in

a designer
an

as

incor-

optimum

process.

This

an

and

where

design

model

powerful

time

or

parametric

optimum

the

at

or

model

with

second

very

aided

first

the

arrive
is

new

computer

locate

computer

out

the

The

to

variables,

of

the

analysis,
in

of

to

design

aided
the

acts

which

The

optimisation

past

than

rather

the

design

requirements.

approach

rate.

aided

is

analysis

to

algorithm

of

preferred

the

computer

analysis

The

stage.

owner's

stages.

process

found.

variables

in

in

is

been

ity

used

both

in

at

has

optimum

models

optimisation

the

of

four

technique

method

arrived

dimensions

Architect

an

techniques

optimum

the

ship

freight

optimisation

the

the

dimensions

required

an

Naval

deterministic

optimisation

Though

principal

of

process.

can

which

the

developing

on

basically

are

design

ship

the

development

design

aid

given

been

the

preliminary

to

has
in

aid

the

at

ship,

emphasis

with

determining

devised

was

economical

most

concerned

algorithm

algorithm

as

is

three
to

estimates

single

model.
Monte

can

estimates
The

Carlo

assess

fourth
method

the

total

risk

the

Required

ively

or

each

by

project
Rate.

Freight

influencing

the

generating
The

input

objectively
the

of

the

of

designer

the

risk

must

either

of
subject-

distribution

probability
before

variables

profile

of

the

using

fourth

model.
The
suite

of

four

computer

computer

programs,
(first
mode,
(third
mode,

deterministic
probabilistic
previous

how

to

in

The
stages,
the

from
models

model),

and

fourth

model).

developed

this

can

be

risk

a
to

Compared
to

deal
ideas

in

on

capital

venture.
either

deterministic
can

in

or

solely

assess

in

used

incorporates

thesis
and

a complete

be

either

second

uncertainty

designer

can

and

algorithms

a shipping

form

models

which

phase,

incorporate

investment

or

design

ship
deterministic

with

design

aided

use
phase

used

on

Xviii

their

these
to

computer

probabilistic
own.

models
phase

in

2.

AIMS

The
(1)

To

main

be

could
cellular

of

may

be

(2)

The

in

be

must

used

modular

have

and

Transport

best

design

(4+) To
decision

model

show

an

would

enable

also

the

use

of

at

various

making

one

this

is

the
to

computer
stages

to

less

can
It
of

a variety
Route

use

planners,

it.

incorporate

uncertain-

deterministic
choose

not

the

only

risky.
model

of

and

algorithms

allow

to

to

incorporate

applications.

would

a user

that

the

of

other

extension

but

many

able

to

relationships,

shipowners,

be

sophistication

enough

Architects

must

fully

desirable

design

which

Naval

and

which

various

Economists,

include

must

approach,

for

which

user.

flexible

that

so

for

of

the

of

and

interface

a user

computer

be

data

the

levels

needs

must

nature

own

Authorities
The

the

model

stage

with

different

empirical
in

design

together

suit

model

their

e. g.

Port

ty

the

on

should
users

to

design

ship

preliminary

whereby

computer

are:

aided

ships

stages

attained

changes

(3)

the

at

PROJECT

project

computer

container

feature

be

used

the

of

aims

develop

OF THE

as

preliminary

an

aid

to

design.

3.

INTRODUCTION

This
of

thesis,

as

economic
The

is

work

will

the

istics

the

The

number

containers

to

is

work

basically

a deterministic

probabilistic
for

In

spite

it

is

rare

few

years

the

of

fact

they

have

their

after

This

is

they

were

based

data

were

invalidated,

The

sufficiently
the

Moreover

needs.

to

recourse
All
validated

the

an

the

cost

have

existing

The

optimum

economic

of

selection

non-linear

breadth,
design

measure

is
of

merit

An

attempt

of

the

programming

in

that

was

as

made

algorithm

which

and

this

thesis

designer

can

to
be

his

updated

own
without

bank.
tested
and

of
main
and

to

This
or

the
entails

optimisation

ship

coefficient.
some

Freight

automate

aim

variables;

to

Required

by

primary

alternative

block

according

and

checked

The

the

design.

optimum

journals.

design
in

the

on

during

technical

ship

readily

draft

chosen
such

the

or

so

written,

data,

cost

numbers

depth,
then

been

relationships

varying

parametrically

length,

have

calculation.

large

generating

20 years

past

data

results.

as

the

containership

reasonable

such

approach.

extensively

output

by

the

been

to

is

was

update

data

hand

design

former

The

that

can

cost

algorithms

of

presented

data

step-by-step

way

and

major

and

so

out

One

design

advances

carrying
was

to

ship

two

periodicals

design

and

extensive

with

into

in

algorithm

cost

carried.

perhaps

elaborated

weight,

character-

except

fact

to

route

applied,

to

due

methods.

been

the

difficult

were

be

algorithms
been

to

trade

during

appearance

due

primarily

that

the

particulars,

probabilistic

design

ship

that

production

the

a computer
at

main

design.

ship

developing

preliminary

tailor

to

well

divided

approach

approach

framework

has

of

speed,

as

developing

the

of

preliminary

technical

architect

choose

requirement

research

divisions,

to

choice

operation.

with

a naval

the

at

the

and

concerned

stage

owner's

and

design

ship

enable

design

both

the

about

ships

account

mainly

which

preliminary

many

of

is

suggests,

container

into

aspects

algorithm

of

taking

stage,

given

title

dimensions

principal

design

the

as

chosen
Rate.

procedure
applying
algorithm.

Many
such

that

ithms

for

and

constraints

if

one

cannot

allows

to

technique

shown

in

the

the

"most

like

variables
effect

the

on

estimates.

10% variation

for

In

limited

extent.

likely"
account

its

influence

an

investment's

of

estimate,

the
on

risk

(or

best)

in

the

Monteis

forms

an

and
of

is

usually

the

of

observing

these

most

new

the

is
be

analysis.

also
calculated

account

is

not

of

sensitivity

achievable

three

making

the
in

the

by

this

thesis
new

the
takes
and

variables
this

for

out

and
estimate
(4)
therefore
in

shown

likely

variables,

method

variation

the

carried

"pessimistic"
The

the

then

involves

each

(RFR)

Rate

into

in

It

of

concept

used

step

venture.

10% change

however

base

first

useful

taking

a new

for

data

Freight

each

the

appropriate

estimates

without

It
one

Required

thesis

can

various

approach

most

that

the

variables

It

in

algorithm

shipping

etc.,

achievable
RFR.

an

computer

always
in

changes

estimate.

such

but
which

is

method

design

mind

is

introduced.

"optimistic"

sensitivity

this

instead

estimates

in

variables

the

of

the

select

analysis

in

exist

approach

uses

weights

of

a
of

bearing

Sensitivity

many

is

analysis

"most

RFR

life.

real

and

likely"

costs,

future,

involved

risks

Such

inherent

risks

the

methods

the

accurately.

predicted

with

probabilistic

calculating

the

on

deal

dependent

estimated.

be

However

analysis

first

based

of

the

of

adopted.

approach.

to

user

sensitivity

involves

into

The

is

evaluating

cannot

&

was

accurately

application

develops

validation

that

An

requirements,

future

deterministic

project

allows

his

for

the

many

uncertainty.

thesis.

of

The

of

method

Neider

or

technique

be

function

search

(2)

ship,

was

algor-

direct

penalty

cannot

it

inequality

and

& Jeeves

assess

(4).

this

extension

to

objectively

However

objective

The

it.

applied

optimisation

cannot

one

predict

face

Carlo

the

that

mean

in

projects

which

in

easily

one

equality

designing

variables

not

linear

external

is

one

costs

does

non-linear

Hooke

the

independent

This

as

either

utilising

Particularly

with

satisfactory.

by

Lastly
and

well

less

was

(3)

tested

problems

optimisation

Mead

well

of

as

successfully
(1).
problems

design

ship

solving

have

past

availability

non-linear

of

the

to

algorithms

found

in

in

authors

how

method

of

After

the

project,
to

the

affect
the

RFR.

that

the

the

judge

in

to

does

be

impossible.

to

large

organisation

small

organisation.

too

for

risky

however

provide

understanding
total

risk

in

ideas

which

first

the

are

to

new

might

The
computer

of

calculation

of

the

rejected?
is

considered

be

considered

in

a decision

interact

the

form

basic

two

design

model,
and

analysis

sensitivity
profile

does
maker's

to

introduces
ship

risk
the

simulation

aided

risk

or

well

from

output

A risk

thesis

from

risk

which

or

which

factors

project.

estimation
the

second,

the

RFR

the

of

the

Thus

the

accepted

increase

different

on

answer

investment

considerable
how

of

An

The

ignored.

of

be

estimates

variable

definitely

investment

This

one

Finally

not

required.

dependencies

distribution

should

acceptable

description

variables.

be

with

an

estimate

complete

the

can

deal

question:
would

best

is

of

profile

provide

designer

of

analysis.

profile
the

each

dependence

the

the

dependence

risk
is

A risk

for

adequate.

risk

distribution

of

designed

also

simulation

profile.

but,

evaluation

the

the

likely

be

estimates

surrounding

the

if

of

the

of

most

might

production

"optimistic"

of

test

important

risk

the

probability

step

can

is

very

be

risk

are

analysis

distribution

and

algorithm
is

final

also

another

which

variable,

probability

designer

variables

uncertainty

particular

the

the

and

uncertainty,

in

Thus

the

can

step

the

of
a

identified

sensitivity

"Pessimistic"

for

of

the

next

indication
made

RFR,

total

has

identified

and

However
of

designer

of

measure

merit.
The

risk

algorithms

which
for

developed

this

applied

ship

types.

a histogram

Graphical

the

one

used

in

of

set
ship

also

contains

It
of

sensitivity

extend

risk

design

thesis

models

an

algorithm

a line

on

which

the

analysis
standard

profile

algorithms

plotting

than

sophisticated

are

to

type

the

and

project

be

can

other

generating

printer.

algorithm

in

developed

algorithm

for

simulation

are

more

can

readily

only

be

be

incorporated.
Finally
a risk

when
natives
may

be

an

or

accept
is

analysis

a deterministic
adequate,

but

reject

carried

out.

approach
once

an

decision

with

optimum

can
For

alter-

comparing

analysis

sensitivity
design

made

has

been

found,

it

is

such

programs

of

capital
not
designs

native
the

to

necessary

final

know

the

investment
only
but

helps
also

risk

inherent
Thus

venture.
a

Naval

helps

design.

Architect
him

to

in

undertaking

this

suite

to
study

the

compare

of
alter-

acceptability

CHAPTER
DEVELOPMENT

OF CONTAINERISATION

4.0.

INTRODUCTION

4.1.

A SHORT

PREVIEW

4.2.

CHANGES

IN

4.3.

ROUTE

4.4.

TECHNOLOGICAL

4.5.

CONTAINERS

OF HISTORICAL

STRUCTURE

DEVELOPMENT

OF SHIPPING

DEVELOPMENT
DEVELOPMENT

4.0.

INTRODUCTION
From

drawn.

the

Thus

history

of

this

chapter

in

'containerisation'
historical

is

insight
The
each

reasons
is

is

it

and

but

one,

a viable

how

operate

independently,
to

'containerisation'

section

deals

isation

and
how

and

they

of
The
is

main

on

definition
given

container
programs
without

problem

deck

and

could

the

third

section

will
be

it

of
lastly

In

penetrate

the

be
adjusted

considered
for

guides.

the

the

ships
the
of

thesis,

unit

load

only

fully

although
container

the
carrying

certain
lashing

stacking,

overtonnage
of

fourth

container-

container
outlines

new

trade
The

in

high

their

that

incorporation

the

the

to

the

assume

nine

types

second

across

to

section
the

The

discusses

involved

last

it

containerisation

countries.

on

before

able

resources

is

to

is

various

4.1.

Table

ships

their

concept

time

of

share

slow

The

long

advent

emphasis

the

of

in

once

standardisation,

standards,
containers

companies

technology

evolved.
of

applied.

underdeveloped

the

with

development
other

and

the

be

be

will

developed

could

wrong

The

container

which

how

and

the

or

subsections

chronological

quite

the

an

failures.

five

took

The

developments

between

that

with

combine

provides

containerisation.

various

shipping

boundaries.

national
route

it

the

the

noted

concept

shows

forced

is

of

the

empirical

and

into

that

of
the

successes

aspect
to

total

analysed

the

of

view

then

divided

devoted

section

were

for

one

the

sum

properly

basically
on

take

be

can

overview

failures,

and

the

chapter

a new

became

the

experiences

developments,

not

but

of

section

is

nothing

successes

concentrating

first

we

of

into

abbreviated
If

are

assimilation

an

given.

facts

experiences

lessons

containerisation

in

containers.

carriers
cellular
computer
ships

TABLE

4.1.

FULLY

CELLULAR

to

Definition

carry

the

in

containers
4 up
from

are

containers
top

on

The

ships

being

another

carried

do

on

deck

any

the

The

rest
of
4 tiers

deck

another

by

the
high

lashings.

handling

container

unloading

based

shore

of

to

the

hold

top

up

to

under

The

on

stacked

secured

and

capacity

guides.

have

not

by

out

cell

designed

are

guides.
one

the

and

loading

the

cell

vertically

carried

ships

container

with

in

usually

carriers.

These

total

fitted

9 high

of

board,

the

of

stacked

are

one

on

60%

holds

to

load

unit

CONTAINERSHIPS

about

deck

of

the

of

container

cranes

containers

gantry

cranes

(13,15)"
ROLL-ON,

ROLL-OFF

included

in
sea

train

ferries

be

this

carried

trailers

on
loaded

vehicles,
large

indivisible

The

holds

are

provided

ramps

and/or

internal
by

either
(13,15)-

CARRIERS

carriage

roll-on-roll-off
in

containers

forward).

Container

means

of

BARGE

CARRIERS

each

of

cargo,

'mother

unloads

is

which

ship'

barges,

as

heavy

with

large

Loading

are

more

designed

capable

of

carrying
cargo,

palletised
which
either

is
by

the

barge

elevators/lifts

is

unloading

done

for

primarily

and
holds

stowage

cellular
(usually

is

located
done

usually

by

(13,15).

cranes

are

area,

equipment/cranes

loading/unloading

These

deck

designed

cargo

cars,
(15).

plants

and

handling

may

export

uninterrupted

cargoes
or

a wide

pallets,

such

travelling

shipboard

break-bulk
The

one

carry

trucks,

lift

loads

These

carriers,

which

uncrated

shipboard

Car

containers

as

are
ferries,

to

well

lifts.

COMBINATION

of

fork

as

by

or

ramps

of

by

lorries

and

designed

including
or

ships

Ro-Ro's,

sea

are

units,

of

Passenger/vehicle

deep

These

standard

variety

e. g.

Ro-Ro's,
(15).

of

wide

-A

category

freight

short

variety

SHIPS

to

barges

carry

about
heavy

tons

300-850
loads

and

loads

carrier
or

by

(lighters)

the

of

containers.
and
float-in

The

principle.
and

the

and

unload

for

any

PALLET

barges

single

truck.
size
and

1.2

but

the

general

are

unloaded

1.0

can
not

m wooden
through

outside

in

trains

can

thus

it

port

then

load
the

reduces

need

(13,15).

ships

Pallets

berth

drafts,

These

which

can
or

facilities

unit,

carrier

shallower

shore

SHIPS

barge
individually

at

containers,
a

).

4.1Contd.

TABLE

are

not

cargo
be

easily

standardized
platforms.
side

door

designed
is

to

carry
forming

palletized

handled
but
The
(13,15).

by
most
pallets

fork

are

of
are

lift
about
loaded

4.1.

A SHORT

PREVIEW

4.2

Table

its

since

sea

container

development
(7)

the

summarises

containerisation
deep

OF HISTORICAL

service

is

described

detailed

give

DEVELOPMENTS

historical

development

inception

in

in

This

1968.

briefly.

1906

to

the

first

historical
(6)

Kununerman

historical

of

development

of

Rath

and

all

aspects

of

containerisation.

There

is

considerable

evidence

was

as

containerisation
in

reported
(5,6).

the

until

Seatrain
between
system

with
lack

of

of

for

this

have
many

used

this

feature

in

World

is

1928

on

The
on

this

that
by

the
the

the

unit

sea

them.

route,
equipped
The

led

to

the

(7).

containers

of

overseas

distribution

Scottish

Railways

and

His

cranes

Lines

and

water

(7).

eventually

load

systems

trade

since

Chamber

of

have
the

of
on

shipping

rail

various

first
been

Second

in

May

transport,

also,

in

fraternity

of

the

U. K.

containerisation
(8).

promote
Transport
at

1929

the

in

had
of

when

Congress

a movie

any

the
U. S. A.

significant
(7).

containerisation

containerisation

Atlantic

of

Road

development
of

Transport

advantages

Commerce

overall

the

to

effort

presentation

covering

the

the

International

the

potentialities
side

Commission

and

by

deep

on

large

Midland

or

time

same

influence

installed

inland

organised

service

the

Seatrain

whether

at

September

the

1911

a large

on

shoreside

Atlantic

1926

debateable

International
at

April

States

exploit

Britain-Ireland

containerisation
in

was

(8).

War
It

wagon

railroads
by

London

Great

of

the

in

used

containers

and

in

Brasch

United

to

tracks

the

of

Charles

the

of

idea

side

years.

of

1906,

exploited

designed

of

been

I,

perhaps

cooperation

On

coast

railroad

of

as

not

a railway

specially

with

abandonment

kinds

the

first

consisted

back

concept

magazine

was

War

provide

and

the

was

trays

World

to

Cuba

concept

the

1950.

after

Lines

far

Geographic

the

about

Shortly

and

National

However

scale

applied

that

were
in

reported
were

1931
their
not

recognised
the

Royal
surprise

recognised

TABLE

4.2.

Outline

sketch

historical

of

development

of

containerisation

Year

1906

Description
First
of

Railroad

1926

London

1928

International

car

Midland&Scottish

to

idea

of

Royal

together

World
War II

Use
ation

corps

in

the

development

by
of

Transport.
out

their

report.

Corporation.
U. S.

the

of

1929

pointed

in

by

Army

first

transport-

extensive

operation.

interest

of

U. K.

Steamship

May

presentation

Rail

containerisation

transport

Resurgence

by

of

Transport

organised

in

coverage

U. S.

containerisation.

Commerce

containers
and

of

of

coast

containers.

congress

Pan-Atlantic

'conex'

of

Cuba
used

idea

of

of
of

of

container

in

by

containerisation

commercial

operators.
Building

first

of

Commission,
Alaska
take

war

New
in

and

first

C2

Atlantic

by

ship

Maritime

containers.
part

United

of

to

States

unitization.
boost

further

Houston

by

to

the

containerisation.
between

started

operation

Company

Steamship

Pan-Atlantic

tankers.

type

'Gateway

vessel

type

Lift-on/Lift-off

initial

of

became

the

after

the

ship.
6 tankers

further

converted

City'

success.

Matson

Navigation
to

converted
U. S. A.
Pan

carry

container

T2

converted

Converted

Pan

gave

cargo

class

first

of

commercial
York

to

the

advantage

First

C3

U. S.

becomes

Korean

1959

concept

of

containerisation

with

advantages

Formation

19571958

of

Commission

1933

1957

from

the

Chamber

a movie,

1956

water

transport

promote

International

Postwar
period

application

Railways

road

Promotion

the

by

service

conference

1931

of

containerisation.

1916

1929

evidence

published

to

Atlantic

container

Co.

carry

introduced

containers

on

Sealand

Services

6-

C3

the

West

Coast

Inc.

first

type

Hawaii.
became
shipping

company.

10

vessels
of

TABLE

4.2.

Contd.

Year

1961

Description
American
of

Material

Mechanical

Engineers

(ASA)

Association

Society,

Handling

American

and

the

adopted

American

Society

Standards

first

for

standards

containers.

1962

1964

Standards

for

container

strength

adopted.

Standards

for

container

fittings

adopted.

Rochdale

Report

on

Associated

Steamships,

a container

1965

International

size

Sealand

announced

liner

Inc.

between

International
signed
First
the

its

Europe

and

and
to

ISO,

strength
enter

standards.
the

by

Sealand

Services

U. S.

announced

standards

marine

organisation

development

plans.

agreement

Moscow.

purpose
North

Fremantle.

and

Standardisation,

intention

introduced

service

government

in

began

trade.

First

1967
1968

ASA container

line

shipping

Melbourne
for

the

Japanese

between

Organisation

adopted

1966

ports.
Australian

service

transatlantic

1966

British

built

Atlantic

container
route.

11

ship

introduced

on

1933,

In
a

coastwise

the

Waterman
designated

service

Corporation,

for

from

Massachussetts

Boston,

the

major

the

more

valuable

as

As

have

we

in

systems

to

However

the

that

fact

called

were

handled

by

the

of

potential
commercial

However,

field

realised

that

during
methods

the
of
operation,

1950's
handling

rail

were

by

made

into

boxes

cargo
prewar
the

cargo

the

was

the

full

based

not
the

was

weather,
economic
by

realised

not

and

original

inclement

and

war

derricks

reason

Thus

the
units

namely

main

could

during

military

damage

established

small

period,

was

exhaustive

cargo

gear,

The

container

an

were

U. S.

Transportation

the

operators.
by
in
the

ship

Also

war.

container.

coincidence

early

was
detailed
break

an

of

economic
studies
bulk

cargo,

cargo

gear,

12

example,
also

post-war

handling

improved

or

containerisation

improved

the

within

the

extensive

they

containerisation

in

first

containers,

metal

within

Army

used

whether

shipping

U. S.

containers

by

containers

cargo

The

mechanical

interest

of

the

the

the

the

and

II,

attempts
their

to

reasons.

shipping

used

total

war

against

War

few

in

carried
pilferage

of military
40% of the

Like

two

pilferage.

conventional

the

deter

were

spectrum

economic

provided

World

of

approximately
(10).

during

protection

until

go

during

(6).

strictly

to

and

development

by

tackles

decision

lift

must

full

were

consolidate

credit

'Conex'

were

and

to

these

containerisation,

boxes

serviced

and

between

of

extended

which

Texas,

cargoes

America.

and

damage

containerised

form

dimensions

and

the

of

flurry

above

operation

analysis

on

seen

avoid

the

for

transport

and

possible.

operators

primarily

be

as

Europe

ship

Corps

wooden

forms

various

small

or

much

Houston,

fragile

Steamship

cargo,

Coast

crude

and

cages

breakage

to

established

Pan-Atlantic

general

Atlantic

was

Corporation

as
of

the

on

This

protective

of

handling

ports

(9).

ports

Steamship

appeared
(10).

period

cargo

general

in

made

of

in
It

the

was
and

existing

palletization,
hatch

sudden

out

Consequently

necessity.
were

configuration,

fork

roll

on-roll

studies

off

were

containers

were

in

unit
to
the

ships.

highway

were

the

boxes

loss

of

wing

spaces

ashore

The

railway

U. S.

the

with
to

was

develop

which

mounted

cranes

left

the

to

the

in

vexing
(10).

the

problem

C3-Class

capable

handling

of

similar

(10).
the

of

containerisation

that

serious

stowed

strikingly

today

ingenuity

to

result
also

built

were

of

was

available

cranes

tons,

30

the

the

bridge

which

designed

not

were

even

and

factors

There

not

adapted

possibility

with

lastly

enough

readily

were

Commission
deck

over

up

ship
It

Maritime

be

containers

were

and

a large

ships

decksand

which

cargoes,

loads

unit

'tween

of

ship

cargo

the

these

Overlooked

could

damaged.

The

but

units.

efficiently,

frequently

(5).

on

denominator,

the

cargo

because,

so

wagon
was one
(6).
Other
other

that

of

of

that

the

type

cubic

The

to

use

were,

were

return

of

containers

common

trailer

this

use

small

was

overlooked

handle

and

relatively

common

the

containers
the

at

aimed

identified

not

to

ships,

system

shipowners

private

and

that

show

it

worked.
A U. S.
the

use

40

of
than

bigger
The

stevedore

the

so

effective
be

would
Alaska

first

to

that

the

thus

the

full

two

commercial

the

other

the

and

with

transportation

of

success

were

married

to

the

part

one

goods
same;

without

road
the

the

trucker

and
could

containers

in

unitization.

States

At

the

shipper

take

time,
and

independently

were

sea
for

that

could

to

same

ingredients

could

themselves

vessels

company

large

13

He

stacking,

turned

Their

wheels,

much
with.

containerised

equipment,

develop

Alaska.

United

(6).

highway

was

obtained
(7).

intermodel

which

the

of

of

to

containerisation

steamship

the

over-the

that

the-economy

a non-subsidized
with

ship

decking

unitization

of

groups,

experimenting

the

to

prove

first

experimented

barges

first

advantage

had

attributes

by

overshadowed

was

cargo,

in

carried
double

with

perhaps

for

predecessors

were

containers

was

his

the

was

containers

what

experimented

be

ft.

contractor

be
be

could
lifted
stacked

the
be
aboard
in

cells

the

aboard

in

Also

this

United

States

and

Hawaii

and

by

highway
trucks

New

York

on

the

recorded

had

High

annoyed

by

the

for

the

with

and

low

decessor

was

the

Rico

McLean,

Services,

trucker

stimulated
state

idea

haul

of

from

in

the

history

carrying

Florida

to

eliminate

Service
X'

tankers

deck

between

trailer

vans

was
but

New

was

was

York

by

the

abandoned

the

used
and

Pan

vessel,

coupled

success.

The
a quantum

at

Atlantic
two

with

T2

elevated

carrying
(6).
Houston.
of

favour

the

system

the

pre-

type
platforms
35

for

company
in

reduction

represented

fitted

'Almena'

and

made

1956,
Inc.,

and

motivation.

handlings

many

in

reasons

Economics

spelled
load

unit

must

remarkable

attendant
of

the

This

and

principal

sea,

of

born.

was

time

wheeled

segments

with

at

the

of

to

able
(10).

'Ideal

study

the

separable
the

of

transport.

sea

port

easily

use

significant

as

mile

size

Sealand

another

land

productivity,

cost/ton

of

container,

the

ship

of

and

up

and

the

most

protection

costs

made

with

to

the

of

to

vans

latter,

container

one

above

trailer

was
trailer

the

as

the

the

tankers

between

Puerto

of

bold

long

vehicle

modern

the

interfaces
For

the

confined

labour

in

increase

trade

restrictive

the

tractor,

handling

direct

above

and

carry

replaced

cargo

jump

Sealand

of

the

So

innovations

in

of

components

system.

now

increased

founder

highway

only

need

highway

containerisation

and

ship

consisting

ship

going

position

(10).

Since
units

sea

the
islands
and
(5).
Malcolm

conceived

stowed

from

Alaska

regulations,

his

be

impetus

later

motive

profit

in

mainland

shipowner

their

only.

greatest

the

to

moved

breakthrough

its

turned

and

direction

a vertical

received

ship

feet

Simultaneously,

roll-on/roll-off
of

container

ships

(5)"

a C2
City'

After

their

type

vessel

became

the

experimental
to

world's

lift

on
first

14

run,

Sealand

lift

off

container

in

ship,
ship

1957,

converted

'Gateway
and
(6).

This

conversion

anything
one
four

at

with
this

with

of

City'
into

and

Houston

8'

because

the

first

the

next

to

a full

1959,

in

coastal
U. S.

lock

device

for

(6).

The

scheme

used

same

as

today

used

other

York,

sister

Miami,

ships,

Tampa

to

and

from

companies

on

the

international

to

containerisatior..

was
but

up

the

Grace
first
the

although

front
Grace

be
(7).
(7),

Inc.

In

its

of

C3 vessels
(6).
two

converted
using

17

on

New York

service,

both
by

rapidly;

the
the

East

outside

set
from

service
the

operations

and

container

a comprehensive
Lines

ft.

all

of
New
U. S.

protected
of

ships

three

little
was done
prosper,
very
(11).
There
were
early
opposition

to

continued

Service

multiplied

connected

Hawaii.

laws

ships

ports

built

Sealand's

Highway

Lines

services

were

Matson

Venezuala
trade,

U. S.

to

Citizen'

American

of

guides.

could

one

Grace

early

Harlander,

containerisation.

'Hawaiin

South

cell

75

carry

chassis

Sealand

container

range

the

the

converted

full
for

in

to

A.

compared

adopt

the

to

Leslie

was

Californian

to

Coast

C3 vessels

on

became

Company

West

containers

company
to

Navigation

U. S.

it

loaded

The

while

the

containers

Matson

extensive

Sealand,

to

1959

of

of

ship,

(11).

Coasts

York

openings

twist

five

their

of

company

intended

an

in

Atlantic

shipping

containers,

sailings

Matson

under

container

1960

pattern

24'

1960,

year,

by

New

vans

shipping

C2 vessels

of

24'

Pan

Another

West

8'

tractor

one

Venezuala

between

carrying

two

to

by

Subsequently

the

used

By

The
with

the

followed

six

deck.

on

by

frame

shipper

converted

developed

moved

same

a dominant

containers

35'

was

the

trade

Matson

type

guides

(6).

years

who

vertical

castings

essentially

service

Following

Hawaii

with

in

stacked

modification.

'Gateway
coming

was

toppling.

corner

bayonet

is

vessel

high,
from

suspended

crane

little

all

with

from

container

seven
them

fitted

first

very

for

another

engagement

lifting

Each

preventing

were

the

in

of

corners

containers
for

top

on

departure

absolute

before.

contemplated

cells

an

was

Lines

15

two

ships

on

their

maiden

in

voyage
South

1959

American

was

subsequently

was

met

by

Puerto

ports

Union

chemicals

in

special

long,

of

On

the

Report

ports

forward

looking

sizes

ports

17'

to

were

their

1961

were

T2

tankers

were
of

containers

granular
were

aluminium

As

If

this

have

the

standards,

as

June

1967

of

easy

interchange,
cost

opportunity

transfer

equipment

released

for

royalty

the

to

high

six

was

free

fittings

to

16

benefits

full

As

about.

the

(ASA)
in

standards

in

all

aspects

based
The

Moscow

main

purpose,

benefits

of

through

mass

stacking

agreement
late

as

that
standardisation
production

vehicles

and

Sealand

spirit
patent

on

final

in

transport

a key

far

Standardisation

compromising

use,

its

were
transport-

of

strength

signed

container

In

securing

were
(5).

standardize

(6).

sizes

standards

subsidiary

the

of

container

for

which

standardisation
(8).
In addition

container

lower

standards
of

above

Association

ASA

forms

various

and

brought

and

the

(8).

standardisation.

the

and

Organisation

instead

of

be

Standards

adopted

four

containers

to

less

were

method

success
had

International

strength

out

the

railroads

developed

widespread

size

was

various

and

newly

that

between
by

Rochdale

competitors

stimulus

Lifting

the

shipowners
U. S.

pointed

American

1962,

conclusion

British

developed

40'.

tentatively

the

existed

to

the

to

important

most

container
The

the

to

cargoes

in

overseas

standardisation

realized,

include

voyage

all-welded

the

possibly

equipment

different.

except

two

Atlantic

came

than

of

from

(ISO)

first

of

These

the

of

companies.

1962.

fate

transportation

heavy

side

the

shipping

adopted

1961,
for

interchangeability

Little

and

In

relatively

and

However

as

forms

containers.

other

British

back

service

similar

her

on

other

Carbide

British

on

ation

the

and

(6).

construction

all

them

1957

City'

cargo,

containerised.
by

varied

In

in

stevedores

unload

(6).

'Gateway

general

converted

and

the

(6).

Rico

ft.

to

refused

Sealand's

being

30

because

up

scrapped

Besides
also

held

were

having

to

do

the

with

container

lifting

(6).

fitting

ISO

the

omitted
by

used

Ironically

1962-1965

Sealand;

4 by

Matson

either

full

or

of

American

the

U. S.;

shipping

owners

in

In

the

supply
a

a large

part
the

provided

meantime

in
ever

needed

same

there

there

of

certainly

The

Containers

the

U. S.
38

lines
Near

In

serving
East,

year
owners
Ltd.

1966

also

U. S.

lines

100

was

minds

of

reported
in

ports

Atlantic

as

(6).

only

Lakes

the

Hitherto

container

it

1967,

North

put

service.

operating

containerisation

Europe,
Australasia
ports

(8).

route
those

reflected

who
in

the

1966.

after
marked

war

Great

from

fact

contracts.

Vietnam

and

the

in

military

Africa,

enter

containerisation

lines;

East,

to

for

This

Far

Sealand

largest

Government

the
Coast

doubt

the

service

over

West

about

and

January

and

any

ship

containerisation.

lines

shipping

line,

container

Transatlantic

East

hesitating

European

ship

and

from

Puerto-Rican

and

European

(6).

the

Sealand
into

realized

which

shipping

came

to

had

Melbourne

Vietnam

subsequently

other

shipping

U. S.

to

vessels

several

obtained

to

by

exception,

the

revenue

ships

removed

in

by

1966,

year

the

U. S.

step

awarded

impetus

were

were

America,
the

Sealand

and

coastwise

from

growth

ft.

or

other

Americans

built

stimulus

a much

by

an

1966

Sealand's

20

and

Australian

hardware

military

war

U. S.

services

were

specially

container

converted

The

first

Korean

conversions

between

the

of

16

while

however

was

considerable

the

In

from

24

built

were

The

The

service

of

provided

Latin

by

the

as

ships

containerisation

container

contract

shipping

that

lock

adopted

well

capacity
(6).

sceptical.

with
(6).

'Kooringa'

1966

as

buildings)

new

container

of

1964

Freemantle

In

(2

Steamships,

Associated

was

size

included

companies

remained

it

these

part

potentialities

Thus

ft.

twist

making

standards

container

many

in

the

the

35

Sealand's

converted

began

and

Matson.

During

the

fittings

corner

the

commitment

of

many

Overseas
including
container
services
(OCL),
Container
Transportation
Associated

to

17

(ACT),

Atlantic

Container
heralded

also

an

specialist

ships

i.

cellular

fully

e.

number

of

lines

served

to

almost

the

ships

Table

fully

cellular

container
the

first

were

equal

numbers

of

these

vessels

were

built

were

The

1000

about

generation

1972

with

an

of

1800

Teu.

This

of

container

ships
the

1973-74,
fell

to

was

again

size

of

11

resurgence

the

much

of

major
(between

1979.

ships

carrying

the

1975.

line

the

the

intercontinental

1966-1973)
the

than
former,

average
Teu.

come

of

ship
numbers

crisis

of

into

operation

that

there
The

the

second

Teu.
have

throughputs
rates

Quite

the

of

naturally

growth

during
container

the

rates

increased
container
in

the

early

involving

containerisation
routes

the

activity.

those

as

growth

(27).

capacity

trade

building

port

with

liner

new
same

oil

to

the

of

highest

1977-79

until

1200-1300

years,

fleet

During

the

was
about

early
in

of

the

not

purpose

container

the

when

of

operation

built

ships

the

and

into

were

size

1200-1300

about

After

was

Teu

1968,

There

advent

came

year

in

the

of

the

purpose

container

It

vessel

generation

years

in

of

size

1000

of
was

built.

of

and

ships

the

also

were

number

the

In

was

that

ships

size

average

ships.

saw

first

the

container

The

1960

since

that

year

of

chronological

operation

Teu.

container

generation

the

into

ships

ports

the

ships

1969-71

container

in

very

Teu.

container

built

third

835

about

of

generations

shows

came

in

the

power,

different

4.4

conversions

1969

gives

container

generation

containers,

different

of

outlines

ships

only

dimensions,

the

4.4

ships,

number

4.1

principal

Table

500#Teu.

the

Fig.

of

ships.

these

purpose

the

June

views

ships.
in

carry

By

and

This

container

to

differing

capacity

over
built

88,

to

container

of

purpose

of

ships.

the

carrying

development

second

container

gives

container

for

designed

(6).

Lines

in

were

change

and

Johnson

and
buildings

new

risen
(8).
200

chronological
speed

of

had

of

generations

era
which

4.3

Table

(ACL)

Line

were

higher

subsequent

period

throughput

doubled

until

Teu Twenty Foot Equivalent

Units
All container
spaces in a ship can
.
be expressed as 20 ft.
equivalent
is
spaces, e. g. one 40 ft. container
equal to 2 Teu's.
18

size

4.3.

TABLE

Definition

of

container

ships.

(12)

First

different

generations
(From various
articles)

Capacity
TEU

to

Loa
m

cellular

Bext
m

d
m

v
knots

750

11+000

180

25.0

22-23

1500

30000

225

29.0

11.5

26-27

2500-

40000

275

32.0

12.5

22-23

generation

Second

DWT
tons

of

Third

3000
Year
of
Introduction

--1966

"The
were

having

TEU's

and

single

shaft

TEU".

"The

second

for

ships

to

up
22

around

Australian

the

capacities

1500
from

knots

(16)

arrangement".
length

between

ships

of

screw

arrangement,

with
(17)

container

sixties

28000-34200

knots

1000

late

major

speed

between

23

of

the

service

single

power

of

container

were

with

+)
U)

built

"These

a)

generation
in

trade

0.
0
. ri
4-
Cd
p
a

first

175-200

m,

developing
PS and

container

horse

average

speed

less

capacity

than

1971
1972

b0

three

shafts

steam

turbine,

diesel
En

generation
arrangement

engines

approximately

1 1973

and
V

.,
E-+

2300

PS,
larger
TEU".

or

three

by
speed

slow

capacity

of

were

mainly

These
for

or

supplied

power

container

the

Far

East!

"(16)

generation
by

characterized

80000

70's

trade.

length,

and

early

Australian

in

turbine

TEU's.

in

second

gas

two-

were

and

2500

introduced

"The

ships

of

larger

higher

container

size

propulsion

higher

service

container

(17).

1977

19

speed

capacity

ships

about

245-273

power

about

about
about

26-27
1800-

are
m.
70000knots

TABLE

4.3.

).

Contd.

1977

"The

third

generation
the

after

about
The

initial

ships

at

operation
but

shorter
generation

single

dimensions,

power

and

generation

but

economical

aspects,

performance.
Klaus
viewpoint:

"He

In

1970

again

the

handy

almost

the

same

the

ist

as

larger

higher

sized

stress

more

as

however

first

during

the

generation

on

container

propulsive

has

different

container

ship

TEU.

1972

came

and

fourth

generation

during

or

developed

the

most

the

trade".

into

of

after

the

the

so called

suitable

20

no

oil

service

about

size

had

for

of

longer

2300-

about
of

still
the.

of

vessels

followed

up

There

crisis.
new

of

into

put

generation

container
was

this

were

development

faster

generation

TEU

third

A further

bigger

vessels

the

second

so-called

1200-1700

about
In

the

of

TEU.

700-900

with

as

vessels

generation
1968

first

service.

third

2nd

with

and

the

built

3000

to

defines

those

capacity
(16).

such

(13)

Hoppe

slower,

speed

designed

capacity
(17).

carrying

Thus

are
with

of

resulting

speed.

container

ships

1973"

world-wide

prices

reduced

generation
screw

by

developed".

was

third

The

fuel

equal

in

came

generation

reduced

high

and

ship

crises
2nd

of

greatly

was

container

fuel

oil

success

inflation

in

of

second

and

1100-1900
been

proved

requirements

new

TEU as
to

be
of

Fig.

4.1.

Chronological
power, speed

dimensions,.
change of principal
(17). (Javanese
and container
capacity

iI

26
22
018

...

t---t

0%

"

0'0

""

-0"-

db-0

e- P-20-0-It

32
0

iS I

'H\LJ
0
1
0

14

-built)-

-*

m8

24
280
s-

Z40
E
CL
m
J

V.. -0._0_0-6

180 r

OO

";

H
v

..U4
O

CL

20
CO)

14

0
y

ma

cc
'w4-4 15
wN
c ti
ae
cj 0 10

0-1b
0

S
i
V

28r

O ooo.

v2

tn

.0

M-a.

20`
a

8000

6 000

"

4000

6-0

tir
2000
Delivery

1y05r
. ww

-/u
_w

-t'
71

72

....

73

Ist. generation
2nd.
generation
o
3rd. generation

21

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

-"

ri

Cd O
00

+j
O

G)

11II00

CM00 -t C\t C\t l0 rn t` t- -t H O\ O\ CN N O\

O t` "0 CMri C\ \o t` C\ Lr\ 00 0o C\i 0 o0 00 1
0-"
-" C1 CT H CV CMO sT
CO a1 00

kN

r-I r-i

r-i r-i r-i rA H

\ID

c\t 00 -

ri

r-i r-4 r-i r-1

I
0

w r-1

> 10 00 III1CDI\O
0

(1)
Ul

CD in

OO
ri

ir1 C\ o, \lo ID _-:t

\lo

00 00 CO 00 00 r-i (D

t`

ri

r-i

L_1 In --f

1-

Cn \.0 u1

ri

r-i

ri

a) m c
5 a)
cd >
a

U) +-1
O r-i

r-I r-i CE) tn

CT CDC1 C\ L-- O\ -e ,0 0\ ,0 Cl 00 C\
ON
C\t
r-1 C\t t-

II1I111IO

0,

r4
I-1 ri

ul 0\ 00 ri

C\I CM Cn 00 t`

C1 r-i ri

00 0\

C\t

C\ C\! CV_e

0
00
rn

-1-
r

U
Cd

a
cd

a
cd \.0

Co 111I

-I-

0
(lp
p

)r\

r-

O4

ri

n Cv r<nfv t` n C1
O\ Cn fl O0-,

0 t-

rn
-e

-"
ri

tN

ri

\p 00 0\t
t- H C1

C\t -0 r-i

a)

O C\ W\ C\ 00 CTOD Ln-2 rn cn -2 CT00 CMr\ CO

C\
CM
C\t C1 ,0 H
00 -'
-e

-e

CM Cl n

r-i r-I

-e

C1 Or1

cd

r-i ri

N \,0 OD t-

u\ CM

"0

w
1)
rCQ

\M
00
G) r\

G)

"r1

y'C
0

C)
CdD

C H

II1I0H

t`

Cb (D CM t- --_:
r-i C\ O
0\ C CM00 OD Cl 0\ I \0
O C\ ir\ r-i C\t 00 O ri OO

Cl -_e CM01 t-

0 r-i

Uw
P4

.ri

r-A

tr

G)

ri

EtD

cn

i1

O r-i

Cd
U

p,.H

1111111

C\t NN
Lr\ Co 0\ 0\ C\t -' t` 0\ N CV00
11--" t- H \l0 -' _e -7 00
-e N C1i Ho 0
1Oo
M

a)
9.
.ri
cd
4-)
0
0

r-I
r-I
a)
U

r-1
r-I

r in

0\o0oC

c\t c\i r O, u\ ri

CM

ii

CMr:r\ tn u\ in (D

ri)
Cd

LW

0
0
f'Y
0

0
U)
^n

ri

cd
r-I
-4-')
0
H

U)

a
.s~
,
,U)

Cd
H

t 00
\l0
1 00 t-- -2
(1 t-- -2.
0\ C1 O 00 -2
t` 00 (\ C1\0
CM l
r-4

C'1-:t cn \Z O CM 0 0\ H -:t r-i 00 00 0\ Cl -" \0

C\! C\ Cn cn u\ C\ r-I rI r-1 t \o \0
--:
--t 00

+J

y..1

IIII

a
Cd

IIII

C1 --:t n

C3-,.
2

r\ 0\ H

I t-

t-

U0

ri

-P
0

0
U

a)

U)
421
O
r-i
P, _H
1"t

;j

I1IIIII1

rr\ r-i 00 r\ O O_e

ri f\! H CM tr1 C1 ri

t` 00 r-i -'

r-i --2 -t

ri

-:t

t-

r"i

Cn l0

C1

;1

ri

cd "ri
0
>fim

O r-i C\t n t in \0 t` 00 (\ O ri C\t m -2 n e t` ao rn O cd

\,0 ', 0 \0 \J -:
\0 \0 0 \0 \M \0 t- t- t- t- t- tI- tI- t- t- t- 00 +-)

ri

22

0
w
b
0
.,
0
U

15

every

to

slowed

in

an

isation

is

be

which

in

rates
the

container

container

trade

Turnbull

between

that

this

and
4.2.

be

radically

the

in

business

three
scheduled
tramp
was

common

trades

good

liner
by

the

the

of
to

project

techniques
cargo
size

estimates

vessels

dwt

between

annum

required

16000

of

1985-90.

containerisation
than

more
as

well

most

a decade,
the

as
the

of

container

has

been

the

profileof

structure

world's

and

major

two

bulk

head'

the

berth

carry

out

cargo

for

to

chartered

bulk

commodities

and

main

impact

of

operation

and

had

late

a given

seventies.

23

the

were

cargo
bulk

break

travel

often
even
liner
cargo
two

between
offer

could
container

replaced

carried

sometimes

and

it

1960's

early

liners.

cargo

ships

with

the
was

of

tramp

Occasionally
be

trade

services
deck

in

ships

break

or

would

The

cargo

world,

SHIPPING

scheduled

all

would

freight-rate.
on

the

sailing.

ship

growth

modest

used

general

per

of

of

'double
in

ships

OF

of

trade

was
to

chartered

port

vessels.

average

ships

fleet,

advent

cargo

large

and

of

companies.
the

general

When

as

liner

shipping

the

zero

developed

be

can

of

an

little

practices

Before

provision

exposition

cargo
forecasting

effects
in

alter

operating

liner

by

main

cargo

world

STRUCTURE

the

of

developing

generate

general

number

assuming
to 450

fall
IN

CHANGES

to

500

would

One

the

1980-85

would

annum

container-

or

the

only

which

demand and supply

of
(33)
based
on these

future

(GNP)

the

limited

a clear

techniques

forecasting

the

will

the

on

of

will

(32)give

Hillman

and

demand

increases.

volume

Wing

32

of

with

activity

routes

around

of

dependent

line

economic

general

primary

In

growth

product

potential

much

the

expansion

the

very

(27).

national

future

tapping

of

container

gross

that

be

facilities

and other

for

global

in

will

period

rate

apparent

will

world

the

1973

after

duplication

growth

with

It

while

average,

average
The

line

(26).

the

on

(27).

years
be

months

in

ports,
a

ship
the

lower
was
major

per

As

the

container

liners

cargo

1970-1973
four

decreased
was

870

tonne

is

dwt

tonne

in

change

the

since

that

the

better

the

way

(9).

to

the

shrink

the

to

required
in

the

shipowners.

many
to

be

America

and

the

Cunard

But

Holland-America
Swedish
first

British
the
from
to

liner

trade,

conventional

worried

international

is

a less

not

yet

to

required

to

the

finance

size

the

offt-r

the

His

offer

to
the

of

the

United

Lines
Lines

(Netherlands)

and

Japanese

Lines

owners

were

could

easily

they
container

operations
(il).

partnership

24

in

(7).
Lines

French

Lines

had

lines

legislation
issue

Wallenius

to

States

Anti-trust

Swedish

Wallenius

"Consortium"

nationality
(Great
Britain),

and

of

investment

ship
led

idea

of

of

economy

the

of

up

shipper

containerships

to

of

tooling

a leading

how

in

the

about

Wallenius,

of

thus

it

trade.

about

to

are

ships

with
and

which

of

Transatlantic
consortium

today

of

number

subsidy

and

to

allocate

liner

cargoes

return;

total

because

rejected

economic

the

effective

sixties

mid

an

points

construct,

containerisation

recognition
be

and

(13)

of

worried
The

scale.

design

later,

years

to

seen

effect

Olof

automobiles

has

first

Americans

containerisation,

liner

Meek

cargo

7.06 dwt

1972,

1969.

to

has

the

cargo

general

While

the

in

ten

is

ship

carrying

So

been

provide

Thus

vessel

containerised.

to

a simple

obtain
type.
cargo

sophisticated

carry

be

period

1966

in
is

ship

of

cargo

5612

built

cargo

arrived

the

simpler

the

of

in
to

compared
ship

the

terms

built

disappeared

not

ship

to

single

has

has

will

in

liner

Although

it

it

vessels

a cargo

number

ship
replacing
(11). This is because

efficient

more

the
during

container

a container

container
the

out

one

miles/annum
of

style

decrease

cargo

e. g.

miles/annum
of 6.45

factor

to

much

capacity,
106

this

and

general

ship

container

increased

numbers

equivalent

conventional

carrying

ship

Swedish

two

Lines,

the

formed

(France),

world's

(7).
well

in

established

make

the

without

transition
recourse

While
to

slow

the

idea

of

Continental

and

of

(7)
Wallenius

has

proven

in

change

world

containers

has
port

without

national

level.

Gulf

The

rush

trade

routes

by

1975

number

end

of

be

rush

slump

of

onset

severely

To summarise

we

isation

fewer

but

general

cargo

trade

companies

required
across

most

port

development

last

10-15

have

at

to

55

by

years

invested

heavily
brought

was

national

inter-

and
berths

container/Ro-Ro

during

the

end

rose

1983

of

in

one
in

the

of

orders

factors

which

and

the

the

more

expensive

which
To

offer

pooling
their

that

called
the
of

consortia.

25

due

to
in

the

ships
for

heavy

door-to-door

boundaries

the

to
to

rate

of

needed

certain

containerin

investment

various
by

the
in

concept
of

oil

mass

of

advent
were

1974-

certain

led

and

resources

national

in

profitability

with

major

followed

overtonnage

1975

4.4)

overinvestment

trades

in

say

in

the

mainly

trans-Pacific

affecting
(11).

in
was

was

recession

can

itself

buildings

new

(Table

1968-1973

establishing

conferences

companies

facilities.

most

and

investment

1975

on

competition

delivery

the

world

buildings

of

from

port

on

of

was

resignations

shipping

shipping

became
ships

This

Overtonnage

routes.

pool

institutional

largest

the

over

The

The

the

crisis,

of

services

During

new

may

to

(11).

of

containerisation

ports.

capital

massive

consortia

greatest

the

and

ACT.

containerisation

alone

while

in

the

coordination

the

at

zero

the

the

of

construction

amalgamation

Joint

facilities.

about

Arabian

be

where

all

container

from

of

significant.

authorities

in

to

of

been

OCL and

Scandinavian

required.

effect

also

the

formed

idea

areas

were

The

to

were

recognition

of

for,

shipping.

in

significant

in

Americans

of

by

scale

similar

the

majority

motivated

call

the

and

identification

would

resources
Thus

of

and

this

interests

consortia,

economy

stages

investment
their

Japanese

shipowners

implications
operating

the

ship

of
shipping

formation

of

and

4.3.

ROUTE

DEVELOPMENT

Table

4.5

auL-uration

of

cellular

ships

of

are

(WCNA-FE)

are

Influence
is

in

4.2

the

Far

(11)

gives

routes

and

early

as

into

developed

nations

developing

been

growth

growth

rate

about

32%

annum

in

to

increase

in

Far

and

East

1972

1978.

growth
a sustained
Container growth rates
per annum.

has
the

been

In

the

summary

has
continents
Far

East.

Far

East

relative
handlings

24% in

1978

(26).

same
15%

around

developing

to
has

world
peak

Asian

in

1974
world

to

the

share

of
arose

There
in

share

relative

the

port

countries
The

period.

the

17% whereas
declined
to
there

from
6-7%/

about
has

18 to 19%o/annum.
rate
of around
in fleet deployments or port throughput
26

were

countries

the

East

here.

given

the

and

South

its

reaching

is

developed

the

for

brief

port

the

developed

analysis

total

24% during

over

between

around

developing

of

an

rate

in

terms

1971

9% to

global

in

in

the

of

about

the

of

the

connecting
(26)-)
West

in

principal

containerisation

first

South

potential

routes

Australia

the

network

world

under"5%

handlings

1972

the

trade

between

Europe,

the

the

statistical

routes.

years

trades

as

integrated

also

seven

America,

North

Although

than

liner

the

these

32.30

service.
of

gives

route.

shown

into

came

with

these

of

are

development

of

largest

and

routes

together

and

North

and

America

(26)

routes

more

of

they

lamest

route-The

Europe

year

Kieselhorst

points

no

captured

from

historical

trade

salient

In

has

the

containerisation

the

from

the

East

WCNA-FE

restriction

trade

principal

with

the

on

Europe-North

Far

routes-The

African

beam

number

N. Eur-South

connecting

East,

together

further

the

routes

The

different

e. g.

many

Canal

of
ofthe

maximum

(N. Eur-ME)
the

advent

America

are

East

Panama

The

(Eur-FE)

East

and

the

characteristics

North

operators

the

routes.

of

Europe-Far

of

African

of

of

N. Eur-FE

to

trade

Coast

the

America

Drewry

routes.

on

evident

Fig.

trade

in-

service

since

the

gives

Europe-Middle

Northern

ships

major

non-conference

of

ships

4.6

West

the

of

Table

the

on

and

number
the

on

ships

chronology

container

containerisation.
container

the

outlines

been

Therefore
in percentage

TABLE

4.5.

Chronology
containerships

States

inauguration

service
(26).

of

of

1955

United

1958

North

1959

Australian

early
60's

New

1963

North

American

East

Coast

Puerto

1964

North

American

West

Coast

Anchorage

Hawaii

services

coastal

Zealand

services

coastal

America

coastal

services

mid60's

European

1966

North

American

East

Coast

North

1968

North

American

West

Coast

Far

North

Europe

coastal

1971

1972

1973

Europe

Australia

North

American

North

East
- Far
American
West

North

America/Atlantic
Zealand

Mediterranean

- North
East

Europe
North

- Far
Europe

North

America

Europe

North
Europe
Far

Coast
-

Australia/New

Europe

1976

Australia

Mediterranean
1975

services

Atlantic

Canadian

Australia

Indian

Far

South

- Middle
America
- Morocco

Coast

Europe
- North
Mediterranean

- North
American

United

Europe
East

East

American
West

West

Coast

Coast

States-Gulf
Subcontinent
East

Pacific
East
Middle

East

North

Pacific
- South
Europe
- Caribbean/Central
American
Atlantic
- West

Miami

North

Rico

Zealand

Australia/New

1969

cellular

East

Ecuador

27

America
Africa

East

Coast

TABLE

1977

4.5.

).

Contd.

North

America/Far

East

Australia/New

Zealand

Australia

Sri

Australia/New
-

South

Europe

West

Europe

Indian

Europe

New

Far

East

Middle

South

East

East

Asia

Africa

Africa
Subcontinent/Tndonesia
Zealand

Middle

Lanka
Zealand

Europe

Panama/Venezuela

East

Australia

South

East

Asia

Australia

Papua

New

Guinea

Mediterranean/Caribbean

1978

1979

South

American

East

North

American

Atlantic

Brazil
North

- West
American

North

Europe

North

American

North

Europe

Mediterranean
Europe

1960

Coastal

South

Europe
-

Coast

Central
West

South

American

West

- Central
Atlantic

Mexican

Atlantic

- South
Australia

China

China
Black

- Europe
Sea - India

North

Europe

82
1982

Far

East

Colombian
East

(South

Indonesia

Europe

South

West

Atlantic
Coast

American

Africa

Africa

Europe

American

Lanka/India

East

South

Coast

Atlantic

Venezuela/Caribbean

1981-

Coast

Africa

Sri

American

Zealand

Mediterranean

East

Pacific

Coast

- South
Indonesia

Australia/New

services

American

- Venezuela/Mexican
Mozambique

North

Australia

West

North

East

Africa

American

Far

Coast

American

28

West

Coast

West

Coast)

Coast

u1 O\

..

O\

O
H

t-

t-

-:t.

00

O\

u1
.

C'r'

l0 cn
..

_:t.. -:t
O

-4

4i

cd
;+

"

00 r-i
..
t` u1

i
F1

c'1
.
.

o0
.

O
.

t`

00.

CT

t-

CM I c1

-"
O\

00

t
__:

f1

"1

Ct

/
cm

"

I C1

H.

b
4-1
0
0
0

ao

00

c\

00

cn

c
rr

CM
t / 1
.n
f 4

u ,

/ 1
f LL

1,

WA

(d

/
".

O\

,'

ul O

".

-t

C1
-:t
.H

cd

CM
t

/y
f
1

/
`

/
"+
\

rl -J

"

0
r-4
CM n

-2 O\
.
00 u1
Co CX)

i<
u) gl

/
YJ

O
".
C\ r-4

`y{ G)

m4

"

ct

CM

r-! r-i

ul
N

CM

-i- G)

'

O G)
U)

1 /
W

C!
C

Cl
C

r"i

CM

/
f V

"

l0
t`
r-1 r-1

f;

p0
r-i

C\!

" /
VJ

"

:t

CM

C1
.

Co

.-1

'-1
C"1 l0

cm

cm

-:t

-e
t`

-2
H

CM

V\

C\!

\lo l0

00 t`
0 r-1
CM CM

u1

J
.rl

.
C\
CM -A
CM

O\ 00
00 N
N

CM
1

t-

ri
l0
H

ri

CI

C1!

1ti
"

zl

fV

l1

"
/l

C\!

m rd

'ti

"

`/

"

(yt

G)

cn
O

VJ

"1

"

"\

f1

"

l0

u\

W1
Cv

CM
C\t

O\

ry
\1

u1

l1fK1

n
f 3

y
\

n
" \[

/
W

-t

"

Cr
r-q
00
"
t`

\ .1

1I"

I"

CM

in Cl Co

-:t N

00 00 00
00
CM CIVCM

H O\

r- 1

r-1
t`
1 rfl
t
l0 -t
-.
CM
H
r-q

\lo

t`
O
C\! C! C!
CM

l0

r-!

C\!

CM

(D
CM

u'

00 OD

u1

ul
r-i

O
.,
cd
E
rl
O

.,

U1

1
g!
O G) "ri
'
C) .
"ri

cd

lO t`
C7N(D
ri

C)
Cd

W
+ cd

o
R'

O O
.e
in
r-i ri
CV (D O\
H
Cl ri

00 0

r-i

0
00
r-i

L-- 0
C)0 f1
00 t. ri

00
O
t-H

00 0(:

0\
u1 O 00

OO

-t

t-- 0

t`
H

u1 _:t

0
_e C"r1
CM r-I r-i

r-i

H
0
-4-3
cd

l0 O

ul

ifl

t` C1

C\! "2
c'1 -2
I

CV

00

C1

C\!

r-I

ti
1

_e
II
kr
u1

I-e

a
Q)

I-: t

Y
0

ul
Cd

CH
0

0
0

ti
H

C1

4i
0
Cd
C)
"ri

U
. r{
4-
U)
.,

0\

t`

r-i

-2

O rCM l0

P"U"ri

1W1

(i!

td

"

G)
4-)
U
Cd
p
cd
4
U

ri

41

0i
1m1

.r_inyn

(c

+D

[7]

il) 4-)

0
x

rd -P ;jbW

cd

s4

4-)

-1

94

U)

U) 1Zb

o c "o

z=z
-1-

rn

+w

+)

ill

cd
+) "ri +, ri1000

+'
z40
-F MI

in ill (p U)

F+ td

ctc*

+)

+-)

msm 9) inm mp
ZfCdW ZQWdf

......

11,

06

EX. a'

a)

(nro

4->

cd-P cd cd cd cd cd+) +wo

cd cn cd II
wocdo
0m 0 orqocn
a)
ocdocd
a) ocdU
cd
oa) . o a)
+)

10
L.) L.)

c)

r-i

Cd

Cd

u1 C110

c) -H +3

I CH

4-)
U)

(d

Itl C1!

ln o
29

oo rn
ti".......

HH

tA cd

cdw +)
U)
va)cd
bW

p 10p U)10k
ZW
cv r
ri

"
H

iC

cd

,--I

>:
Cd

c1

"
0\

CT

C\t

C\l

"

C31

"rl

Y,

"

"

CT

t`

ri
-"

ri"

CT

10

rq

I`(\t

Crl
"

r-i

cY1

"

.E

-i-5
xU cd
WA
r

"r

0\.
CV

C\t

cd

v2,

\10

00
C\t
0"

\10
.

00
"

_:t
.

\0
"

C\l

Cl)

Lr

ri

4-) p
UU
I

"ri

cd

r-{

-7.

co
"

CT

C1

u1
ri

I~
ri

00
0

\0

C\t
CM

C\l

\0
r-I

U) 'd
N

4i
a

tf\

"

r1

+1

C\t

OU

w0
I

"rl

C\!
C\1

0
4-)

E
4i

Cd

r.
-P
O
"ri
U CU U
0 cd

W cd cd

"

0
C\l
r-I

cd

C"1
\0

0
O

N
\0

-7

r-I

[-i +-) U

r-I
00
ul

rl

\0

0
O\

\10

lf1

s
UU
G) I)

G)

CH
0.
0
0

C\l

II
U

\10

a)
a

\0

--f

I-

4J

cd

o4-)

zm
Cd
1w
cd

cd
a) Cda) w

P9 + 0, P
:j Cd mp

id + id I
U)

00

Wp

cd 4)

oz

W ,QW cd 4)
A
-P
"ri " ,a40
"ri -i-D"rl -rl

$4 Cd

a)

+) "rio
+) "rl f-I
.N
9 F-, v2 4 $ i 10 to 'd a)

zzw4
C;
CV

30

a)
U

r. {

4-1
0
O

"1-i

a
O

',D rl

.r.,

oa


v.

Le)
".
md
i

va

o
^n
o 'o

vI
4NN:
--Izx

Co
i
. - r-

ov

OC1
1

o
o,
--4

I "
1 I
1 "W
I i

2\
w

OC

i
,

w
z

Q
i

I
7l

1`

.i

so

71

I1
ol
EI
I
1
1
1
W

/'
,,

.00"q

. L.

Wlj

OC W

t
W

if

I
i
I
Inl

/`

` _
F"F'y,.

'I

,,`

Is

v'jf 1
'1 a
0

Pl-

'

//I

.
Ar
0

rc

t/
T

-__

Ii
Z
3

i-

sus

Sn r b/yj
M
Iq

a
O

D
31

it

be

can

for

inferred

containerisation

no

untapped

developed

world.

from

come

new

The

the

and

South

emerging
only

regions

as

until

then

level

of

the

major

various

Latin

be

4%/annum.

these

containerisation

sustained

can

at

can

be

the

current

the

of
These

provided,

future

available

appraisal

regions.

world

to

routes

Estimating

an

America

(179`0

infrastructure

port

their

in

situation

regions

the

briefly

are

below.

reviewed

Mediterranean:

Europe

The
due

to

on

major

in

growth

trade

i.

routes

the

Far

and

regions

contributing

This

throughputs

port

finalisation

the

Zealand

crises

growth

in

ensuing

routes

to

the

the

e.

North

was

sustained

South

untapped

considerable

the

Far
for

tonnage
due

by
i.

that
to

year.
fuel

the

Further
inauguration

Middle

e.

Pacific.

potential

Eastern

activity.

countries

the

and

the

principally

economic

containerisation

Australia/New

year

of

developing

Carribean

that

largely

was

of

America,

1974

level
years

phase

60% of

after

1973

until
first

In

nearly

low

and

of

East.

declined

growth

the

for

will

requires

potentials

oil

the

growth

around

However

potential

if

about

come

(611%

Pacific

developing

with

growth

(47%),

growth

to

routes

together

regions

emerging

potential

(62%),
Africa
rates/annum
are;
(76%),
East
Indian
Middle
subcontinent

high

This

of
Africa,

East,
has

area

especially

in

routes

North

new

short

trades.

sea

America:

North

In
less

respect

the

American

1980

the

Europe-Mediterranean

deep

rates

above
to

be

There

cited
already
are

as
the

and
sea

and

growth

are

Far

is

America
two

only
East

fleet

container

the

major
for

account
in

employed

than

routes

Europe
whose

due

to

the

container

predominance

potentials

exploited.

Pacific
than

rate

lower

trade

extensive

land-bridging

* High

trade

waters.

Growth

America

sea

Europe/Mediterranean

78% of

seem

deep

of
than

diverse

routes,

the

the

will

These

countries.

is

there

in

containerisation

of

of

that

land

bridges

ports

have

profited

this

is

others,

per annum caused

32

North

across

by low base

because
value.

more
of

from
the

huge

Asian

trade

the

new

and

Africa

Of

again

South
the

all

East/South
of

1975

Singapore
that

trading

time

the

contributed

to

most

the

in

rates

Far

rapid
through

port

average.

for

this

Australia/New

and

more

than

90%

like

Hong

Kong,

the

of

container

area.

countries

had

America

side.

regions,

Growth

account

Since

Atlantic

Europe/Mediterranean

in

Latin

now

Asia:

have

America,
still

East,

the

But

route.

Middle

container

above

activity

at

East

Asia

been

North

and

the

containerisation.

have

Zealand

Zealand

strengthen

major

East

growth

to

routes

will

and

fleet

Australia/New

container

Far-East

-puts

the

and

a growth

controlled

higher

rate

than

50% of

nearly

Taiwan,

the

S.

Japan

Korea

which

containers

handled.
Thailand,

Although
and

China

may

not

come
and

Japan,

which

large

these

port

development

Hong

for

accounted

South

than

90%

the

Korea
the

of

growth

slow

economic

Most

of

of

by

sustained

more

future

programmes.

Taiwan,

Malaysia

potential,
because

regions

be

Kong,

Indonesia,

untapped

from

therefore

will

growth
of

have

still

activity

Philippines,

the

economic

activity

Singapore

and

region's

container

activity.

Zealand:

Australia/New
Overall
in

growth

have

in

terms

both

regions

other

rates

been
of

more
fleet

than

continuous
deployment

and

port-

throughput.
Australia
other

by

regions

trades.

New

between

Europe

This
changed
cargo

has

advancing

services

area's
by

the

overcame

the
already

were

recession
containerisation

Zealand.

potential

for

introduction
been

of

growth
new

containerised.

33

affected

all

its

Asian

of

introduced

also

New

and

which

will

routes

in

1977

not

be

since

notably

dramatically

most

of

the

Middle

East:
This

has

region

growth

rates

because

of

their

It

is

goods.
estimated

and

in

will

sustain

of

industrial

resources

estimated

that

by

has

been

tapped.

the

available

of
the

development

the

shown

to

low

containerisation
by

years

continue

potential

governed

recent

1980

high

growth
and

only
But

rates

agricultural

15%

of

the

speed

potentials

of

largest

the

total
of

be

will

largely

ports.

Africa:
In

recent

years

major

containerisation

were

containerisation

of

the

progressive
(see
4.2).
Fig.

South

the

There

by

lack

smaller

of

ship
tonnage

cellular

African

been

fully

trade

the

and
and

West

1977

trade

amount

African

high

and

African

trade

in

has

This

proportion

semi-container

of

ships

facilities.

port
the

in

container

West

whereas

coordinated

considerable

cellular

adequate

sizes
(Ro-Ro

conference

of

has

trade

intercontinental

scale

South

in

African

hampered

full

containerisation

installations

reefer
the

the
the

in

events

of

been

explains
nonin

ships)

this

trade.
America:

Latin

This
Full

area.
the

scale

Carribean

and

American

South
from

Ro-Ro

one

is

employed

been

also

identified

as

containerisation

has

Central

while

America,

continent

remain

operation

with

essentially

the

been

yet

largely

of

is

the

growth

limited

Mexico

to
the

and

Apart

untapped.

United

composed

a major

States,

the

semi-container

tonnage
ships.

Subcontinent:

Indian

The

Indian

significant

subcontinent

area

Apart

from

large

container

involving
Because

has

area

the

carrying
major

containerisation

trade

proximity

ships
routes,
to

busy

34

but
will

tonnage

semi-container

all
of

where

last

all
can

be

the

not

advance.

types

of

small

found

on

this

including
container

least

continent,

coastal
routes

and

operations.
this

region

be

can

quickly

facilities

containerised

discussed
for

potential

The
of

the

in

1972

liner

with

market

17.2%

forecast
to

drastically

4.4.

TECHNOLOGICAL

in

improvements
been

by

considerable

did

second

generation

was

From

knots.

fell

number
the

and

improvement

over

The

initial

generation
(a)
Actual

of

liner
to

growth
While

ships.

container

increased

steadily

the

its

development

of

ships

has

operation

giving

terms.

economies

to

not

the

container

the

years

container

of

the

ships

to

maximum

permissible

costs
of

problems
subsequent

in

this

when

being

loaded

fuel

their

resolved

few

generation

the

of

and

were

average

by
Froude

second

discussed

be

speed

higher

much

of
the

relative

increased

Some

are

to

generation
of

have

Values

first

same

third

effect

ships
an

the

many

which

size.

value

return.

problems

the

that

speeds

may

of

from

the

the

scale

in

much

to

rise
of

absolute

second

the

container

increase

the

weight

although

the

18.5%

cargo

high

with

associated

to

liner

change

indicating

ships

known,

not

relatively

container

section

conventional

indicating

the

trade

the

cargo

fell

and

in

and

and

although

sought,

dry

Also

section,

in
detail

number

this

see

DEVELOPMENT

in

Froude

to

1985(18).

cargo

absolute

experience

reached

the

1965

for

liner

technological

reflected

in

dry

and

necessary

to

terms

the

fell

The

port

cargo.

participate

absolute
in

dry

22.3%

non-liner

in

share

adequate

containerisation

is

related

was

as

grew

in

trade

failed
extent

as

of

it

trade

transport

world

cargo

growth

growth,

overall

transport
same

the

future

the

against

soon

built.

are
Having

as

built

section.

the
were

container
weight

first

was
was

not

known

(18,19).
(b)

The

were
not
(c)
The

optimum
known
optimum

clearance
(18,19).
deck

width

between

at

requirements.

35

side

cell

to

guides

meet

and

the

containers

strength

(d)

Other

structural
(20,21,22,23)

ships

(i)

Concentrated

(iii)

Reduction
width

with

to

'open

support

modulus
reduced

were

of

lacks

section'

due

those

to

to

related

the

horsepowers.

of
generations
(f)
Improvement
to

stresses

propulsive

which

performance,
designed

propellers

Investigation

stability

the

is

and

4.7

for

into

the

these

different

ships.

deck

by

constrained

characteristics

loading

Panama

of

Canal

were

containers

as

dimensions

and

needed
ship

the

size,
speed

(13).

increased

An

interesting
is

design

in

rigidity

and

Table

container

larger

the

in

outlined

are

to

due

bending.

to

problems

framing

side

longitudinal

longitudinal

problems

high

bottom.

double

torsional

additional

manoeuvrability

deliver

the

plating.

causing

warp,

There

in

quality,

study
in

presented
in

reproduced
improvement

the
is

often

are

Froude

steady
surface

(24)

used

and

Among

improvement
finish

the

of

economies
these

36

containership

the

is

article

Unfortunately
word

changes

effects

the

change

scale
however,

in

period

be

the

differences

or

be

will

hull

arrangement,
over

word

could

mentioned
of

structural

machinery

in
of

the

of

in
and

some

whereas

results

Number.

trends

pages.

Some
the

the

of

following

appropriate.

article

hull

of

section

considerably

on

seakeeping

the

same

loading

deck

of

An

augment

in

the

type

open

as,

bending

(ii)

prone

more

to

plating.

(iv)

due

related

obtaining

of

longitudinal

reduced

(e)

such

Necessity

against
deck

problems

1968

to

form,
1976.

I`. 11.7.

S)

i uvS "s`
ii enis
of
Ue, li'
and iu-oieller

Mit jor
bitity

Item

propulsive

tj
]lull

, f
t

ships

(I7coi4. t]^ive

ol, nirrrnt

ll

prope

resisttheory

Study

on

around
ell-er
survey

a propby wake

with
pel. Ier
uor11 fled
pi i ch

and
ratio
area
expanded

technique.
Full
scale

ratio.

tests

St. u(ly

on

goneron ships

Appl

ication

Development
)m]]

goner-

i on
ships

on

dynamic
cristics

wave
resistance
theory.
new

Study

of

liy111, o-

charact
of

of

in

service.
of

Development

of

for

propellers
twin
screw

large
sized
bossings.
Develop.
of
slender
shaped
bossin
.

of
form.

pro-

on

st rcrlgth
blado.

of

theory
strip
:md
wave
statistics.
Advancement
test
model

Study

1,

Application

of
propeller
theory.
flow

n;, rot rvra-

Seakeeping
rlura] i ty

ion

Appiirat.

of

wave
ance

rt. Y.cein,

iei'fot7nance,:.

M noc ' uvrabi 1i ty

er

Appendage

form

goner_
vn

deveI

performance

Application

fyt

for

0I Is

i17)

ships.
Study
on propfor
el. lers
very
high
powered

Compar

at

ive

study
rudder

on
and

I'lre

une

a. "

above

propeller
configurations.

shi P.

Devel.
of new
for-in with
hull
high
economical
performance.
Improvement
of

Study
on propellers
with
lower
level
of
vib. excitation.
Design
of prop.

flow

compromising
efficiency,
osion
and

around

propeller.

Confirmation
of proper
manoeuvrability.

Contribution
rationalization
of struct.
Improvement
soft
ware
for

ralculat.

as

the

to
design.
of
system
ion.

ervib.

excitation.

The

be

expressed

VE

where

If

we

Then

of

take
VE

containers
or
fuel
consumption

dist.
24V

or

where

knots

capacity

in

distance

Sfc

SHP

and
Teu.

consumption

)-l

on

37

cargo
x time

NxV

fuel

displacement

weight
of
x power

PS
in

S"P

SHP
L=

This

speed

specific

NVs
a

necessary

distance.

certain

oC

in

power

container
the

defined

(24)

dist.
x SHP x

SHP = horse
Vs = service
N=

cargoes

as

Number
Specific

_NxSfc

be

efficiency(VE)may

transporting

for

energy
can

vehicle

tons.

(N

to

be

constant

The

two

HP

parameters

development

4.4.1.

of

containerships

denoteQVP

we

energy

in

speed

first

of

generation

the

LV=
is

the

drag

trace

the

the

the

CVs

is

to

The

is

the

the

energy

decreased

from

container

ships

form

can

be

where

R is

the

drag

by

shown

and

"f

of

liners,

that

hull

value

plotted

current

C1JT

coefficient.

the

cargo

evident

denotes

of

the

and

years
in

^R2

value

progressively

early

improvement

conventional

It

has

mile

factor

ships

ships.

of

The
slip

today.

the

container

ton

liners

cargo

the
The

for

container

per

consumption

4.3

of

then

ton-mile.

Fig.

generation

of

= K,
s
per

consumption

against

to

are used
(24,25917)-

(24).

s}iP/pvs
If

N//

and

)xV2

which

ss

is

to

proportional

and

in

shown

C has
the

and
this

for

It

the

the

generation

each

drag

of

coefficient

container

line

straight

speed

ships

represents

improvement.
the

see

improvement

of

container

ships,

speed

Vs

for

of

These

straight

SVsP=

ships

(8.80

0
Thus

1.243

xB+2.653
and

consumption/ton-mile.

4.4.2.

N/A
In

the

case
of
(dwt/Q

denote

the

the

case

in

increases
can

increases,

PS= metric

the

as
be

be

the

factor

was

plotted

size
by

given

lower

for

different

against

and

is

the

following

Vs)

speeds

in

shown

PSYton-mile

lower

gives

4.5.

Fig.

equation

10-2.

service

values

of

(24).

displacement
we

aHP
different

can

breadth

larger

in

lines

energy

This

service

that

evident

current

sizes

then

the

against

is

between

difference

To

If

plotted

4.4.

Fig.

decreased

C is

partly
the

hull

conventional
) ratio

dwt
of

as

cargo
decreases
to

similar

container

speed

explained
form

by
becomes

horsepower

38

the

the

as

container

increases.
N,

capacity

value

or

the

displacement

the

fact

finer

deadweight/

speed

the

ships

increases

liners

that
and

in

of

as
the

N/A
increases.
the
case

speed
of

Fig.

4.3.

The effect

improvement

of

in

Energy

(24).

Consumption

0.06

0.05

0.04
.00.03
c
C

0.02
U7
CL

=I M0.01

16

15

17

18

19

Service
10-4
1.0

Fig.

4.4.

Cargo

0.9

20

21

speed

Vs in

The effect

of

22

improvement

25

26

27

ship

hull

form

liners

Cargo

liners

First
generation
container
ships

0
o hull

(improved

Current

0.6

44

of

0.7

24

knots

0.8

23

form)

container

ships

0.5

0.4

ui
CL

0.3

ankere

z: 0.2
a'.. o
717n.
vi
0.1

r--

01iii11i1i1111
16
17
15

18

19

Service

20

21

22

23

speed Vs in knots

39

24

25

26

27

(24).

Fig.

4.5.

The effect

improvement

of

in

K on the

ship

(24).

size

0.45

0.40

0.35-

43

0.30

\.1
N
CL

0.25

al
a
_ =3,
NQ

0.20

20

22

21

23

Service
Fig.

4.6.

versus

24

25

26

27

speed V in knots.
speed

and displacement

(24).

o. oa

0.03

0.02

0.01

a
Z

20

21

22
Service

10

23

24

25

26

27

50

60

70 X IO3

speed Vs in knots

20

Displacement

30

40

in tons
40

weight

becomes

limited.

achieve

higher

speeds

the

deck

from

hull

form.

deck

tiers

4.4.3.

as

the

the

the

and

that
speed

due

efficiency

of

efficiency

the

vehicle

the

ship

plotted

against

different

speeds.

container

ships

of

different

sizes

indicating

improvement

gradual

container

ships
in

of

the

In

date

of

In
have

speed

WH/(L

xBxDx

delivery

hull

in

Figure

is

improved
4.9

4.8

Fig.

shows

for

size

the

similar

slopes
in

shows
S,,

4.9

Fig.

gradual
the

as

1V6V

speed

steel

trend

shown

in

As

the

as

4.10

number
WH

shown

steel
was

Fig.

weight

weight

hull

of
(t/m3)

Cb)

steel

(24).

weight

the

tonnes.

hull

plotted

Fig.

WH =

rows

increases.

in

against

where

of

is

weight

hatchways

of
The

4.10

the

weight

trend

given

by:

ships

container
WH
"x

steel

as

in

the

increases

LxB.

increase

speed

similarly

efficiency

hull

analyse

hull

steel

in
to

order

coefficient

for

the

The

Fig.

ship

and

different

vehicle

Reduction

the

finer

4.4.4.

of

as

N/Q

shown

increases.

of

in

increases.

of

the

efficiency

ships

improvement

on

achieve

to

is

sizes

container

the

containers

NVP.

have

we

different

of

evident

Q-1

and

ss
vehicle

the
ships

vehicle

to

can

increased.

are

L1

in

size

the

of

it

ship

improvement

SVP)

is

some

dead-

more

container

allowing

shows

carry

(24 ).

combining

It

the

carrying

thus

containers

container

/i. 8.

by

4.7

SIIP/NVS

improvement

to

ability

Whereas

hold

Fig.

Now

for

the

of

its

liner

cargo

conventional

= 0.232

DxC,

+ 0.135

rH

+ 0.00525

xI-0.00228

del

1,

t/m3
and

for

liners

cargo

WH
LxBxDx

Cb

-0

_iKt;

c;42

1.0_00

+ 0.00242

L/D

41

Yr
0.00107

n_nnK94
del.

YT
t/m3

Eq. (4.2)

Fig.

4.7.

Improvement
(24).

in N/A

by the deck loading

contributed

,,

2000

/2

``r
c;
( `tr

4-3

'/

CL
4

ID

1000

43
C
0
U

III1
50

_I

100

150
i

Fig.

4.8.

SHP versus
NlIs

.,

Vs (24).

speed

avninm

200 10-

1800-1900

1.4

700-900

1.2

Teu

/Teu

1000
12000

-2300

1.0

a00-1500Teu
0.8
0.6
viId

0.4
16

IIIIIIIIIIII
17
18

19

20

21

22

Service
Fig.

4.9.

versus

23

24

speed

capacity

25

Vs in

26

27

28

knots.

(24).

22-23

Nhr

500

knots
class

L_

I
1000

_l

1500
Container

2000

capacity

42

N Tau

I
2500

Teu

Teu

41
N

L
O1
ID
3

>.
N

ri
tD
m
43

CD
13
4O
La

O
}

C
.-i
C
0
y-i
4-3
U

O
r-i
Q

rn
LLrn
r-I
0

CO

N
0

#o
r-4
0

q3
WA

XOX8X

Ln
H
0

Q
.i
O

l/(HA)

N
H
8

r-4
0

446Tem Tee4s TTnH

rH

where
del

= number

= date

in

72

in

hull
is
is

weight

twice

that

of

than

Panama

of

the

is

evident

4.5.

for

2000

then
vessel

2! 1).
the

of
The

length,

of

steel

type

type

sizes.

on

hull

depth

depth

rate

delivery

of

deep

different

of

over

the

characteristics

constraint

ships

year

shallow

major

ship
Canal

the

the

and
If

the
of

decrease

progressive

liner.

cargo

against

of

and

delivered

a ship

ships

(N/WH)

the

container

been

container

N/WH

that

outlines

cellular

of

decks,

of

etc.

has

of

containers/t

less

4.8

Table

weight

g.

72.83

there

steel

= number

ADe.

as

that

as

TD

years

expressed

plotted

number
be

in

evident

decrease

will

is

is

the

the

delivery

of

October
It

hatchways,

of

beam

fully

influence
draft

and

Teu.

CONTAINERS
It

Morris

was

forwarding

freight

8 ft.

height

10

of

ft,

geometry
8 ft.

by
20

ft,

subsequently

30

also

in

Section

4.1

in

1967.

Though
as

delayed

mainly

359,
corner

the

because
(8'

container

sizes

Besides
shipowners
benefit

of
8'

This'

Congress

the

must
(146).

a)

Stricter

b)

Uniformity

ordered
(7).
ISO
have

Roof

d)

Uniformity

in

the

24')

it

standards

in

in
the

been

additional

were
were
(8'

standard

a law

under

use

of

all

that

recommended
for

standards

mutual

dimensions
door

openings
open

stacking

44

top
loads

(as

large

containers

8'

(non

Lines

in

has

Moscow

Sealand

resulted

treatment

mentioned

developments

Grace

and

were

standards

from

opposition

equal

for

openings

size

ASA,

8'6"

adopted

the

variations

been

already

were

opposition

inside

c)

by

these

of

has

of

Company

proposed

length

with

container

1961

as

He

Heights

standards

first

Freight

standards.

ft.
It

ISO

castings).

which

40

accepted.

back

Matson's

ISO

largest

world's

States

dimensions

and

the

of

United

of

width
ft

that

far

adopted

organizer

organisation,

the

proposed

who

Forgash,

as

possible)

co

(ti

O_
m

-1

t0

11

1-4

Cl)

O1

In

N
U)
.-i

U)
N

M
co
--i

m
O
N

10
O
N

O
N
N

m
t0
N

01
01
.

M
m
.

N
O

r1
O

to

O
"

to

U7

(A

N
o1

Co
N
N

14

d
N
N

N7
N
N

M
N
N

M
N
N

M
r
N

10
O1
.

O1
O
.

N
O

O
-t
.

ri
O

11

rM
0

01

a-)
Ol
C
m
JC

r1

.
U)
-; I

r1

r1

O
CD
r-I
N
CD

CD
-4
CD

4-)
0

Ol
N
CO
N
LO

F-

-1

In

". i

E:

U)

U)

U)
N

r1
.

t0

O1

r1

-4

r1

;:
M
O
01
t0

N
110

11

01
r-i

to
N

01

r1
r1
N

t0
Q

to
CD

1:1

N
IT
N
U)
O

U)

N
Y
N

U)

--i

In
01
L()
11
01

N
01
N
CO
01

lr

r1

t0
01
to
r1
U)

U7
NJ'
tn
t0
r1

co
01
U)

N
Ol
CI-

Q
01
N

to
01

N
C
0

-4-)

CO

4-3

-1

.,

co

"ri
()

Cl)

4C)

r-I

CD
4-3
1n
"ri
rn
m
C:

01

14
01

ON
N
m

11

tt)
CD

N
r1

10

to

ri

r1

r1

r-i

IA

l;:
01

rn

m
N
O

m
(n
O

01

CO

N
Oo
t0

t0

r1

Cm
U p

o
>1
0
ri

t0

O
10

ca
m
0

.F4
N U
11

1*
N
--

N
*
01

tD

CD
01
r1

N
r-I

t0
01
to
r1

in

7
t0
t0

0
m
(A 4-)

N
00

"O
C
co

O
co
O

U)

01
r-I
N

01
N
U)

(0
4-)
0
I-

01
U)
co
r-i

77

11

nF(

"ri
O

7m

N
M

M
r-I
M
01
U)

O1

CD

t0

N
O

N
(A

CO
11)

r1
01

01

U)

Cr)
%I
H

N
U)

O
(Ti

N
co

M
co

10
r1

CO
ri

O
-r
01

N
r-i
CD

0
d
0
(M

01

N
U)

0
N

171

N
N

U)
T
17;

co
r-i
r1
N
ri

0
U)

r-I

r-1
E
0
O

W
I

v
m
r-1
"r.1

C
"ri

"ri

>

a-)
N
4-3 m

0_
E
0
U

o
(o

C.]

0)

.
r0)

CC)
N CA
m

r1

+1

I-

co

t0

-1

co
co
M

t0

co

U)
O'

co
Ol

r1
01
d
N

Cl'.
to

O
10

%T

r-I

O
01

ri
co

NI

O
t0

t0

01

10
N

N
r-i

CO

ri

11
0
N

r1

r-I

Cl'.

t0
a*
%;
U)

O
U)

O
01

r-I

U)

1-1

co

01

M
M

r-1
M
01
ri

*4
In

t0

t0

01

al

CM

r-I

r-I

N
N

t0

10

tD

4.0

ON

O1
01

CV

CD

"t

t0
O

d
d
N

r1

ri

r-I
ri

Ol

11

r-i
r1

01

t0

ri

01

U)

01

r-I

CO

co
r1

U)
to

to
Q

Q
U)

r-I

O1

O1
O1
U)

01
01
N

O1
01
Ol

O1
H

01
01
CO

r-I

07

r-1

%1

r-I

Ol

I;T

N
t')

0
C
0

4-)

0)

0)

F4

>

'0

CD

o
.n
E U

m
0) 4J

co O
rO
U U)

H7 -ri

Li
J
m
F-

01
U)

ri

to
01

r-i

4.) O
UW
l0FH

m
4

U)

N+)

E
0)

()

C
"ri
>
0

r1

co
01

o-

0z
U
". i
i-1
0)
"rl

01

r1

C
",
01 ri
4-3
C La
O ()
U -0

4O>

O
t0

(D

H 0_ -ri
(0 H7
U
7m

O
01
r-1

r-(
d'

co
U
o

r-I

CL

7m
CL

(H
m

m
N=)

"r1 W

U) ~

ri

01

10

IT

O1

O1
U)

O1
01
N

r-I

ri

O1
O1
O1
rj

0
. -i

t0

r-i

%I
r-I

r1

U)

tD

.
N

01

O1

01

01

M
N

O1
U)
N

N
N

O1
OI
N

0)

N
N

I;T
N

tD

r-I

0
N

CD
N

CD

.
01

01
r-I

r1

45

r1
r1

O
O
O
M

CO

r1

r1

ri

0)

-r-3,
O
C

"

x
(D
E:

In

c)
t")

U)
N

Ln Ln

Ln

M
N

.
M
N

In

01

r-1

r-1

co

(N

O
t0

O
O

01

co

0
N

CD

Lr)

U)

co

. -1
r-I
co

CO
co

co

M
ri
ri
co

0
0
N

0
-iT
to
tO
N

0
O
tD
M

O
O

LO

CO

.
N

M
O
.
Lr)

N)
O
.

N
O
.

M
r
.
N

r-i

r-f

ri

r-(

ri

.
tO
N

t0

U)
N

tr7
M

LO

n
N

co

t17

tO

tD

C
",
U
m

(D

CL

In

"

"ri
E:

r-f

1-1

r-4

ri
N

r-1

LO

r-4
N

t')

CD
3
O
CL

"
X

CD

co

co

(D
N

co
'71
O
Lr)

0
M
t0
ON

0
O
O
N

O
O
to

O
L

M
tD
ri

4-3
4-

(D
.C

En

.
E

C
"rl
E

X
(p
E

+3

4to
-I

C
"ri

O
O
0
CO

X
.

CL
OD
p

E:

"
C
.,
E:

E:

r-1

r-(

r-I

LO

N
d

rf
N
co

U')
O

CD

t0

d
to

r-1

ri

11

r-i
N

Co

M
N

U7
d'

I.

11

*;:

0
O
Ln

0
O
0
CO U3
N
trl

NM
N
N

M
O

N
N
0
.
N
ri

:;

r-i

ri
H

N
ri

LO

co
0

11
co

t0

Lf)

N
.

Q3

N
O

N
.

01
O1
.

0,

O
r-1

O
.
ri

r-1

r-1

r-I

ri
r-1

.1
O
.
N

r-1

1--1

O
.
N
1-1

tM

N
Ln

O1

U3
r-1

(V
O

"

01
r-f

d
N

U)

U7

t'M
co
.

LT (T

01

01
tD

ri

tr)

LO

Un
.

tD

01

r-1

rf

.-f

.-i

ri

co
O
.

0
r-I
"

01
N

N
I:T

t')

ri

ri

t')
H

t'7
Ol
.

ri

N
14
.
M
H

r-I

1-1
t0
"

r-I
0
"

N
(D
"

r-1
N
.

N
"

tr)

CD

ri

01
N

O
N
.
t'M
N

O
Q
.
Ln
N

01

LT

Ln
.

ri

N
0
"
ri

Lr)

N
t')

01

co

ri

tO

CD

t0

N
M
Lf)

r-1

lCl

ri
r-1

-1

U)

r-i

LO

r-i
LO

t')
0

C14

0
O
Lf)
co
N

ri
ri

tD

ri

0
O
I.
N
ri

N
O
U7

ca1

U)

11

d
N
.

tD
"

LM

r-I

`GP ST
N
N

l:T

co

01

01
co
.
01

01

LO

U7
ri

"

t')

r -i

.
01

Lf)
lD

r-1

co
N

d
N

1-1
N
.

N
"

"

N
t')

tr)

to

(V

tD

r-I

N
M

tD
N
M

r-1
r-I

Q'
.
0
N

r-I

(D
N
"

to

U)

N
"

N
.

Lr)

(V

L
-(-3
O
0

(D
H
m

"

C
"rl

E:
.

. .

ri

.
01
r-I

U)
.
r-1

N
N

-4

.
tD
N

.
N
N

"
O

re)

01

01

01

O1

ri
N

01

r-i
"
N
t')

O1
ri
N
t')

C
0
U

O1
(Ti

(D

co
Q

O1
ON

U')

O1
N

01

0
O
U)

0
0
t0

0
0
CO

N=3

"ri Li.I
U) I-

01

01

01

01
tr)
ri

ri

0
O
O

0
co
N

0
co
q

r-j

r-I

ri
ri

ON
U)

01
N
r-1

01

01

0-1
01
M

01

01
Lff)

01
01
N

01

ON
01

0
0
co
r-I

0
O
O
N

0
0
N
N

0
0
%I
N

0
0
tD
N

0
O
O
N

0
tr)

r-{

0
co
tD
r-I

"
l0

"

"
O

.
01

"
r-1

.
N

ri

ri

r-1

"
M
ri

.J
m
Q
F-

.
ri

"
N

"
M

"
ln

46

"

"
4

-1

e)

Maximum

f)

Standard

g)

Removable

Since
cell
the

1972

container

guides

capable

test

Of
loads

the

8 high

stacking.

It

one
(e)

cell

at

hull

shape

seldom

are
is

the

4.9

Table

The

the

of
the

cargo

in

The

to

per

high

into

cells

have

should

takes

acceleration
7 high

or

maximum

possibly

rating

of

9 high

stacked

the

maximum

containers

in

weight.

are

possible

containers

on

generally

stowed

the

Teu
the
in

in

can

a box

number
available

of

or

container

of

be

some

(31).

1980

terms

boxes

of

the

amount
from

analysed
in

in

slots

from

in

use

productivity

the

on

increased

in

use

deck.

3,100,000

some

in

concepts

population

annum

and

Fig.

container
4.11
is

number

to

therefore

of

ship

Teu,
the

trade

container

the

oil

by

Teu's

crisis

Teu's/slot/annum

dividing

the
It

slot/annum.

per
fairly

there

fell.

47

a slump
There

shown

trade

available
shows

that

Teu's/

till

1973

when

consistently
was

as

development

productivity

derived

increased

slot/annum
due

taken

to

various

container

tons

be

safe

(31).

fleet

the

to

productivity

data

available

also

the

on

stack.

1970

carried

figures

in

the

and

be

containers

container

Containership
boxes

all

the

world's
in

6 high

stacking

thus

only

up

packed

securing

Teu

high

bigger

allows

heavy

of

for

450,000

lie

outlines

proposed

the

containers

stability,

bottom

for

1.8g.

where

that

all

help

changed

used.

unlikely
will

To

than

not

only

and

with

with

has

still
9

should

often

40'

loaded

is

ships

less

service
ISO

figures,

(a)

as

containers.

in

recalculate

aspects

section

place,

(d)

high

top

stacking.

can

payload

and

been

requirement

on

a uniform

open

have
high

one

such

Fully

of

forward

tons

for

factor

the

30

headers

other

acceleration

(c)

door

course

consideration

(b)ln

points;

vessels

based

achieve

lashing

and

However

side.

to

weights

cargo

procedure

stacking.
test

tare

in
was

the

trade

growth

and
in

by

an

o"
mo
o
01
fa
Co
Um

"" rn rn
.YHH
U c0 Co
m
U
-0
w

p c0 rJ O ". 1
O3O
W- Z
L0UI
O

COi
7

(A

fJ)
CL

.,
t0)
N
CD

CV

c
. r4
(0
43
C
O
U

U
CD
"0

"O
"rl

C
0

.D
T
2

01
C
"r{
N
-3
0
(D
U)
N
0
4-U
CD
U)
0
EL
0
N
CL
0
CD
0
-3
c
. rf
a
v
0
CD
N
r-I
ca
m
4-3
CL
m
U
C
0
(U

0)

3
0

-0
CD
4.3
(a
U1
"rl U
4-) co
0) 73
"ri
LC

a0
0
OO

N
Lm
C
., ",
3 Co
OC-ii
0_ 0
"-1 U
t
ON
(.4 O
m
",
Co
-4
0
U

CD
i
13
"r.
U)
U)
0
CL

rn
14
W
J

m
H

IOW
CH
Om

r
.N "rl
Clfl
m
>
"r4

CO
OU
U

mr

(D
Cf)

ro

m
N
0
6

0 `1
01 (3
(D
(0 -0

.Y
U
mN

rn
c

.,
r

C
m Co "ri
Ql 94
(o m 0) r-i co
3 "rl
(a mm
O +3 mU
'L7
4.2
C
"rl
03 N "ri
m
WH
43
.YC
UWC
DL0
0 4-) 0

m3
"ri
-F3 0)

0 -1 m

Co E
1i 4jm

1-1 m
Ol

CD

ra
m

m
N

0
U

0)
N
(D

rn
E

C
"ri
m

0
0

EO

C
"ri

`S
(D
0) 'O
0
E
G+
OU
0) U
fa CO
m7
C
"r-1 "O
CO CD
3E
-0
CO
0
U

-Y
0

0)
-O

fa "
O 0-

s
-N
CO", I
01
co
3 0)1--1

CD C
(31 O
c0
O1
OC
-P "r1
M-0
r-I
0) 0
r-i 41C
4U Q1 -0
41 (a
0). L+3
U
0 dJ 0) 0)

(1) U)
rn H3
c0 0)
3 "ri
O+)
+)
U) N

4-)

CO

(a
-1J 0
0) Z

Co
H
m (M >
01 01 0
C ". 4 (3
Co a
NL
f4 4- U
f0 Oa-

as
ID O
-0 4j Y
(3
". i
7C
Co
01 0-0

Co
0 01 Co i4
-43 cCm
R1
0>
"H
0
0
"ri U
m ri +
r-1

4.n
104> 10
OUO
E 09

m fDU
C +1
(0
0L

I
rn
C
.,
E

X U)
Co HO
EWU

fa
ID
-0
C
7

W "rt tU
rn
Co. .)
W +1

L
U
4j
Co L
L+
a

vvm
CD mv
3W
O "rl

3CW
00L

4-- _0
0 "rl

-1-) U
W
4-

00

WO
W cr- r-1

>. _X
r-I U Co
+j mO
0) 'O U
0
EHL
mU
mO
h
fa C Co
m7L
c
"rl o r-I
Wm
l0
+ 3E
CON
OO
UmZ

0) tH
HU
co
CD -iJ ri
cW7
"rl L r-I
co
r-I
4.) mm
CLU
0 d-1
0)
UC
0)
CD -, -1 '0

NCW
OH

U Co
mO

rn
.,E

0
"rl
N
w
:: -:o

O.
-FJ
EL ON
". i -O 0)
(0 m -0 L
+-1 3UU
CO
3+3
0 4. ) 0
Co
(i
0)r-i
LC
0

CD
rn

-N

Um"ri

C
c0
E "ri
co
(D 4-3
cn c : -)
co O :3
3UO
O
r4.) O 4-3
U) (-1 "ri

a
4(
r W
CUO
Q1 (D
0 O) CCU
U
"rf C
(!)
-C7
fa CLm

E
m
43
Co

d)

1CC

00z

U)
CD
C
", q
(a
4-)
C
0
0

4-)
m (A Co
arn N
(0 mC
3 ".i ""i
O
U
(!) N (.

ca

r-1
co
E
(a

O1
C
"ri
r
co
(a N
. -1 E
(D
-f
M -1-3
f!)
N >.
ro N

o 0-0
EU
Co

(D 4-)
O1 C +-7
R) O7
3oO
OL
4-) (0 4-3
U) FI "ri
m3
"ri
o +-) p)
CD
N
0 -4
m

U
(A r
d-3 r
EO
c0 +3
(D
+3 CO Ld
CD
NN
>. a) O'O
(!) C C

", i
'D (U

m 4J >.
XC
ri
0
C0
", i

kA

C
IXO
E ".i

r
-41 U W
".i m
3 'O CD

.YH
Umn.
CD"rl 0
0 +3 +)

C
0

m
1
LI
Um
CD"rI
0 aP

CE
OW
0
ri
NU

CD
fH
m

X W
N F+ 0
57- m U
C
m "rl L
U
0
Co -N 4J
3 C co
O 0 L
U

4m
O
N

U CD CL
m "rl 0
O 4-) d-)

"rl
01 7

a) C CD
Ol"H

N
CD
m

En

48

CT)
c

.,
L
0)
03
r-I E

0)
1 -41
U 0)
O >.

0)

0)
"'i
3
F-

fd
cu

Co

sN m
4.3
"t O

(Il

U
4-)
cc
t

0
O

C
0

-Y

. -q UL
7
co U
U -F-)
ri
(d
ri
mcL
U0

+)

EL
r-I

-0

.,0a

"ri co
7 -0
(3) CO

ID

a "rl
LO a

TI
01 >. m
c: .0 01

c
"ri
4-3 'O Co
mN
"ri r-1 fa
Co
r-I
m
E
r-1
U
"ri
p

0)
N
m

v
CDmm4.)
m
.t]-a -13
a
.Co

94 mU
4- fa m
41 'fl

H 4- +1

CD4- 7C
:>0
.O0

O
U
L
U

N
L
01
C
",
U

O
(,., i

1975-1978
analysis

50

this
in

in

annum

1983

Similarly

159

level

1975.

level

and

t/slot/annum
in
It

boxes
container

the

and

in
period

is

1980

may

show

containers

continue

and

period

falling

fall

to

37

in

to

149

tons/box/

1985(31).

4.1.1,

Fig.

fall

4.12,

Fig.

tons/box/annum

will

of

Teu

per

productivity,
may

container,

was

to

151

excess

number

of

growth

this

t/slot/

1981-8501).

of

will
that
to

is

there

level

capacity

experience

39

indivual

after

productivity,

current

box

container

at

that

evident
at

output

which

containership

annum

1970-74,

1976-78

similar

the

of
consistent

over

The

fairly

tons/box/annum

39

was

productivity

over

same

then.

since

after

level

dramatically
1980

the

that

tons/box/annum
to

decline

for

shows

increased

in

the

on

performed
4.12,

Fig.

is

and

an

trade

not

be

absorbed

substantial
be

49

feature

of

by

container

excess
1985

excess

number

the

container

or
of
traffic.

!
i
i

LO
CD

d
aD
M
co
N
m
r-A
co
O
CO

iJ
9
E
CL
0
-4
CD
CD

".

Cl)
r

m
N

'O
O
H

N
0
N
LC)
r
ST
N
N

O.
H
CD
c
-H

c
0
U
N
r-1

N
r1-4
N

C)
.O

Ol
.. l
IA;

0
v

1f)

_-1

wnuue/naq/suol

4-)
c
m
E
a
0
.-i
CD

te)
co

m
13

N
co

>1

'4
/ i

LO

/
4

---

-4
co
O
m
m
N
m
N
N
N
10
N
Lf)
r
Q
N
M
r04
r-

.-1
U
7
.D
0
H
CL
CL
-4
L

(D
c
.i
ca
,4)
c
0
U

. -1
c

-4
N

I
O
N
r'i

I
O
tD
r-i

I
0
Ln
r-4

Q
d
.

wnuus/-4oTe/suo4

50

i
O
M
. -4

C,

Ij

CHAPTER

ESTIMATING

THE

MAIN

5.0

INTRODUCTION

5.1

CONTAINER

5.2

BREADTH

5.3

DEPTH

5.4

LENGTH

5.5

DRAFT

5.6

BLOCK

5.7

STRUCTURAL

5.8

GROSS

5.9

FREEBOARD

PARTICULARS

STACKING
MOULDED

BP

COEFFICIENT

AND

DESIGN
NET

CONSIDERATION

TONNAGE

TYPE-B

5.0

INTRODUCTION
This

chapter
It

ships.

indicates

multiples

of

container

structure.

with

existing

formulae

with

the

and

seakeeping
Some

general

observations

dimensions

main
L,

Breadth

ship

of
B.

Depth

represents

cost

or

spheres

Actual
imposed

the

seakeeping,

demands

Generally

particular

dimension

while

The
f(D);

for

container

(a)

B=
a

to

although
describes
numbers

f(L)

in

shown

be

surface

this

simplest
be

would

maximum

Length
of

the

power,

volume.

simple

stability,

concept
strength,

harbours

and

predominate

on

B=

T=

and

canals.
each

main

D=

f(B);

f(L);

f(B)

5.1.

(13,35)

predominates

(11)(35).

L/B

program

The

and

are

fuel

the

1979

now

considered

different
special

of

8.5

reduced
to

similar

7.7

those
were

generations
cases

have

51

also

blurred

had

speeds

the

value

First

L/B

ratios

the

these

first

although

ratios
faster

third

generation

generation;
Table

recorded.

increasing

distinctions.

residuary

about

increased
in

course

if

9.

had

as

of

to

powering

and

1970

leads

ratio

detrimental

1968

in

about

crisis

values

in

built

to

ran

is

between-6

built

L/B

small

and

kept

generation

about6.3
by

ships

they

and

is

A
but

efficiency

second

and

Fig.

cost

container

7.1

ships

the
to

ships

from

indeed

propulsive

the

generation
6.3;
The

size.

earning

secondary.
(35)
listed
in

T=

capital

resistance

than

problems.

are

are

is

and

about

the

and

contahiers

structure

taken

all

indicat.

concerning

Since

that

compared

ships.

lower

In

T.

influences

f(L);

f(L)

keeping,

usually

made

propulsion,

and

others

D=

T=

serious

surface

of

cargo

following

pose

distortions

are

deck

not

are

indicate

of

that

be

are

program

ensure

volume

least

with

shapes

by

and

the

stowage

may

Draft
its

would

cubes

ship

which

D and

analysis

possible

to

ships

clearance

ships

to

allowances
will

and

integer

for

regard

of

container-

reflect

container

number

requirements

of

must

approach

the

suit

design

of

the

and

particulars

due

with

dimensions

dimensions
usual

main

dimensions

sizes

and

main

the

how

Main

The

the

considers

4.3

cd.

11
cr.
'--J

f-a
I_j

r_

i__: ,

i"

fi .....i,
f-,
. . ,,

tt_....

I "_W ii

;,
.,

-.

i'!

I;N
L..! g
ELI -'.

W
CL
I

-/
H

._,,.

CL
F4

ql

I;}

F/ l

FCL

:i
'-

: rr

'Ni

Li
-71:

rn
W
Ct:

i--

ID
U?

. a

i
_....
LO

C;
., j

Cl

FA
Q
W
CE
Cz.

-4

LL-

fr
('?

t'J
C,i

--+
'?
1.

1s1 CT
vi
04

CO (ti
CU CU

LL- Li?
(V A!

4
N

F-

r
T -JS W

+
+
+
+

52

tti? N
Cd 04

--+
(Q

C,
(U

O"

CO

-+

. -4

R.
-+

LP

-+

-4

w
J

(b)

D=

f(B).

influences
KG

This
stability

is
is

KG which
ballast

by

on

deck

is

largely

(c)

T=

most

This

not

is

an

Beam

in

shown

have

by

This

relati

deck

is

influenced

to

1.65.

containers

5.39

and

the

Piiiiuua

Ih at

shows

draft

below

well

defined

as

on
and

by

design

geometry

much

influence

by

working

and

where

over-riding

Fig.

onsliip

breadth

of

containerships

close

permitted

maximum

board

is

5.2.

function

a
In

usually

containerships

the

Fig.

influenced

is

f(D).

is

Depth.

However

B/D

and

KM

Depth

carried.

Canal

in

shown
as

influenced

cargo

in

the

free-

calculation.

(d)

D=

L/D

ratio

and

in

f(L).

This

has
the

an

is

There

weight

associated
saving

net
ship
double

skin

(e)

T=

For

good

slamming

13.

(f)

f(B).

has

This

T/L

should

(27).

This

Most

the

and

gives

trunk

than

10

steel

(36)

with
the

type

of

conventional

of

listed

0.045

2.25

and

important
below.

53

Fig.

5.5.

to

avoid

containerships

lower
3.75"
canal

shown
than

discussed

in
3.15

Panama
and

this

meet

are

is

B/T

in

shown

considerations

have

Some
are

exceed

relationship

ships
limits

is

relationship

seaway

important.

restrictions

less

side

between

Langenberg

weight

The

flexibility,

be

limiting

5.4.

construction.

container

program

at

Fig.

undue
to

and

steel

Seakeeping

Chapter

Most

Depth

a depth

avoid

in

in

shown

restricted

hull

seakeeping
in

is

with

f(L).

requirement.

T=

L/D

to

an attraction

has

which

limit

upper

4% on

of

is

relationship

program

14.5.

are

is

river

Fig.
and
Canal
draft

in

5.6.
the
restrictions

 r
1'1

`
Tfh
+

. f! ir

-f

4
!"

\.

1F

i
.

i
ii

1t

'.

.
r-

i-

ri

.,.

i+ -f
+

{. " l_J
r

,: C.

CU

i.

\
T

I
,-,.J

hi
i c_
LA

Ui

...

~
I !

F
"J"t

t
{" `"
L.. rw

'_'

+
Fa
CL

.
iQ

r-

['J

-$+

vH

ctj

cRa
11
1_1

,;
i

F-

tt:

+\

W
Ct'
FW

r-a

CV
u)
01
",
L-

Y
F-

.-1

W
Yf
-1

[p
nJ

F-('J

Vv (P 7
(V (U (`J

U, CQ"0
L7
(kJ ('J (. J i-Q ,-.

r-r

F-2
w
H

L4

+
t
4+

54

Cal fU
.r
. - . -,

Ul
-j

?? (tl

-' T
. -+

CC,
.

Pr.

'D

`.

J;,

.
S ..o
f..
I"E

1-110

I
"j

fri
f'J

I. 'I
! :f

-+
rn
i

C,j
i-J

LL'

Lt

i-

.1..

iyi

+
+

iii

}'
t; tf
t
L

ff'q

F-

.I

w
r

i,-CL
La
p

+#+ .++

Q,

.,

. --4

CL
. -i

i-. L

++
*+
++
4F'+ +

r
-4

If

44

0
1-

+ \+

+t
1-

-T
-4

++.+
++
+\

F-

'

w
-1

F-1

1^_
m
.-.

iV

. -d

r/

-4

G
F._.

a
Q

P
F-

. -/

i=

ui

u_

iT .

++

0
II

Fw

CL

_J

Go

(il

IJ

.4

a+

\
c
Cl

L
k!

t. .
_

i,

+
t
+
+

35

Qy

CO

r--

,,
r..

w
1-a

1f

s301 tee3 eweed

- 68Z -- =-- eo-1

Ld

i+

..a
w

_..

U.
Li
.._
.

{
11

+
+

!-

LJ

o
>'

7J

4
r.

IS_
1. _

J.

LJ

+
+
y!

!
r.

iJ

+
+
T

. `
1

L.1

;ir,

".

fLr +
+3

\
1_1

1_I

1,1

. --I

+
T+

la1
LL

+
-F

c.,
w

In

LAI

+
+
$

-i

Cl

.G

LO
S

rn

L_

EL

w
G

11

, 1,1 I, I I
0
NN

r_

%Cf Lf., -t
OJ 111 OJ

, I,

1, il

m
tJ
-%J tJ
I..

RJ

iS+
N.,

d-

_
CL
w

F- cr
in
W

+
+
+

56

i
r-

LL

c
a

t,/, l
it

1. '1

lJ

I,!
w
ri

!
f..
.r

f.
.

I_, I,
U?
ry

v
r-1

_I ,I ,
P?
-4

CV
-a

.,
. -

-.

r.

l.:J
J

i: T\

yj3'Y TL-US:) rsmrUSa _

_..
..
..,_

_1

f.-

w
.

iD
.

I
}

1'

r1

i 'I

I tl
Ij,

+
+++\

f
I

C.

-Li_

,:.
uf,
.. i

1,' 1
4'". i

!1

?O
J
J

L1
r--

++

, -,

F-uj

1+

++
-+ +j

c-,
ft
I
L'_

+;

"1+T

_..
f; ' 1
LLJ

iiL4
1-4
LL

_J
H
-

[U
C
O

C
".i l

(! )

"ri

41
4Co
fa
OJ

O
Y
U
O

+
++
++
++

-1

LL.

ty

LLJ
LY.

W
Ci

4. -4-4--4-

al
r-

(U
EE
(U
CI
(U.

F-

\. l

++

Co
(U
C
0,

a.

1 rl

+ +

(U
(U
U

CL

++
+ ++
+

+
t

4-

IJ

++

LJ
_J

Co
CC
(U
(]

C,
a"

-4-

).

4' +

11

__J
"

rN

r '
1: 1

Li

"

Q1

".-1

(i

J.

c,J

n
-.
FrS

zL
F-

+
t
+
+

1_
...
-4

57

.___L___:
I7,
v-1

'j
C0

,-.

r'"-

SZ'Lo

++

--

[_

r\t

_`

3;., +

f rl

Ct:
w
I--

r.,
r,

t+

ifi
fi

'+r

'-4

BWP. UEd

Taus

.
w

= Iuseg

+M

f1

U,
l.J

r1

.:....

I--I

CID

1 '. 1

IF

\ \.

E
>-

O
"T
er.._
t_-[
I_I

('1

+i-+

w
+

i-

77
'l

+ ++_f
+1

E: I

t'
1- 1

+4-

l; tj

{+

+++

_T
F--

\\

.
t=I
i
__.
-_

'

lZ

I+
t

L"
L1
t2:

t4

G,I
W
[e
FW

iU
4.Q

IP

+ 4+

E:r
Ld
I ".
rA

_
ci
C

al
iU

r r,

ui

F-4

F--

j
.,C;
LL-

Q
L
f. '

I ii

I,

,I,

Lfi

SLf

Si

r' 1

kyj

['J
. -.

S
r1!
. -i

t,
U.,

I,

UP

C,

.-.

..,

.-.

1!

LL
+

Gr CL

58

rn
. -.

1\

__L1
U.,

CT*

.,

_ t2

1_L_!

ijy

rs
Wt
S

I,

4t
H

-F

' -I

J"

to

Vf

Cl'-

Suez

draft

in

Canal

11.6*

m.
Welland

draft

in

5.1

Container

in

The

the

this

vertical

ship

and

deck

deck

or

the

taken

Table
ances

what
chosen

program

Recently

angle

so

that

Lawrence
Seaway

be

also

the

the

tolerances

corner
the

guides.

long

dimensions
because

with

provide
the

container

stacking

against

dynamic
and
in

stacked
and

with

efficient

by
caused
up to 4 high

containers

gantry

integrate

an

of

to

easier

stacked

For

containers

principally

corners

unloading,

the

summarises

have

designer

the

by

movement

can

been

design

container

four

have

handling

guides

longitudinal

that

5.1

as

St.

clearances

lashed

are
holds

necessary

inspection

and

forces.

be

consideration.

which

the

cover.

preliminary

at

loading,
into

is

Cell

important

is

10.7

7.6

ships

aft;
to

it

and

containers

hatch

and

suited

side

support

The

for

better

the

transverse

arranged
fore

structure.

lateral

it

are
are

is

stowage

the

Ainsler.
dam
Canal

9.0
Antwerp

container
formed

cells

cells

over

Canal

11.6

type

cell

containers

crane

Kiel

Stacking

container

of

Schelde

7.8

vertical

stacked

Canal

11.7

Canal

m.

The

Panama

is

of

clearances

are
inputs

the

and

literature.

with.

an

average
less

much
the

container

increased.

59

clearAt

container/container

concerned

indicative

user

in

suggested

stage

tolerances

various

the
is

clearances
A

value

value,
(see

of

230
hold

since
Fig.

dimensions

mm is

5.8).

and/
In

only,

the
as

to

the

"
0)

0) 3
U O
C ri

,01
-.

r.O

r-i

.N-.
N

,C)
-.

.N-.

U)

to

fa L(0 -Y

CT

(0 Om
(1) ".i 0.
ri =

ri
ri

C)

Ol

r-(

ri

O
H

N
CD
C
"rj

(A
-Y

(a

'O

+)

U "rl

l.l-

fa
W
C
"ri

C
a)
>

NN

toN

U)

NN

4-3 \
C

(U
CD
a

CL EL

ri . -I
LL Li

u)

LO

ri

ri

ri

Er)
(D

ra
4-)
m

E
",
.-1

.,.
E
C
". -l
m
C
0
", i
0)
C
0)
E
", 4
n
ri
r-I

C
0)

co

U)

(1)-P
7U
O1 C
0)
L( "
ri
m
ri
ri
O) r-4 (31

-F 1

C
0

UO

co C
I:.t "r4
m E:

0)

U
"rl
'

ri
r-1

4-)

+1

-f1

U)

U)

ri

+1

+I

N
N

co
H

+1

N
N

(0
0)
m
U
C
m
f4
c0
CD
r-I
U
"O
C
co

, -
m
U
H
(D
C
", i
m
4.)
C
0
U
, -1

co

E:

CD
U

U)

Lf)

N
"

m
C

"rl

"rl

CO

NN

I)

E:

ca

+
C
O

r- I

Cr)

to

ri

"

ri

co

64
(a
(D (D k
hCU
C

co
(0 fa

43
Cm
O ri
UO

"
ri

cm
C

04
d

LO
to

Ir

"ri

tM

ri

CC .
C) x

(j)
CD
U
C
cc
k

m
H
0
4-)

"

(0

N
-F.

OL I)

c;

co

C')

('7

U')
Cr)

a)
M

(V

OU]

Na)

LO
M

" MC')MM

+1

LO

+1

+1

U)

U)

CO

LO

LD

LO

C)
(O

O
U]

O
N

O
N

Cl

10

I;T

O
C) -4

+1

+1

m
ri

Clq
H

04
r-i

(D

lf)

"r"l

W
J
m

+-) N
C. rl

CC m
O U)

..
O
ON
U)

..
O

..
O
U)
H

I-

6o

in

shown

Fig.

(CW)

width
ISO

5.7,
the

and

containers
CH

the

5.2.

be

breadth

of

the

user

20'

8'

8'6"

If

program.

container

requirements

(a)

Container

capacity

(b)

External

8'

high

change

the

is

mainly

determined

of

the

can

Canal

container
(c)

in

division

value

of

Stability

(e)

Strength.
Given
is

the

at

the

deck

i.
top

in
the

recommends
(19)
took

with

two
the

cross

a deck
20% of

(d)

cell

guide

'lead

out

sufficient

strength

and

thus

decided

on
(e).

and

in'

splays

plus

width

hence

and

wide

Table

either

side

Since

the

beam

stability,

basic

Hoppe

of
(13)

cross

width

of

beam

and

lacks

for

2.2m
for

to
the

61

third
3.5
first

open
the

structural

sectional

material
the

secondly,
rigidity.
strength

generation
m.

type

creates

torsional

containers,
for

to

section

strength,
section

openings
This

problems
type

open

hatch
5.2.

sufficient

rows

the

the

are

deck

very
see

longitudinal

reasons

KM

have
80%,

of

9-10

plus

and

provided.

providing

the

tolerances

required

(b),
of

introduced

difficulties

stability

ease

athwartship,

dimensions

factor

shipssfirstly

of

of

for

grid

containers

The

ships

excess

has

ships

be

the

for

hold

value

must

in

geometry

e. g.

outreach

plus

cells

that

hatches

by

Container

satisfy

width
and

container

the

beam

of

Seaway,

containers

downcoming

the

governs

design

of

container

the

governed

ships

rows

considerations.

however

sometimes

locks,

container

distance

catch

geometric

systematic

of

the

The

adequate

width

Lawrence

container

outside

stability.

largely

of

e.

to

width

from

etc.

number

between

clearances
'gather'

St.

and

a function

or

the

g.

by

handling

cargo

(d)

beam

and

cranes

Hatch

ship

(e.

constraints

Panama

For

(CH).

Breadth

following

to

the

used,

the

of

in

(CL),

length

container

program.

The

is

of
height

assumed
to

are

values

container

is

container

in

the

Similarly

generation

and
ships,
Meek
ships.

8992

i-(mo)

Q
W

1
ssvt

Iai

co
X

C)
tn
.l

xo_
tn
Hi

B99Z

-10,

....

-i
---

-0-i

:1:

E
E

C
r-1
0
C
O

W
C
O
E
"rI
V
.-1
'-I

C
0

O
C

E
.i

J
U

C-

U
LI
C

0
0%
0
%O

v
N
N
N
ri

Rr

C
+1

f
O
Q1
r-i
N

m
x
ao
x

0
v

C
0

CU
N
1!7

01

L'

111

62

4OH

CD
O

LO"

PE E
a-'
O "ri
,4 rn
3

LO

O
U)
N

tO

r-

0)
4H
Om

O
" H

O"

r{

r-1

t0

tf)

r-1

In

tr)

U)
M
M

r-1

O
to

to
0

Ol
N

to

Ol
to

CO

-; r
Ct)

r-1

L7

CL

CDL

(..t H
CD U 0)
m
C+)
CC
(Ti

"r1 "rl

Co "
(0 4-)
c0 H
(Ti 3E

+3

CC

(D LE

O0
r-I
t. ) UU
L

'0 -N
"O
r-1
O "ri

co

;:r

0E
0:

N
.

(1)

c0 3
0)

01

O
t7

1;T

to
N

-N
CO

3"

4-)
U

t0

0E

H tr
m

CO
N

co

d'

01
t0
t0

Ln

tV
N

tD

co

tD

tD

CO
CD
tr)

tD

.
M

.
M

"

tr)

tM

CD
t7
"
lr]

LO
U)
U)

CO

r-I

"
lM

"
tM

"
N)

.
tr)

"
lM

01

01

01

(71

co

co

01

co

co

CO
01

O
O

r-1

N
LI)

tO
0

U)

te7

"

tO

0)

tr

-P
0

.,
L
09
4-3
H
(a
3
L

0)
U
., {
4-)
0)
m
-iJ
U
07
H

CD

co C71
co
.Y

CD
U)
r

;I

"

r-1

"

O
N

N
N

N
r-1

01

l0
N

U)
O

M)

U)

N
"

U)
"

N
"

-4

.
1
N

ri

tO
r-1

N
N
"

I
ri

`-1 L
U i)

tr)
U)
Lt)

:D

,#-AD -0 oE
O "r1 v

VC)
U)
U)

"

"

L
_0 +
ri

t')

t'M

01

t0

ri

N
N

U)
N

tD

tO
O1
"
CO
N

O
U)
.
O
t7

1*

t0

N
N

U')
N

Lf)
N

tO

U)

O
O

.
N
c+)

N
t+)

O
N
"

O
U)
"
O
t+')

co
-T
"
O
to

"

U)
CO

"

N
"
N

co
E

O
Lf)

t')

23

%1

N
r"i

U)
"

"03"

U)
C)

CT
CO
"

tD
lO
N

Lco
0

01
c

"H
Y
U
Oy

L
4-3
0
co . -.

CDmE

(4
m

tr]

r-1

tr)

01

"
CO
N

09
H
CJ
(a
4)
C
0
U

OJ
n
'

tn

c0

_0
C
to
ri

ri

tr)

4J

7
0

ID t0

N
tr)

3
fH
c0
i=

>.

co

3
L

U
Q

>.
U)

co
]C

0
I-

co

01

O
ri

N
IL

C
laJ

Cf7 0

C3.
X
W

H
(D

>.
0

., l

to
N

0)
0)
tD

CD

O
N
"

>%

W
I
.m_.
Q
F-

0
Z

r-1

tr)

63

U)

tO


oN 0)
L-0
"
"r N
1E
"H O)

OO

"
O
Z

ti

O
N

r-1

-, 4

r-i

m
E
r1
E
>. U

L7

Co ", -I

----

N
N

N Q)
0) (U L) U)
CCC
+)

"r1 "r1

(0

N
c03

le
E.

CCNLE
00
ri 41
Li C) () (ti
-o

r-1
(]

!n

"r1

N
N
Lf)

M
M

r-1

0
0 )

t0

D
N

CV

r-1

Q)

le
N
N

0)

l1)

M
N

Ldl
CID

[
m
m

r-i

N
--

tu 3.
O0E

r-i

t0

Ln

"
M

, -.

CM

Ln
"

m
CO
r)

r-i
M

CV

M
tO

(ID

CO

LI)
LI)

d
N

CV
tO

"

M"
N

r-i

to

"
M

"
M

"
M

"
M

0)

CT

CT

CD

CO

N
LI)

N
N
"
e-I

.
M

t0

CO

N
tD
"
M

to

r)

t0
0

M
.
M

0)

C
-1-)
O

Ln

U
v

r.14
m

.13
N

., i
3

()

rn
m (0

r-i

"

O"
N

CD

CO

:
_y
U. 1.) 3"
c 00
0"r13 v

ID

4-3
U

-0
r-1
O
=

,L
O3"
.,,1 =E
3-

ri

o)

LM

O)

"
N

"
M

le

t0

CO
N
Ir

tO
N

Ln
Ln

4)
U)
"ri

r-i

tf)"

d"
Cl

co
3

r-i

Ln

Ln

ri

N
r-1
"

Ln
tn"

ri

Cr)

O
'7
"
M

N
M
O

CD
ri
N

M
"Ct

(14
N

Lf)
0)

N
N

N
N

N
N

Ln
N

r-i

Ln

CO
'
.
O
m)

U:)
O)
.
CD
N

"

[O
M
N

"

cu
L
U
01
C
N-1
Y
U
(a
U)
LI
(D
C
.r"{
W
4)
C
0
U

mEm

(a
m

tu

a
H

00
C 01
Co "ri

NL
(4 "rl
0) 94

N
rf

"

0)

CO
Ln"

r)

Co
"ri

to

LD

Co
f
7

CD
N

0)
Cl;i

E
()

14

0
"ri
r-i

Ci

Cr)

Ln

r-i

r-I

r-i

tO
ri

64

N-0

Cr

Co
90 r-i

to

94

>

O
Z

Ln

03
m N

Lf)

N
M

0
C

43

W
J

N
M

La
0

O_ 0)
_c
NZ

.
Ln

r-i

0)

CO
O

Cl)

"

r-1 3
O 0)
VZ

CD

Co FCi

r-i

N
N
.
M
N

0)
01

"ri
fa
(D

0)

L
ci

" ri
Z

-H

Co m
3 1)
(0 0
SW

Cl)

O)

r-1

4-3
14
O

0)
Cl)

CV

oH

m
-C -0

NE
".i

Ch

M
U)

O
C)

ON

CM
`

o1

Cl_.

co
C

" La
O ".-1

ri

C
O

CL

f-I H m. C
CD CD U (A

CCC

-1-1

".-I ".i c N
cU CU N cU

r
UUU

1 -L
Co

"

r-I
N

l
E

r-i

Lr)

r-I
C)1

Co
N

L
O tn
ca 3.

OO

N[r
[D

W
3
O

.o
4J
c
U0

Lf)

Ll
Lf)

Uo
co

Lr1

01

[D

L-

co

co

l0

to

Cr

'p
"3

co W

rn

tD I

IP,

l0
ri

,YL
U4-2

:B"

Co

Co
lh

Lf)

"

L%-

01

Lf)

l0

"I

ri

r-{

Ln
LO

0
CT

Elf)

lr7
to

-o oE

C) ".i v

"

r
'O 410-H

O:

"

23

"
r-I

O
l0

U)
ri

O
N

L
N

i
V-1
N

L
4-)
i
'D
cU /'\
CD ME
Pv
O

"

"

O
N

O
O

O
O

"

"

"

"

CV
M

t0
N

N
M

N
M

M
N

O
M

"
N

D
L+

CD

0)

W
J
m

O
Z

0)
r7

f4

LD
ri
to -. i

r-I
-P
C c0

3
(D
Z

m>
"rl m
aL
0U

N
04

M
N

:3

fa
c0

m
L

"r1
'O

m
r-I

CD

U ri
"rl H
4.) V
C

E:
"rl
-Y

O
N

O
N

"

CD

tf)

M
LO

"

d'

"a s
rm
Cf) Z

O
O

Ln"

O
N

"

r-I
"

O
Lf)

LO
Lr)

0
co

CT

Lf)
N

"

"

ri

H
F4

CL
X

CD C
L

CD

r-I

U r

cU m
fa
ri
+>' m

0
1

m
(D
Cl)

QE:

Li)

E: U

d
N

Lf)
N

10
N

LlN

Co
N

65

LD

a) CD
01

+J

.o
ri

LD

cu r

O1

L+

CD

O1
co
>
0

[1
U

0
t')

To

provide
the

reasons
the

and

minimum

beam

of

with

the

W=

methods

the

for

width
to

assumed

be

14%

structural
of

the

beam,

beam.
to

available
these

ships,

approach

stringer

was

were

container

Method

Then

value

20% of

maximum

Three

deck

adequate

described

are

in

adopted

the

the

estimate

minimum

briefly

together

program.

1.
Let

Fig.

the

breadth

B=

2W +

width
to

5.8

given

by

(n-2)C

+n

2C1

+ nid

the

of

deck

m for

2.98

between

the

ni=

number

d=

overall

n=

number

C=

clearance

bo=

width
of the
container
+ 2t)mm.
= (246o

t=

thickness

of

ship.

Eq.
from

varies

32.26

of

inner

a container

bo

which

a Panamaxbeam

clearance

The

geometry

stringer,

C1=

of

the

represent
B (20)
is

hull

5.1

2.25

cell

guide

m;

to

the

first

girders

width

a deck

of

container

of

rows

between

adjacent

the

of

girder

of

C will

device

adopted

as

shown

Method

2.

the

of

cell

guides

guides.
depend
in

(37)

Chryssostomidis

guides

thickness

cell

value

cell

the

on

Fig.

type

of

precentring

5.9"

the

calculates

breadth

minimum

as

follows:
Hold

width

C=

where

d=
ni

152

mm for

shipboard

228

mm for

shore

width

of

breadth

rows

B=

of
Hold

the

of

= number
of

The

bo

=nx

the
width

is

+ nC

+ n. d
i
cranes

based

cranes

deck

even
ship

assumed
and

is

is

girder

girders,

then

+W

66

Eq.

two

if

given

taken

as

to

be

one

it

is

odd

by

305
if

mm
number

5.2

Fig.

5.8.

Midship

container

showing

arrangement

dimensions

(20).

& clearances

"1
1.
_ .

f4-

roc;

I.

__

.1_

0
0
M

II

I' -

nC2
,
d

w=
2250-2980
for n= 10

r"-
600-800

b= 248
--

m.

= 110180 mm

-4m-

= 120
high low

= 80 fl ip

pop

200-220
fixed
even peak

c=

peak

C1<110
with C1=50 m
has been
applied

.-

N
1

n=

no.

of

containers

i
i

BJ2
I

67

Fig.

5.9.

Container
(20).

(a)

clearances

for

different

types

of

precentring

arrangements

FLIP-FLOP TYPE INLETS

1v

jliu

I.,,

tl%i

r
w %ftj

2460

120
2460
-

14

14.E

(b)

FIXED EVEN PEAKS

,may
Ar--

110
2460
14
14 a
(c)

HIGH LOW PEAKS

w..+

50

1
I

2460
2460

lA

6$

80
1
i -.

W=3.962

where

Method

for

rows

of

containers

= 4.572

m-

for

8 rows

of

containers

= 5.182

for

9 rows

of

containers

3.
(24)

Nakamura
the

calculating

B=

Rows

Clear

x
Rows

of

CW

= width

nH

= number

b1

= distance

container

of

the

follows:

as

W=

of

is

CLEARW

centre

between

side

between

adjacent

the

minimum

block

of

are
line
of

girders

are

by

girder
of

girders

ship.

The

It

usual

container,

mm

breadth

maximum
(BLOCK

W)

is

is

Eq.
alone

= 2438

between

containers

by

given

+ CLEARF

ROWS, where
CLEAR

of

1 is

the

= number

5.4
of

mm
is

rows
is

of

also

either
space

on
to

69

the
for

if

and
two

possible

required

the

of

be

have
centre

mm.

a
there

If

single
are

odd

longitudinal

either

such

230

flanges.

containers,

then

of

to

assumed

assumed

side

between

clearance

width

symmetrically
is

on

the

= 130

guides

containers

containers

placed

placed

and

cell

container

for

numbers

rows

line.

mm

containers
(ROWS) x CW

1x

clearance

hatch

centre

5.3

by

given

the

nH)

by

containers

= CLEAR

even

numbers

(rows

mm

structure

and

CLEARW

taken

given

container
is

2461

as

2 or
= 650

hatchways

CW = width
of one
The total
clearance
and

taken

hatchways

of

CONTW +
space

rows

there

the

of

CONTW = total

CLEARF

nH

mm

program

BLOCK

each

rows
between

width

CLEARW

W1 x

athwartship

containers

2
clearance

calculated
Total

Clear

+2x

rows

the

of

W2 =
In

1)b1

Eq"

= 455

where

(nH

W1 = clearance

Clear

for

relationship

W2

= no.

Clear

following

breadth:

CW +

the

gives

side

hatch
the

of

asymmetrically
(20)
line
a girder

is

of
600-

the

mm (20).

800

Then

BMIN
the

and

BLOCKW
0.80

BMAX

32.26

As

in

shown

from

vary

14.77%

with

8 rows

these

were

the

kept

in

the

best

to

explore

by

is

the

16 &

side

breadth
20).

can
for

Though

a large

variation

preliminary

it
stage
imposing
un-

the

other

minimum

lies

in

and

between

was
is

methods,

see

the

maximum

the

values

deck

of

breadth
calculated

to
double

1220

mm for

bottom
in

(minimum

girder

DBHM

required
space

given
the

in

Table

following

+ 205v

height

of

be

bottom
5.4.

To

equation

the

height

height)

is

fl

the
of

provide
was

in

70

some

and
of

the
by

given

mm.

fuel,

adequate
used

(3.7)

tiers

depth

double

for

mm for

considerations

provided

of

classification

minimum

bottom

xBV

to

Double

the

36

strength

is

and

tiers

of

Chryssostomidis

1372

as

hold,

by

the

taken

either

number

strength.

double

have

have

by

required

height

1000

however

ballast.

as

the

of

adequate

tiers

contain-

items:

(37)

studies

or

ensure

five

(DBHM)

a function

as
deck

under

the

adequate

following

containership

takes

those

continuous

the

height

bottom

ships

uppermost
of

bottom

containers
(38)
rules

centre

to

function

double

above

the

of

no.

at

3.

side

Previous

are

deck

without

with

program

at

Double

the

limits,

that

the

2 and

depth

ership

of

5.6

Depth

The

Most

the

at

evaluation

indicates

5.3,

method

the

24.21%

such

extreme

comparative

calculated

(a)

the

to
(ship

because

the

of

containers
limits,

Eq.
less.

width

breadth

extreme

5"5

constraints.

5.3"

the

of

is

whichever
the

Eq"
by

given

5.2

program,

necessary

by

of

by

given

Table

ships

Table

is

is

breadth

BMAX

breadth

minimum

BLOCKW
0.8r

maximum

or

the

bottom

in

alone,

since

freshwater

excess

and

containerships
space

as

mentioned

E:
a
Lr

la

t0

LO

L+)

U)
O
Cr)

O
r

0
Ir

a
M

C)

U)

Lf)

C)

01

"7

t0

r-4

O
L')

t0

co

0
O
O
r-

t0

M
' -1

Lf)

r-I

co
.

co
ra
4-3

a)
r)

Ct

U3 co

ri

O
co

O
N

Lf1
O
t

r-1

ri

L+)

U)

t0

Lf)

r-1
tp

", l

C
.ri

t')

r-I

(D
EJ

r-I
m1
E

ri

CO
N
t0
%7t

-q H

ri

E:
Q
lr
U

Lr
a

r-1

U)

U)

10

N
r01 M
ri

Ln
O
L'))

ri

t0
M
N

0)
C
0

co

0
r-1

.,..,

0)
C

m
E
", 1
v

r-1

d
co
C14
N

d
N

N
01
Iq

C) O
N CD
Le) co

O
04 U3
NM

O
"Ctd
U)

04

O
00
t0 CD

LO

r-I

O
O

0)
v
0
t

(n
E
4-)
C
!D
H
(D
44-

rf

Lf)

C)

LL)

U)

l0
d

O
M

*t

U)
d

01
01

U7
t0

C4

OD
M
4;r
N

0
01

U)

r-I

r-1

tD

C)

U)

"-1
r-1

U)
N

0
Cr)
N

CL

r-1

C-4

N
co
N
CV

M
iT
ri
r-I

t0
N

U)
0
M

>..
.0
L
d-)
cl
0
CD
fa
.0
40

co

co

N
r-I

N t0

Nm

rC

O
t0 N
* co

X
co

OO

CD

^
v
+

C
"0

r1 M

E: v

H
O

r-1

"

"

C7

CD

U]

c
-,a
mm

cc0
to mU

t0

O
L

C
0
",i

E
"'1

0)
W

W
J
C3

t0

'qr

4-3

L-,

+)

c LO
0a
C.)

ri

0)

ri

Nml

-P

4.) LL)
oa
F- M

Co 3 r-1
m+)
ri
r-I mm
UAU

CM

(a u

(D 64
cc
mM
LL m T)
Co +) r-1
mCO
r-L oL
UU

Iq

1 ri
Hm
ca U
(D

UOm
Ll-

ri
Co mri
4-3

ON

13

U3

t
+1

m
13

..3 i

LF)

:a

"r1

Oc
01
1- co

lA
- LL
Om

01

.
Z"

71

E:

Cr

O
O

O
O
M

N
N

lf)
N
N

'*

CO
O

r-f
Q
N

N
co
CO
0

r-1

01
n
)
t

t0
CO
N
ON

r-I

C,
O

to
N
N
01

N
CO
,-

14
U3

ri

"CP
CT
N

OM
7 CT
N0
M**
NN

U'1
O
M

t0 CT

l17

CO

co

r-I

lf1
t0

N
O
IY

t0
01

01
te7

r-I

N r-1
01 co
t+7 -It

ri

O
O. O

r-I

-4

K
Q

t0
M
N

m
r i

Orn

M
O
M

O
0

t0
N
.4
O
N

r-I

[47

M3
r-I

[C

Cl

N
M

OO
OO
t0 CO

r-i

01 t0

CO

N)

N
d
CD

l"7

t0
rf

r-4

m C3
1-'I N

CO
t0
O
t0

CD
t0
01
t0

ri

r-1

r-1

CO

N
M3

01

Cr)
ri

CC
CL

N
CD

co

-4
N
N
N

Cf1

ri

Lf1 r-I

CC
C7
O

M
t0

tfl

r-1

ri
01

O
M
tO

CD

CO
-T
M

I-T CO
M

t0

r-I

"1

O
0

O
l'e)

t0
r-I

M
N

rI

r-1

01
t")
r-1

O
O
M
[r]

O
0
O
M
ri

M
C"]

OO
OO
N t0
r-I

;r

t0

r-I
U3

CD

O
N

tflN

co

Co d
NM

(r) 01

CT N

N
t! 7

N -t7
t0 N
ri rf

r-i

_0

v
., j
:3
rn

co

O
L

ri
ri

CD
U

W
W

_0
C

v
3
+

W
J
m
Q
H

4OE

"

-iE 10

U
CO

If)
E

m
+1
,.,

4.3

^
N

c
0
U

l'' 1

m
t

C7
3

W
F4
W
m

ia
0

-i
Ua-

co

-13
FI
"rl

rn

r-4

-,3i

WL
54

W+3
>W
OL

Ch

"

X
N

CD

E 13
-rl

r-1 3
r-i
W L

:dU
(D 4-3

>W

a"
OY
L

+)
Ia
-13 "D

-r-I -rl

0r

o
ri

.-1
I-1

0)

wc
OW

43 W

m _0
-,i "H

4.)

C
-ri

EE
E
oD
0) 00
C4 N0
CN
cn
1i1
UII
00
"

II

+3

3m

N
r-i

r-I

C7
a)

0
a)

0
r-f
U)

II

IIH II

UU

C)

72

E:

cc
C7

0
O
CL

cr)

co

M
N

0
m
! r')

O
1')
N

-1

to
1

r-1
tp

CY

rf

r
-;
N

O
CD
M
N

co
m
ef

C3
co
m

0)
U)
Iq

rf

LV

m
L.7
CD
0:
0-

m
M
7
N

U)

CA
co

U)

t0

U)
0

r-I

U)

01

Ot
M

t0
N

`r

U)

U)
t0

U)

0
N

L'r)

r1

Nm
CD
N
N

U)
ri

Q
N

N to
NM

to

t0

N
r-1

%I
01

t0
co

U)
O

N
0
N

U)
O
M

r1

00

N 0O
r--1 t0 co
N

O
M

U)
O

U) N
HN

01
Cf

O
t0
N

N
N

ri

co
t")

N
11
01

I
N
U)

r1

r
%-.

r1

ri

Z
00
OO
t0

N
t0

O
Q

O
O

O
0

O
N

1r)
N-1

ri
N
0)
t0
N

N
N

t0

to

m
N

O
U)

U3

r-I

to

N
N
M

r-I

N
U)

01
M

r-1

l f)
01

V)

O
m

co
0
0

U)
U)

01
0

t0
r-I
U)
N

ri

Lf) N
Lot 0

01
U)

m
N
to

U)

t0

0
0
V)

CD

CD
N
t0

01
O
N
0t
N

Cr)

U)
N
N
U)

"7

U)
r-1
N

U)
U)
T
-7:

C1

r'i

t0

cr)

U')
0
tM

. -1

O
O
M
N

0
M

N
El-

t0

to

co
N

0
M

ri
01

O
10
N
01
N

U)
U)
Q
H
M

r1

N
t0

r-1

W-

C3
0

O
d

I*
N

co
co
I; r
N

co
M
d
N

m
N
N

N
N
01
M
N
N

\
00
0d
U) U)
r-1

d
O
U)
01

O
Le)
N

r-1

Nl
00
00
N tO m0
N Cr) N 01

00
OO

N
m

t0

r1

O
17
co
.-i

U)

U)

m
t0

co
O

U)
r-1

01

U)

U)

r-I

ri

O
H

U3

0)
M
N

00
00
N t0

N
N
tr)

r-1

%I

ri

r-i

tD

NN
N U)
nO

-
N

tr)

ri

U)
O
t)

ri

U)
O
L+)

01
O
t0

d
N

to

NN
m U)
r1 r-1
U) t0

d
N
U)
M

N
r-1
d
U)

'IT

0,
m

01
'q

t0
N

t0

U)

t0

co
t0

10

U)
M

U)

ri

ri
(3) t0
NN
0) 0
NM

N
01
co
U)
N

r-I

Lf!

CO

H
m
N
N

M
r-i

-q

M
N
r-I

U)
N

Lr')

r-1
t0
0
r

ri
Cf

qr
U)
N

M
N
N

r-1
U)
d
CT
N

0 co
r-I -1
NO
U3 LNN

00
N

d
N

U)
01
-r1

U)
ri

N
N

L')

01
ri

Ch
N

N co

U)

0
M

r-I

U)

co

t)

O
tr)

N
O

[r)
t0
rf
N

N
-:T
M

r-I

co
m
d
N

O
mLV
Kt to
r-I

O OO
NtO
Om
N tr) N t0
r-i

co
01
0)
r1

13
t
a)
:9
p

CD

0
O

O.
co
id

Li
J

C)

m
cc
F

HW

O
04
N
I

co

(a
.

CD

U]

0
-0
X

co
m
c
-r)
co
-1-3

- CD
4-)

0
0

L)

.1N

r-I

0
1-

OO
0O
t0 m

r-1

co

N)

O
0
t0

o)
i4

ca
H

r-i

r1
W

11
W
U

(D
"0

.8

W
L]

Li

co
W

WH
CC

C)

C
)

W-ri

ca
L1
m

ri

HW
ca 41
m C
ri
UU

L']

i)
13

-ri
3
fa

4*
m

L'r)

N
N

-13
'D

ICT
O
N
r-I
N

U) Q
U)

..

CD
U

V]

r-I

-.

It

v
4. )
C
0
V

OO
0O
t0 co

NO
N r-I

13
N

id

L
D
+)
W
L

ia
-ri

CD

"
0

c
4-)

13
-H

0
4-

N
-

fa
W
13

0-

v
+
-%
N

W
FI

E
7

O
-4

4-)
'0

i-)
13

-Y
C

co
CD
Li
J]
.

t
0
-H

-Y
C

-P

E
E

r-I
Li

0
F--

-r1
C7

ri
U

a-1

E:

cf

U]

[-

01

O
. -1

"ri

W
4.)

-0

-X

-r1

co
E

r-I

1-1

NM;:

.L
-D
co
C)
f-1

-4

73

ia 01
CD C
"r1

rq

13 4J

Oa

co

N
co

FI

(D

m"rl

"

N
.
N

I-

O
N
.
N

to

1D
.
N

N
.
N

11

U)

N
.
N

N
.
N

t0
.
N

t)
*

M
M
N
.
N

U)
lf)
.
N

M
N
.
N

M
.-i
.
N

CD
.
N

01
tf)
.
N

N
.
N

r-4

-1

LL

4-3
4-+
mo
0L

4OO

CC

4-

70

f0

C3

0
U)

:d

CD
U 'D

64

CDE
>

Co

d
lf)
.
N

C)

1
m

l0

LO

-1 4-

ff) L

"m .
E

O) U4-)

64
f0 0

LI
ft)

4.)
0
o
i-3 U

in

La
CD

Ch

LO

co
O

ff)

Q)
01 m

cc
.r4
"i -Y

LO

ri

in

"-1

r-I

0- F-

in

U')
t

rf

4-

4' r"-i

H
CD
-4
4-)

rn
c

ri

01

i
to
N.

t0

l0

10
N

U)

2
03

m
OmE
I

U
U
.

U
.

0
O

ri

co
o
t
N.

CO

in

. rI

in

1
.

u').

te)
.

0
H

U)

0-1

t")

N"

Iq
f4

CD

CD

U
co
(a
co
t
U

LI
m
C
",
ca

C
0
U

LU

C
+-I

01
C
"ri
-Y
U
ca

O o oE
".CD
-I

l0

10

01

lf)

t0

"rl
I-

"

a1

U)

U)

r-1

ri

. -I

0
0

U)

r-I

01

01

N.

r'i

r-I

r-1

10
.

CO
.

4O

CD E
O
4J ri
1 .93 4.3 E:
7-
2E

CO

"rI 00
(D 000
2

%..i

+1

a.

-.
(D OE
O -. o

m
ln
d'

N
01

r1

O
N

O
N

U)
Kt

01
r-1

01.
r-1

O.
. -I

01.

t0

10.

r-I

ri

U)
r-1

t0

r-I

U)

l0

CO

01

.-1
U)

o1.
r-I

ri

r"I

rn

"
ri

"
. -I

U)
U0

U).
H

.
N

O
H

r"l
r-I

N
r-I

U)

r-I
U)

0D
00
"
"
CV . -1

0
01

"
N

0
.
ri

N
N

O
N

01
N

01

O.
N

01.
H

u).

U)
r-I

tD

ui
W
J

m
f-

P4

Y'I

>r
.Cl)

"

r-I

r-I

r-I

r-1

74

rarn
a) C
1
.-i ",
.0 +)
0 E"
Dr -I
0 0.
d

U]
tp
"
N

4-J N
a) E
a) "r1 E
O F-

'

`'

O0o
I
m
U '0

O
U

Ca 7O
a)

ri
u

M
M
N

N
U)
W

fa

"

m
d
N
N

01
t0
N

"

"

M
M

C4
Lrl

t0
N
O
"
N

U)

e-I

r-i

t0
co

In

r-1

Lf)

t0
"

"

t0

ri
N

"

"

"

N
U)
"

dC'7

C3
O
,

0
0
rI

"

o
L(a U

Lo

ql*
0

co

Ln

fa

a)

Em
O '0

4O

fa

a)

O_ "I-1

"

d-)
C
fa "r1 Co O 0
4- fA C 4-) U

-It

C7 U)

m
U)

O
W-i

C14

0
ri

co
EE

cEa

a%
ooi N

a)

N
01 Co
C: C:
"rl .Y

O
-4it

C
O
U

w
La
CD

0. I--

-i

01 4.3 a)

"ri Co o

CD.CU

E
=W

coco
E

-F

h-

La
a1

4a

OD
4-)

d
i
0-4

LO
Lr)

0
to

r-I

co
.-i

0
r-1
0
r-1

i-i
N

M
M

0
O

CD
[r1

CT

r-I

N
r ')
ri

n
d
.
N
N"

.
N

d
.
N

U:)

t0

O
t0

O
co

Cr1
t0

M"
r-I

d
r-I

t 0.
r-I

ct
r-i

a
0

0
co

0
m

co

r-I

"
r-I

"
r-I

ln
"
N
0
N

0
N
O
N

N
L7

U)

U)
01

M
U)
N)
"
N

co
N
d
"
N

lD
tD
`0"
N

tO
M
t0
"
N

t0

01

01

Lf)

tp

to

t0

t0

t0

ri

t0
r-4

r')
"
N
0

"rI

I-

U
co
N
tl7

E:

L
U

I
O

CD E
+

01 O"-3
"r"

co
S

oD0
O co

E:
S

"

"

t0
N

01

N"

"

N
01

"

r-I

"

co

ri
10

O
CD

O
N

co
r-I

d.
r-1

N.
N

m.
N

ri

.
C7
r-I

0
0

0
01
O

0
N

Lf)

CDOE

P4
"
O

"

l0

"

d
"

"

"

N
r-i

"

.
C7

ri

"
ri

O
01

CM
t0

d"
d

"

U)
r-i

t0
r-I

co

t0

t0

r-I

r-{

01
r-I

tO

r-I

r-I

LrJ
N

CD

ri

r-I

01
r-i

0
N

r-I
N

N
N

M
N

it
N

"

O
01

0
N

ri

ri

N
4.3
M e-%

O.

ui
w
J
m
4
I-

m
i
r-4

a)

U)

. r{

H
m
C
", i
t9
41
C
0
U

to
- 1

o
+3 LLUE

m
U

-N

In

d
r-I

4-

.,

c
.,

01
C
"rl
-Y
U
co

U)

O
L'7

"

ri

t7
ri

U)
to

"

O
t0

"

to

t0

"

.;

U)
N

"

t0
ri

"

O
U)

"

t0

r-I

ri

ri

ri

ri

U)
r-I

t0
N

N
N

CD

Cl
CV

0
M

H
to

U)

D1

"
,+

U)

75

DBHM
TIERB

where
from

5 to

(b)

= tiers

of

TIERB

+ 0.65)
in

containers

the

hold

given

by

centre

= 0.52

is

thickness

strake

44o)

(LBp-

+ 0.08

inches,

LD_

in

where

S=

frame

spacing

Since

the

main

dimensions

the

LBP xT

(1.25

TIERB

CH =
DTHK

CLEAR2

TIERB

container

height

thickness

of

in

the

the

5.4

(24)

changing

the

deck

of

Hatch
The

Eq.

5.9

taken

in
816"

value

the

of

typical

hatch
for

values
(37)

100

of

the

2.591

or

container

some

a value

specify

of

chamber

value

5.4

5.8

mm.

underside

gives

give

mm was
to

to
In

opening.
the

uppermost
the

and

25

plate,

the

m. (8')

2.438

m. either

Chryssostomidis

possible

linearly

increase

Eq.

and
A value

mm.

is

It

program.
containers

by

also

CH.

of

(CAMBER)

Camber
The

doubler

deck

Table

300

of

(e)

the

of

by

approximated

+ CLEAR2

between

= clearance
tier
below

Nakamura

camber

stage

(CBH)

containerships.

Table

is

this

at

+ 1.75)/1000.0

CH + DTHK

cover.

also

(38)

mm

known

not

thickness

blockheight

Container

hatch

11

formula

PLTHK

(d)

`)

mm.

are

strake

centre

following

where

+ 66o)

PLTHK = 0.00136(5

in
10ry\

r--l
1CCl.

or

CBH

ranges

= length

DY

IrA

1L'V

(c)

which

5.7

(PLTHK)

thickness

strake

The

design

Eq.

9.

Centre

PLTHK

(0.15

its

the

taken

maximum

Chryssostomidis
have

some containerships
400 mm.
A camber

coaming
minimum

height
hatch

value
CAMBER

program
by

is

containerships

of

75

no

the

at

camber

of

the

which

is

side

= 0.075
(37).

mm seems

to

assumed

m,
As
or

in

shown

very

high

reasonable.

(HATCHT)
coaming

76

height

in

position

1,

i.

e.

m. (8'

6").

hatchways

exposed

Chryssostomidis
(24)

760

mm,

though

coaming

height,

to

reducing

the

below

containers
hatch

that

in

the

With

the

the

DMAX
For

that

to

2.809

depth

the
This

9.

gives

Table

m.

(Ship

2.926

much

less

stack

as

Table

5.4

indicates

practice.

As

5.2,

the

minimum

taken

as

adoptthe

and

most

minimum

mm.

items,

the

minimum

by

CAMBER

HATCHT

in

side

hold,
can

statistical
by

vary
in

Depth

that
is

adopted

Eq.

5.11

1.2

m for

TIERB

of

2.569

m to

average

in

the

in

past

no.

12)

to
is

variation

program

the

ships

(Ship

2.13m

The

TIERB=5.

5.10

analysis

TIERB
for
actual

Depth/TIERB

Eq.

by

tiers

values

is

the

1000

preceding

many

value

value,

calculate

approximated

for

usual

to

hatch

large

give

a maximum

the

indicates

no-26)
the

to

mm is

+ 1.2

at

of

and

also

a variation

5.4

variation

extreme

is

of

and

1000

+ CBH -

DMIN

number

given

shows
5

given

thereby

was

is

depth

ship,

Thus

of

maximum

the

with

knowledge
side

at

of

of

height

coaming

depth

practicable.

determined.

Nakamura

mm and

to

as

Section

= DBHM + PLTHK

DMIN
and

height

together

Dmin

depth

deck

program

hatch

depth,

(36)

in

depth

economic

weight

915

is

practice
the

earlier

of

mm (38).

600

is

a value

reduce

the

coaming

mentioned
ed

gives
actual

steel

decks

freeboard

on
(37)

are

reason-

able.

Two
the

depth
1.

Method
D>8x
where

where

which

methods

TIERB

were

described

are

TIERB

+(

the

gives

Bp -500
100

ft,

LBp

for

400

< CNT <

700

=6

for

700

< CNT <

1700

=7

for

CNT >

D<
when

TIERB

in

1700
of
ft,

=7

77

containers
LBp

depth

minimum

=5

number
= total
60 + (LBp-500)
100

CNT

studies

to

determine

as

follows:

briefly.
(39)

Erichsen

used

in

ft.

It,

Eq.

5.12

Method

2.
(24)

Nakamura
ing

the

D=

following

for

equation

determin-

depth

CH x

TIERB

+ DBHM + CLEAR2

D BHM = B/16

where

the

gives

in

CLEAR2
m.;
x 45/1000
m.

= B/2

CAMBER

A comparative
given

in

shows

that

evaluation

Table

5.5

the

= 0.100

the

with

together

minimum

HATCHT

that

with
the

and

maximum

CAMBER

m,

HATCHT

above

two

adopted

in

values

Eq.

5.13

= 0.760

is

methods
the

program,

calculated

are

reasonable.
Length

5.4.

The

BP
of

hold

length,

container

length.

aft

peak

(a)

Container
The

are

container

spacing

ship
their

at

strength

directly

are

considered

in

turn.

on

and

cell

bulkheads

and

Because
only,

members

and

the

the

the

contain-

position
frame
length.

depth

the

of

transverse

container
to

in

lead-in

guides

corners

applies

length,

container

cell

the

of

tolerance

guide,

5.1),

to

length

of

container

structure.

related

reasoning

underlying

fore

composed

support

transverse

transverse

ship's

and
(Table

to

supported

is

tolerance

structure

other

and/or

same

length

construction,

5.9),

and

(BLOCKL)

manufacturer's

guide

are

into

subdivided

length

space

these

of

hold

between

was

machinery

length

container

clearance

ers

containership

Each
hold

container,

cell
(Fig.

the

length

and

The

breadth

the

of

ship.
Table
in

5.6

For

bays

6.748

m to

value

of

As
the

1.5

Table

container

of

bays

Reefers

explains

of

5.6,

7.979

mix

of

containers

the

of

more

large

Buxton
between

clearance

size,

characteristics

minimum distance

m/bay.

total

container

stacking

the

m for

require

(e. g.

container

container

2.5

container

number
(e. g.

which

20'

a maximum

in

shown

the

shows

the

containers
in

space)
in'fort3.
variation

78

hold,

each
and

the

holds
in

bays.
depend

will
(40'
type

the

and
of

location
require
hold

gives

adjacent

clearance/hold,

from

bay varies

per
(15)

20'),
container
the

of
more

on

space),

clearances.

This

m
N)
'; r
N

C7
O
m
Cl

UD
10
O
N
r-1

"
O

u:

m
l f)

r-1

ri

N
te)
ri
co
ri

C14
H
0
N

r-

ri

0
0
N
rf

0%
U)
N

aDr-1
M 01
Q U7
NN

C:c
m
C7

CD

m
0.

U)

U)
N

ri

u)
N

O0
OO
r-1 M

N
OO
01 -1
CO 01
r-1 r-i

O
0
O

NN

01 H
CA N

OO
HM

O
N

N
"
Ol

ri

VD

U)

U)
CV

LO Lf)

ri

N)

M U)
1O 13

U)

+F

ri

E
E

rf

01

01
U)
N

0
co
O

LO
N

'ct
U)
U)

ri

r-1

O
M

t)
N'
NN

O
C)

U)
N

ri

r-1 r-

r-1 r-1

r-f

ri

koD

CO

m
r- i

r-i

ri

Ch

1OM

ri

Ol
N

0
0
ri

U)

t0

N
l

N
ri

l0

N)

U)

NN
N 01
MM
ri r-I

0
O

co
r-I

r-1

r-1

C
MI
m

co
C
0
"'i
Ip
C
m
E
"rl
U

ri

ri

t") 01
Q

U7

NN

co ko
N 'qt
1O U)
d

U)

r-1 H

[r

CD

M
Cf
N

C7
O

.--I
r-I

IY

O-

0
01
H
N

0
It
H

CO

U)

OO
ri

N)

r-i

ri

O
0

CD
E
.0
C
ID
P
CD

01

U)

m
Lf)
01

rn
U)

u)
0,

t!)

ri

r-I M

et

O
0

CDCO

U)

co

t0
d
ri ri

ri

r-I

CO
cr)

Ch

0
H

U)
N

d
H

r-1

U)

I2
U
F=

m
lal
m

m
L
4J
0.

ri

ri

M 01
dU)
NN

"

U)

01 U)

Hm

'D

w
O
C
O
MI

w
E

-+

ca
r-i

E
7.
U)

3
E
H
0
1L

J
m
Q
F-

0
-D

0
"O
C

=
m
O
E

U7

U;
W

ri

0D
f4

m
-r1

F-

CD 4-)
-Y

7
0)

Fin
U

cc
Q
Li
J
U

S
FO

13
.

0) 4-2
ri L

mC

0)

LI 0)

(D
ID

4-3

()
E:

C
0
U

OO
F- U

.0
7-rl
c vi
O OD 0) L
0L
U43

OL
0 i>

r-1

te)

tn

%D

J3

-r1

to

ri
"
lU i. )
-1-) C

v
++
Nd

0110

E:

vv

m
0
-Y

10 C
0 01
-ri r1
0)
-P
FI r-1
0) O
>++

+ +
- ..
M U)

FI Y
U
-P

0D 0
r-1 Y
mu
7-r1

.
4
N

U-ri

1
F1

I- L

m
zL
u
+1 Ol
10 C
2-rl

t-

CO

ON

ri

+1
t

0 rn

43 -r1
0 09

()
.f>
E

79
d

a
O
0
Ir
L1

N
N

U)
N

NN
co O
N co
r-1 1-1

NN
NN
ON
01 01
ri r-I

tD

rn

"rl

_0
".(4a

CC) ID_

Ln
N

ri

Co 01

co co
Ol

01 01

OO
NN

U3
N

CD

O
X

C-

(n

01

ri

ri

l0

lD

ri

ri

Ln
N

LO
LOU)

Ln
Ln
Ln U)

1-1

U3 0
irr -1

_-=p

O
Q

01
01
"

N
i

"
N

r-1

tD
N

O
Lr

CL

M lD
U3 Elr- 1O

LO

r-1

O
ri

M
ri .-i

00

t0

r-1

ri

>.
U)

O
N

ct
r- .

O
O.

.-1

O
N

`;T
N

tn

tp

l-

LO

t
U

m
P
CD
3
W
0.

. -.

. i

]
C

C
m
OD
0

N
M
Hr

N C*4

rr
aD

t0

.
+1 OL

+1 m
CL '0
ID -r4
a tp

L
+1 CD
CL 13
<D ti-1
0 co

0
-ri
1-

. -1
. -1

N
r-i

'O
L
4.3
ID
i=
O
r-1

(a

. L.7

[a

4-3

E
LD

0.
ID
00

m
H

0
'0
0
t
4J
m
E

.
X

",Co

rn
C
"rl
3
0
ri

0
C)

r-I
0
4-

+1

".a
t
00

'-i

ID

dd
r-1 ri

01

N
0
Li-

I-

l0

Lo
N r-

0
.0
E

01

m
W

r-I

ID
H

4.0

r-I

U)

M -CT

C-4

-i

In

r-I

L'r)M
m

r-I

CA

CD O

MM

co
N

..

%1 d

U)

"

Lf)
r-I

r-I

co CD
d Iq
10 co
NN
ri rf

U)
N

"

10
rf

ri

tT

r4

cr

4 '

tD

"
r-I

U
Q

U3

04

f-+

F-

`Cl M3

U) LO

ri

10

rI

co

O
r-I

tti
N
C

r-I
4J
Q

M
p
LO
N

+
C
t0

t1
".i
L

co 01
ri ri

U
"rl

Lo r-i

E:
Q
Lr

01

0)
H

t0
E
Q)
z

f4
0
L..

r-1

ta
Q1
C
"rl
E
CD
0
Co
tD
tD
r-i

to

E
tD
N
CB
0
H
CL
"-. 1\
N

80

Q
Ir

CD

N
q

r -1
N

O
N

O1
.-i
C1
M
N

0
0
0
N

at
M

N
H

M
r-1

O0

U7
N

O0

00

C3 co

HM

0
0
O
.-I

NN

Ln
N

O
N
0
r -I

OO
00
O
Cr)M
NN

00
OO

NN

CL

01

rf01
O
N

ri

NN
In LA
I;r LD
OO
NN

00
00
ri r)

LO
N

0
0
0
H

LO
N

LD
N

N
N

Lf1 NN
N CD co
O MLf)
H
T

NN

N 04
m
Or
OO
NN

-1

E:

C.:)
O
CL

ON
O
N

M
N

Lf)
N

CO
M
ri

co
M

0
O
CD

0
O
at

ri

O
N

N
r-1

OO
OO
ri M

O
N

r-)

O
N
N
0
N

M
1
.
N

ri
Q

0
O

co
r-I

N
r-I

O
N

OO
00
ri

r-I

ri

at at
;;I* LD
r-I FNN

O
N

0
0
0

O
N

O
to
N

N
04
N

O
N
0
r-4

OO
H
r-1
N 01
NN
NN

0
0
0

O O
r i ,...L
tD CD
r-I r-4
NN

r-I
d r-I
tD

00
NN

ll
M C3

C3 C3
p

Ln dd
N LO CD
O r-I r-I
r-4 NN

N L'r)
NN

m
N

N
:

0
U ')

O
0

rI

,-i

0
0

Lr)

N
N

M
,- L
N

N
CD

ri

1
0
%-.0

,...I
0

O
E
N

co
ri

E
(4
0

E:
0

vC

=
m
0

Fcn
0

cc
LaJ
-j
U

=
F0

(4
H ID

'O
0
L
ID

E
O

4-)

(a
(D

OH
r-I (D

O
M

r-I Co
O
+) C
OO

a) 4,)
HL
L]
.3 -rl
Om

-rl

+
C
0
U

/-i

4-3

C
.13-rl

I-

NMd

++
N

LD

%-4

a
U

co

E:

^N
v

i1
M

at

OL

-Y
co
(4
4J

co co
W
mc
H
+L -Y
U
C r1

O
m
O
r-i C)
FI CD WC
mC
Um
HY
-rl (4
m
.GU
7 -rl
L1 r-1
O. C
CD

0d-

m-C

Lf)

0
i J

tD

id

CD
>

43
r-1 L
Co
-L -r1

Om
F-L

L-

-N

co L
O

U +I
m

LL
U
+)

tD C
+i

4Ji

co E

O>

4-)

to Co
E

LL
m
O

t
-I' m

t4-1

O
C

m.rf
0 N

m
O_ L

L
4.) O
Ll

OO .,.

m I

m O
0O -r1

-1
,.,..i

NM
1-1

01

O
.-. I

81
-1

TABLE 5.5.

(Contd).

Note.
11) For Method 2.

Tiers

L(m)

The following

B(m)

ships

were chosen.

D(m)

DBHM

Ship's

236.00

32.08

20.725

2.000

Remuera

257.60

32.20

23.90

1.70

Selandia

82

Name

xt0

Lr)

a)

rc" '

i
tr

ca

03
co

N
4-3
(D

Ci

M"

"j

E:

",

,-

if)
O

r)
1.
0"

ul
N

M
UO

U:)

LI)
I

N.

N"

.
co

I-f

E:

CO

(a
O

r-1

"

tn
t0

ri

-13

r-1

Qt

t0

=
RIO

E:

"r1

N"

"

co
41

U N

0-

"
C

L+
(D
.E=

fM

trT*

t0

"

rf
C

"r I

90

CO

0
u)

"4
N

"

.
N

OD

co

Kt

ri

C0

U).

CD

"

r-

E:

Lf)

tr)

"
x

d0
N

ri

CD

r.

co
, O

"

r-1

U)

mH
C "-

a
co
m
c
.,

U
",
4)
U
.
H
CD
4-3
U
Q1
H
W
L
U

m
ui
W
-j
m

cc
F---

a1

01
N

.-a m0

L)

O"

m
a1
"
C7

O
01

UO
Co

UO

L7

r-I
t7

O.

01

aU

H
(D
c

(D

>+ U

N"rl

t0 co t0

o-E
F4
4-3
() C .0 co

"

10
O 4-. > %
z0
t0
.D

U)

N
C
-f-I (D
N-
+3 "r1

co
.

CL 0
U

Ol
C
",i
-Y
U
Cu
4.3
R)
N
CD
C
".i
(a
d-)
C
O
f..)

W C3 ". 4
L+ N Cd >. "
co
ME
0) fa -P
C 13

4-

CW
0

C)

Ua

.
[

U)

O
N

"

U)

r"-1

ri

r-I

N
N

t0

"
N

0
N

O
N

U)
O

co

"

()

JO

O+3

.
[

U)
r-1

d
N

r-1

co
H

U)

U)

U)

U)

U)

OD

OD

CD

CO

C;

CD

CL

er)

"

U)

OD

to

r-1

O.

U)
N
01
"

CD

"
t0

Co U)
H

r"1

co

co co

a)

XX

X
CO

"

ri

CD

CO

co

CD

co

CD

CO

XX

U)
r)

U)

O
N

0
4**

O
N

llqr
N

O
N

O
N

C)
N

OO

tr)

O
N

O
H

O
r-I

U0
tM

co
O

0
01

co

0
CO

O
N

lf)
t0
rq

01
UO

O
tr-1

"

IT
H

tr)

"a

lf)

UD

CT

"

"

N
r

r"1

"

"

83

"

tD
r-I

m
d
r-1

U)
r-1

t-

Cl)

01

CZ)

et
N

OD

OE

co

r-1

CD

IT

U0

(4
LC
+)
"ri V
Qt 4- 07 r-1
C

t')

N'*

O
01

"

Ci

ri
N
N

O
H

trl
N

"

"

X
ro
Ln

-j

. -.
m
ra
+J
E

co

co

i
L"

t0

"r1

ON

"
C

"

E:

M"

N"

i=

"rl

V
C

fU
E

N
m

"

t)

"

CD

0
U

ko
r-I
d

a)
rn

co
0
I

co

If)

C3 (31
t10

r-I

N" tO

cn
,,,,

N o
NLf)

M3

L")

C'7

CD

t0
co

N
O

N,

N
tf)

4-

4-3
c

d-)
"ri
CA

O:

c
(a

13
7

"r l
E:

.n
"

ca

Cfl

ro
E:

ri

r-I
d

CO

O"

ri

"

"

t0
"7N

r-i

0
r-4
Lf)
"
ri

co

N
"
O

01
"
O

t0

:3

ri
c
.H

4-)

C
0
U
.. i

m
m
c4

L+

10 -0"rI
PNW>.
"
t0
+ LO E
m RH C L]
.
r-I
UaU m0

O
co
r-1
"
r-1

01
"
O

If)

t0
10
Lr)

01
Lf)

t0
0
0

t4f)
CD

Ll,

L'!

tD

0
N

01
r-1

0
r1-

M
r -1

Ln

U)

[D CO

co

co co

CO

XX

co

CO Co

Co

co

XX

N
N
CD

01
Lt)

If)

"

.-t

0
01

0
t0
N
"
ri

r-I

r-1

r-1

ri

N
01
N
N

r
N

"

..

w
U
. r. {
43
0)
.
CD
4-3
C.)
co

N
(D

OC
a)
CV "ri >. U

Lf)
O

Lti W"

M
0

LI 13 MaE
CD C
Ln

I:

L:

tfl

- L:

01

O
LI!

U3

MoU

"
2

.
N

(31
CJ
.
-Y
U
W
4)
in

H
CD
C
"

N"l;
+1 rl Cl.
C LA
0
U

f4

Cu
C

CO

co

XX

Co

CO CD

XX

CD

"rl

co

4-)
C
0
U
tD

-j

m
Q
F-

r-1

N
d

LO

O
N

Nd

CO
X
0
N

CO
X

f4
=
4J
010-

"ri 13
Co ri

C 04j

11
W

r-f

-f]

DE

CA
M
ri

d
ri

U)
ri

! r)
U)
01

co
01

O
r-I

M
N
N
I f)
r-I

O
r. 1
r-I

N
ri

m'

r-1

r-I

01

r-1

C'7

O1
r)

14
L

r-i

r-I

r"I

tol
1.4

N
r-1

O
r"1

84

I -T
r-1

Ln

"
"
E:

xCO

S*

C
"rl
v

CD
u

'0
r-4
O

C
c0
(a
0
a)

to
-1

fr

"

OO
d"

"ri

c0

'

"
C
"ri

0
1O

"

Ln

N
c

Cl)
c
'

+
C

eel

0
u

rn
C
O
J

"
x

r -

.
tO

r-I

tr)

r-I

. -.

r-1

U)"

ON

CV

r-i
Ct

C3
N

C-4 Ch r-f

Lr7m

N""

b
r-I
t-e

03
f?

N"

lf)
N
M3

v'

-co

"
t')

O
C3

tO

co

"
Lh

"
lrl

r-i

ao

U3
"

M"

t0

N
"
C
ri
E

4-

La

CD
"

.O

ai

,D
r -

7
+

t0

.
N

tr7

0
N.

Lf7

ri
U

v
4,
c
0
U
v

co

CD

co

ri

CO

co

co

r
14;

co

M
d

r-I

co

Lf)
O1
N

L11tO

r-1

i=

N
Nt D

c
'

N
to
r-1
.
r-1

!')
co
CO

r-I

CC)
Ln
N

Ol
N
01

O
co

-. rn

fa
ID
C^C
(0 0 "ri
fa NO>.
"
co
-P co E
fD NC
13

`rt
rn
C
O.

(D
U

r-i

m0

C.

N
01
N

"

"

r-4

to
"
A

N
Ni
"
r-f

N
r)
N

d'
N
M
"

"

O1
"

ri

rfQ1

Ln
r
El"
l0

.r+
a

U
. r{

a)

.,i

U
c0
t

a)

NC
A
(0 to W.
fa 4-3 Xl CL E
(D CW
CL 0
U

"

tD

"

(f)

co
r-I

r-I

LT
r-I

Lr)
"

0
N
m

`
Ln

Y7

ct

CD M

r-I

.0
LOU,

$4
tn
c
" NZ
4-1 "ri
cW

H
m
C
",
Co
i-
C
O
U

4_

0
U

co CO

XX

XX

CO m

a0

CD

XX

XX

OO
04 IT

00
N'*

co

a0 CD

cO

XX

XX

CD

CO

XX

XX

0
N

OO
N'; r

O
N

OO
N'c: t

0
N

co CO

co

co

CO co

fH
OI 4..

C
O
J0

"ri 13
Co r-i

0C0E

c
.to-

c
0
U
H
m
0m
m
II

CD
.CC
4-)

m
Q
I--

ZOO

01
C
. r{
X
U
Co
41
a)

W
J

"

ui

"

CO

"

L!)

m
N

-rt"

d
"

co

O
O
"

U
N

85

"

to
m
"

N
N

'Ci

L[)
co
ON

"

d
r-I

0
r-I

m
CV

"

t')

To

into

that

sizes
in

take

size

hold)

the

The

method

procedure

described

DESIGN

subprogram
by

Chryssostomidis

(i)

Determine
bay

and

tiers

(ii)
by

from
of

The
Eq.

the

hold

13.12

2 bays

or

was

adopted.

number
rows

of

and

the

deck

is

by

subroutine
to

similar

one

given

in

amidship

of

containers

athwartship

TIERB

the

container/

containers

CNPR = ROWS x
of

variation

of

deck.

capacity

container

the
of

done
is

of

also

3 bays

is

below

containers

and

procedure

total
number

mixes

a hold

here

and the
(37)-

the

different

in

stacked
(e. g.
hold

following

the

one

be

can

of

the

account

Eq.

container/bay
is

containerships
by

capacity

Eq.

13.11

due

5.14

approximated
(Section

13.2.1).
(iii)

Since

there

shape

form,

is
(iv)

CNRI,

Then

is

number

can

coefficient

that

containers
if

the

CNPR

CNRA = CNRI

CSHAPE

the

ship
(CSHAPE)

shape

can

be
is

coefficient

1,

of

then

used

input

container,
able

length

(vi)

The

to

in
to

steps

the

to

largest

of

(NCLPH)

determine

considerations
number

equal

bays/hold

1 bay/hold
the

incremented

5.15

Eq.
1 until

of

hold

the
(CNTHLD)

capacity

(ii).

step

number

is

is

CNRA is

of

in

estimated

user,

shape

= BAYS

BAYS

of

value

The

of

number
of
(BAYS)
N-bays

and

(v)

value

to

by

given

integer

space

13.2.2).

CNRI

The

cubic

the

in

accommodated

of

certain

(Section

assumed,

a loss

holds

HOLDSN

which

the

4 bays/hold
possible
(37).

which
hold

(HOLDSN)
= BAYS/NCLPH

86

hold

is

is

input

by

length.
gives

The
for

dimensions

from

then

by

given

the
user

a 20'
flood-

Eq.

5.16

HOLDSN

and

can

be

either

an

odd,

or

even

or

exact

multiple

NCLPH.

of
(vii)

The

total

calculated

hold

container

as,

HOLDN

where

(BLOCKL)

length

is

then

= HOLDSN.

Bays

No.
of
bays/
hold
NCLPH

Even

HOLDN x

(2

CL

Odd

HOLDN x

(2

CL + 2.286)

Exact
multiple

HOLDN

(3

CL

3.048)

CL

Total

hold

container

length

in

m.

(BLOCKL)
+ 2.286)
+ CL

+ 1.524

3.048)

+ CL

+ 1.524

+2

it

+1

HOLDN

(3

it

+2

HOLDN

(3

CL

3.048)

HOLDN

(4

CL

3.81)

+1

HOLDN x

(4 x CL + 3.81)

+ CL + 1.524

+2

HOLDN

(4

+2x

Exact
multiple

"

CL

3.81)

CL +
2.286

CL

2.286
"

+3

HOLDN x

(4

CL

+ 3.81)

CL

+3x

3.048

The

total

clearance/hold
in

indicated
for

20'

ISO

types

of

Table

5.6

No.

general

gives

40'

of

Total
hold

in

can

of

be

(e. g.

the

the

and
(6058

values
that

of

mm + 35

two

are

for
the

Reefers

bays

values

values

in

for

the

program.
and

20'

of

other

and

one

a hold).

1.524

are

of

These

introduced

values

clearance/
m.

average

Clearances

containers.
easily

in

as

below.

given

indicative

bays/hold

program

chosen

containers

container

Following

container

and

cargo

some

mixes

of

5.6

containers

different
bay

Table

was

2.286

the

of
some
mm

87

6093

3.81

3.048

container

actual

ships
mm ).

hold

length

assuming

calculated
a

20'

by

The
actual

program
data,

ship's

and

results

within

this

most

being

the

12
16
21

11
18

Even

odd
Exact. Mlt.

+1

16

19

Table

24

Exact.

Mlt.

22

26

+2

25

27

it

+3

(b)

Machinery
There

the

engine

few

very

that

turbine

or gas turbine
(41)
were
machinery

steam
diesel

range

power
it

because
as

and

was

or

188.14

74.23
132.85
112.70

79.98
127.96
114.25

3
4

157.23

163.76

181.45

169.09

189.59

183.56

199.48

190.42

available
(37,40).
machinery
to

5.7

be

for

function

of
for

valid

the

calculating

were

found

as

Table

for

suitable

not

given

in

shown

Program

5.6

189.42

formulae

Those

room.

length

length

space
were

hold
m.

3
3

1+2

23
24

the

possible,

Container
in

NCLPH

26

than

length

minimum

No.
of
bays/
hold

HOLDSN

13

lower

cases

limits.

acceptable

No.
of
Bays

Ship
Ref.
No.

in

are

were

length

for

valid

for

a very

parametric

studies

the

of

ships

length
with

for

mainly
Others

of

small
(42)

the

single

ship,
screw

installation.
To
diesel
(b)

calculate

the

machinery

were

developed
with
the

ships

in

shown

for

with

position

y=mx

Table

5.7

Different

ships

machinery
form

subdivided

length.

room

engine

the
machinery
space,
(a)
into
direct
drive
diesel

diesel:

drive
The

the

of

diesel.

geared

Direct

length

SHP +C

were

estimating

machinery
3/4

aft

position

good

develop

equations

line

Straight

aft.

gave

to

used

correlation

the
were

and

those

equations
and

are

indicated.

(a)

Single
The

screw
length

ships
of

the

with

machinery

engine

88

room

aft
(FLMC)

is

given

by,

of

TABLE 5.7.

Length

of engine

room for

ships

with

direct

drive

diesel

plant.

j 6f

Ship's
Name

No.

Length BP
in m. --

No. of

engines

Position
of m/c

Power
in

Length
Actual

room

British
H. P.

m.

of eng.
Progra

oom

(42)

Goldenfels

144.00

S. S.

Aft

12250

28.0

26.97

2
3

Table Bay
New Jersey

248.20
247.00

T. S.
T. S.

4'Aft
it

51360
69600

26.5
33.1

27.77
32.84

S. S.

Aft

29000

37.5

35.14

4Aft

84600
78600
34200

49.97
34.14
30.40

t37.00
135.34
30.17

37.29
38.12
29.60

15750
15000
23100

29.05
30.40
25.60

28.68
28.31
24.76

24.42

80000
80000

45.00
35.64

35.73
35.73

36.73
-

flaru
4

Oriental
Chevalier

192.00

5
6
7

Elbe Baru

252.00
257.60
200.00

Triple

Elbe Express
C. P. Voyageur
Neptune
Emerald

155.00
153.00
165.00

it
it
it

'Aft

Kiso I1aru

242.00
248.00

T. S.

34800

23.20

23.17

S. S.

Aft

9900
26100

21.50
24.75

25.83
33.72

30000

30.48

35.63

Aft

34200

29.80

30.17

29.60

Aft

29000
32000

34.40
33.53

35.14
36.60

Aft

12000
5500

19.40
14.5

19.35
23.68

21.75

27600
27500

25.70
25.00

26.96
26.91

25.90
it

28000
27800
28000
29000

25.00
28.00
25.50
37.95

27.15
27.05
27.15
35.14

Selandia
Hakozaki

It

"

S. S.

it

Ilaru
8
9
10
11
12
13

Verranzano
Bridge
Tamara

Aft
It

196.20

14
15

Svendborg
California
Star

178.00

16
17
18
19

Act

205.74

Arafura

200.00

Dart America
Hawaiin

218.01
206.35

"

Enterprise
20
21

Iaru
Fushimi
City of
Plymouth

147.00
96.31

22
23

Kashu Elaru

175.00
175.00

24
25
26
27

Golden
Bridge

Gate

America Maru
Hakone Ilaru
Japan Ace
Astronomer

Note l. * Pawlowski
length

175.00
175.00
175.00
193.10
(42)

//

British

"

gives

of engine

2. t Assumed twin

Aft

Aft

FLMC(4

3.

"

Aft

the following

room (FLMC) for

Aft)

expression
ships

with

for
direct

calculating
drive

the

diesel.

0.148 xLm.

screw.

horsepower-746 watts and PS(Metric horsepower)89

736 watts.

is
rr

46
(correlation

0.82,9

data

FLMC = 4.665
(b)

Single

= 4.583

FLMC
(correlation

engine

plus

length

of
of

makes

machinery

10-4

data

points)

length

room

engine
some

drive

engines,

3/4

aft

engines
an

gives

the

length

the

of

Eq.

5.17

Eq.

5.18

aft

to

equal

and

diesel

which

SHP + 13.704

is

spaceford,

direct

SHP + 20.958

with

0.933,10

The

4x

x 10

ships

screw

points)

The

engine.

was

for

plotted

equation

the

of

the

of

various
(mean

form

line
length

of

direct

drive

engine

4.875

4x

10

SHP

+ 5.82
Eq.

The
the

Equations
slope

and

5.18

were

Eq.

5.19;

and

5.17
by

given

= 4.875

FLMCSS(aft)

5.19,5.209,5.21
position

parameter

IPMC.

(c)

Twin

that

is

assumed

to

50,000

SHP

Geared

room

horse
1.14

35.64.
good

and

length.

h. p.
is

that

Fig.

the

+ 21

5.10.

Eq.

The

through

user

and

Eq.
As

5.20

5.21

choice

the

of

control

the

of
Eq.

e. g.

for

5.21

gives
5.7

ship
is

position
is

ship
used
No. 12
FLMC

indicates
to

the

power the

5.21
Ship

through

Therefore

machinery

the

approximation

delivered

h. p..
above this

power

Table

be

can

the

and

shaft

engine
45600
=

be

assumes

The

a fairly

by

power

installation

value

input

maximum

screw

SHP

installation.

screw

automatically

in

shown

The
shaft

SHP

is

by

given

4x

10

give

Eq.

are

machinery

are

to

modified

5.19

= 4.875 x 10-4 x SHP + 13.50 m.

FLMCSS(3/4 aft)
Eq.

therefore

scaled

program
is a twin
aft.

as

follows:
the

calculate
80000
SHP =2x1.14
= 35.73,

space

engine,

3/4

to

these

machinery

a single

actual
equations

give

length.

Diesel:
Container

ships

of

smaller

size

usually

have

geared

Table
5.8
indicates
diesel
installation.
some container
is a measure of degree of association
between the
Correlation
coefficient
(xi, Yi),...
(x, yn). This correlation
the random variables
is
coefficient
is
by
the
following
denoted by r and
calculated
expression

the st.
r--m "o-x/6z
where m is the slope of
90

line

twin

x
t
O
'D

lion

Ln
d

OL
dO
.i
i)
.. I

c+

1n
ri

c.
m
Z
"

V)

Lr)
N

0
N

U,
.-1

0
.i

N')

40

II

C
c

N
M

ees4ew

II
Ln
N

"wooN euOu3
yl

Jo 446ue l

0
N

In
.-4

Lt)

N
0

TABLE 5.8.

Length

of engine room for

Ship's
Name

No.

Length.. BP
in m.

Fiery
Isle

Cross

Manchester
Vigour

Atlantic
Jamaican

79.15

Brian

99.97

Atlantic
Marseille

Fort

Axel

8
9

No. of
engines/
propeller

133.60

geared diesel

installation.

ower in
British
H. P.

Actual

Program

17500

21.9

24.36

11

6000

13.4

15.567

it

3200

12.81

13.43

12.26

if

4200

14.70

14.19

15.49

It

18000

26.00

24.74

with

Position
of m/y
room

Aft

103.10

Boromime

ships

Length

of Eng Room
*(42)

154.70

Royal

198.00

4Aft

36000

28.09

Johnson

157.20

it

26000

17.68

Sea Freight
liner

111.56

Aft

3780

17.70

13.87

Manchester
Challenge

151.79

it

16380

24.38

23.50

78.84

it

3200

12.81

13.43

12.22

78.84

it

3200

12.81

13.43

12.22

105.00

It

7000

18.20

16.33

92.00

It

3900

15.24

13.96

14.26

Class

10

Hustler

11

Tarross

12

Strider

13

Wicklow

14

Rohdri

Mawr

99.98

it

4200

13.50

14.19

15.49

15

Barbel

Bottom

79.00

It

2500

10.00

12.89

12.24

16

Jeddah

Crown

104.00

It

8900

17.60

17.78

17

Bell

72.00

it

2100

21.26

12.58

'R'

Class

I
Note

1. * Pawlowski

(42)

gives

100 m. and machinery

FLMC is

given

the

following

position

aft.

equation
Length

for

of machinery

by,

FLMC(aft)

92

0.155xLBP

ships

m.

less

than

space

11.16

ships

with

engine
of

Fig.

room.

that

found

the

the

Instead

single

data

As

shown

= 6.887

ation

are

aft.

So

low

of

less

with

could

be

not

were

was
derived

to

used

is

and

by:

given

machinery

room

+ 10.75

with

aft,

Eq.

fitted

was
which

gives

equation
with

the

(c)

Length

S.

0.92).
h. p.

In

are

the

room

aft,

= 7.645

both

better

is

twin

to

usually

screw

and

correlation
therefore

program

assumed

& T. S. )

have

and

ships
diesel

geared

engine

length

room

of

peak

of

peak

length

5.9

by

given

SHP +

10.98

shows

that

5.8)
to

a good approximation

10

(Table

evaluation

method

Table

Pawlowski

machinery
(42).

the

shows

to

compared

LBP shows a larger

length
as

containerships

of

aft

a percentage

the

ford

LBP

of

combined

The

minimum

length

spaces

(FLM0)

be

10% of

the

program

then

+ length

aft

The

the

(BLOCKL)

holds

container

of

In

is

perpendiculars

ford

a percentage

variation.

the

machinery

as

lesser

6% to 15%.
from
+ LAP varies
LlBPength
is
to
assumed
of peaks

the

the

Whereas

shows

LFP

the

LBB

length

of

of

and

overall

value

between

peak

length

peak

a percentage

of

LBP.
by

given
+ length
of

peaks
Eq.

program

5.23

length,

room

the

variation,
of

the

as

= length

Eq.

peaks

peaks

The

5.22

install-

position

for

gave

diesel

geared

machinery

machinery

A comparative

FLMIN

it

by

given

FLMC(S.

of

ships

equation

correlation

installation
is

most

10000

hp

2600-30600

0.897)

installation

than

SHP

power and the

a single

screw
single
(13 points,
with

5.8

for

the

of

ancillaries

room

4x

correlation
Table

length

5.8

with

10

the

room

engine

of

other

Table

installations

points,
in

the

length

engine.

in

shown
of

screw

FLMCSS
(8

the

the

valid

engine

of

ships

length

the

estimate

length

the

and

the

of

and
plot

engine,

gearbox

length

from

directly

diesel

the

of

the

shows

speed

Because

range.

For

5.11

medium

the

installation

diesel

geared

ensures

that

the

designs

93

generated

have

LBP

m
5.24

41

\E

.41-.
c
0
r-4
CL

0
'1
K

-.

N
0
v
m
c+

Iq
to

CD
...

CD
M

f4

0
CL
v
0

.0-

m
C

0m
N

i+
m
v

0
0
N
0

N
N

94

Ca

E
0
0
cr
m
C

rn
c

m
O
L

-4

O
a

0
L
4-)
al
C
m
J

Co
cm

-j

QO
"-1

00

0
[

.,

O
rl

rn
". 1

LA 'o
0

II
{!)
e

o
! ')

v
.

.i

0-1 "1
Xf

. -1

.L-.

w
04

0
N

""SI"W

$WOOZ "uT6u9

94

.1
N
.4
JO 446u"I

-j
0
.

I
U,

Table

5.9.

Length

of

peaks.

LFP
length
of forepeak
M.

Length
of cargo
spaces

15.86

LAP
length
of aft
peak
m

LFP
LBP
%

LAP
LBP

m,

Length
of
deep
tk.
m.

age

age

age

35.182

7.014

5.91

2.61

8.52

AP+FP
=21.03

19.96

37.03

13.41

27.58

11.81

6.85

12.32

14.40

10.972

30.17

11.500

9.0

10.80

9.1

10

LFP + LAP
LBP
%

7.84
5.10

7.59

12.69

4.88

5.1

2.11

7.21

1.168

5.5

0.52

6.02

12.19

5.33

5.92

11.25

10.80

4.79

4.79

9.58

10.37

9.15

5.93

5.23

11.16

11

12.00

4.5

4.37

1.64

6.01

12

8.87

6.6

8.6

6.4

13

16.44

6.5

6.63

2.62

9.25

14

15

12.68

14.385

2.44

5.64

1.08

6.72

16

10.797

13.3

9.60

6. o6

5.39

11.45

17

11.08

12.20

5.39

5.93

11.32

18

9.186

13.45

12.20

5.16

6.85

12.01

19

12.18

2.28

10.20

5.59

4.67

10.26

20

10.97

12.19

5.33

5.92

11.25

21

9.754

19.278

10.36

5.50

5.84

11.34

22

17.59

6.75

7.12

2.73

9.85

30.17

95

15.00

TABLE

5.9

(Contd.

LFP
length
foreof
peak
m.

Length
of cargo
spaces
m.

Length
of
deep
tk.
m.

LAP
length
of aft
peak
M.

LFP
LBP

LAP
LBP

age

age

LFP

+ LAP
LBP

%
age

23

14.70

8.82

7.66

4.59

12.25

24

16.47

24.28

4.11

6.53

1.63

8.16

25

18.47

21.0

4.8

7.17

1.86

9.03

26

11.20

9.5

7.24

6.14

13.38

27

18.00

7.4

9.0

3.70

12.70

28

8.995

6.95

8.4

5.80

5.42

11.22

29

7.86

7.54

8.53

5.18

5.62

10.80

30

12.95

7.48

7.32

8.46

4.78

13.24

96

than

greater
DESIGN

5-5

(FLMIN)

this

the

calculates

be

can
Type

ships

are

the

design

(a)

are

reasons

perpendiculars.

deep

deadweight

of

less

than

draught
most

that

The

ships.
container

ships

obtainable

with

B-freeboard.
Containerships

and

therefore

essentially

are
the

total

the

of cargo
(15)
and
the

average
the

on

average
Other

containerships

below

2m
Since

of

maximum
In

draft

average

be
by

strained

average
it

13,

is

B/T

the

tonnes

(203).

are

depth

at

any.

The

is

ratio

weight

usually

is

of

each

on

the
on

container.

a reasonable

the

program

the

the

5.5),

about

a constraint

how

and

Fig.

dependent

input

the

freeboard.

minimum

can

m (see

13

shown

In

selected.

14.8

weight

user

12-15
tonnes
about
60% of the
time

if

the

tons)

is

containership
by

(18

nearly

of about

container

allowable

are

on

draft

drafts

the

Chapter

can

is

restrictions

allowable

characteristics,

route

container

have

that

the

route

channel

draft

design

carried

tonnes

carried

determine

which
and

be

can

18.29

carry

weight

per

largest

to

cargo

weight

approach

the

can

Atlantic

harbour

that

ships

constraints.

North

factors

limited

stability

containers

by the
stability
governed
(c)
Though
a 20'
container

the

subprogram

between

very

never

a draft

at

obtained

(b)

length

minimum

subroutine

Draft
Container

and

The

value.

design

draft

is

freeboard

minimum

conrequire-

ments.
The

TMIN

is
and

the

is

draft

minimum
=

draft

maximum
TMAX

3B75

2.25

(TMIN)

allowable

by

B/T

constraint
Eq.

m
(TMAX)
m or

allowable
TMAX

=D-

by

B/T

minimum

constraint
freeboard

Eq.
whichever

is

less.

97

5.25

5.26

Block

5.6.

In
be

Coefficient
to

order

to

desirable

have

a high
a

of

it

containers
Thus

coefficient.

stowage

would

point

of

view

the
would

be

barge.

a rectangular
There
design

number
block

from

containership

optimum

the

maximise

are

formulae

various

studies

Cb = 1.137

VV
FL

0.6

the

which

p of

0.5FL

Cb

= 1.22

0.709V

Cb

=1-8+

more

(Van

for

used

common are

below.

given

Eq"

5.27

(Ayre)

(43)

Eq.

5.28

(Minorsky)

(43)

Eq.

5.29

vT

(43)

Eq.

5.30

(43)

Eq.

5.31

(35)

Eg"

5.32

(43)

Eq.

5.33

(44)

Eq.

5.34

(45)

Eq.

5.35

Lammeren)

FL
1)

preliminary

(43)

Cb = 1.06

being

(Telfer)

V 1'
Cb

= 0.65

Cb

=K-

V/3.62
to

Cb = 1.216

1.03

0.392

+ 1/8

(Silverleaf)

x r!
L

0.3072T0.1721Vs-0.6135

= 0.8217 xL0.42B

Cb = 0.7

(Sabit)

(Alexander),

xF

K=1.12

Cb

1.2

+ 0.95

(Katsoulis)

tan-1

25(0.23

Fn)

(Townsin)
Eq.

5.27

to

Eq.

5.31

Eq.

5.32

to

Eq.

5.35

the

speed

is

in

formulae

are

existing

ships

account,

when

factors

such

the

fuel

as

equations.

result

of

block

price,

in

for

feet,
metres;

These

regression

do not

and
the

choosing

are

all

models,

in

are

dimensions

in

either

in

Therefore
independent

factors.

the

knots

or

dimensions

and

empirical
analysis

take

of

into
the

coefficient

shipbuilding

costs

economic
and

other

is

made

conditions.

operating

into

the

the

variable

account

the

Figure

and
various
5.12

by the program together

block

program
the

with

is

optimum

operating
shows

coefficient

the

conditions
optimum

block

the above equations.

98

determined
and
coefficient

an

taking
economic
determined

C-

. r.,

4-
Cd

C
r

9)

v
a

4-J
a
.H
U
'P

a
c

4-+
G)
0
U

N
C

14
U
0

c
-1

kD

-.4 C

I
r-

iI1

cc

rn

qO

III

00

s
0

lu9toT33aoO

99

31D() lb

w
IH

The

block

which

covers

ratio

of

coefficient
most

0.40

Structural

5.7.

the

of

to

design

basic

two

to

difficulty

that
to

'open'

an

Rapo
in

the

as

far

in

providing

as

structural

simple

these
approach

design

and,

rigidity

and

bending
problems

in

to

can

ensure

concerned.
material

strength

which

stage

is

stresses
(22).

secondly
is

prone

which
Meek

detail,

be

to

rise

section

longitudinal

total

extending

given

strength

torsional

longitudinal

have
and

has

sufficient

lacks

discuss

preliminary

This

longitudinal

of

to

gives

0.70
length

they

breadth

ship's

length.

ship's

(23)

Clemmetsen
(20)

the

additional
due

those

augment

to

speeds

because

ships

80% of

section

causing

warp,

and

'open'

requirements

satisfy

for

containerships

are

problems

Firstly

0.50

considerations

of nearly
width
60-77%
the
of

nearly

from

varied

1.5.

Containerships
hatch

was

(21)
and

incorporated

adequate

structural

strength.
To
as

given

on

the

ensure
by

L/D

of

value

L/D

of

Classification

(24)

Nakamura
of

adequacy

girder

stiffness
(38)
Rules

Society
= 15

is

arrives

for

ratios

hull

ships

an

limit

upper

(27).

given
the

at

requirements

following

designed

with

limiting

adequate

values

longitudinal

strength.

LBP

in

m.
L/D

Limiting
Rows
Tiers

of

hatchways

Though
approach

200

214.67

250

275

16.45

14.45

13.20

12.55

11.65

11.25

10

10

>6

>7

>8

of

containers

Breadth
m.

175

of

containers

Rows

150

in
22.5
Rapo
to

(20)

and

structural

26.25

30
(24)

Nakamura
design

of
100

32.20
give

some

containerships,

32.20

32.20

simplistic
this

was

not

incorporated,
will

program

the

Therefore

by

stiffness

limiting

Gross

registered

GRT.

Straight

ships

gave

Gross

the

preliminary

which

are

not

for

future

to

the

design

readily

development.
that

consideration

ensure

hull

adequate

value

L/D

of

the

girder

between

10

14.5.

and

tonnage

and

net

the

that

structural

only
is

Gross

D and

and

left

incorporates

program

data

therefore

and

found

was
input

require

available,

5.8.

it

since

tonnage

net

made

tonnage

register

line

was

good

correlation.

Register

tonnage

was

fitted

equations

(GRT)

existing

0.237

L,

of

a function

made

to

function

of

container-

995

xLxBxD+

Eq.
Net

(NRT)

tonnage

Register

= 0.585

GRT + 110

5.36

tons

Eq.
A check
with
(46)
showed

them

GRT and

between
the

shows

the

is

fitted

Least

(a)

Tabular

TABFBD

5.13

GRT and

by

5.14

NRT.

to

by

two

freeboard
+ Alx

the

freeboard

by

the

250

by

Load

is

100

the

values

of

The

(49)

by
for

m to

the

365

m
of

method

Type-B

ships

m.

(TABFBD)
+ A2x2

account

freeboards

BP 251

valid

into

Regulations

polynomials

method

free-

and sheer.
(48).
The

Tabular
length

The

adopted.

taking

Kupras
Line

Type-B

tabular

depth

m and

order

and

was

calculates

polynomials.

The
than

greater

approach

given

by

sixth

(50).

= A0

one

two

m to

Type-A

coefficient,

given

BP100

for

algorithm

is

+ A3x3

given

by

+ A4x4 + A5x5 + A6x6

Eq.

where

Chapman

relationship

Fig.

and

a computer

simpler

minimum

similar

by

gives

FREBRD

block

Squares

length

of

the

freeboard

length

Fig.

freeboard

for

approximated

was

(47)

thesis

correction

from

The

agreement.

in

shown

Martin

as

well

procedure

good

between

subprogram

as

tabular

in

of

this

subroutine

was

is

and

In

the

LBD

calculation

ships.

board

lie

developed

equation

5.37

Type-B

Cameron
for

to

relationship

Freeboard

5.9.

estimating

another

tons

coefficients

are
101

as

given

overleaf.

in

5.38

mm.

O
Q
N

0
N
N

0
0
N

0
m
-4

CD

0
v.-1

S
0'I

0
tV
.-4

0
C
C
0

F-

vO
(.I

0
0

0
4.)
S

.
01
0
a:
O

0
0
ti
co
o

o
ii

o
x0
co
x
o

In

0
ED

e
CD
rn
o

0
Uo

CL
ec
s-) o

CD
v

"Om
" i+
OO
U

". r
tn

0
04

H
L

...

II
.b
. x

QDOO
0

1A

"uo3

I
Q

!f

4069uuol
I

294"j6811
()

I
HO

00045

+O

0
.r
x

CO

cO
m
c
c
c
H
CD

cn

1()'3

4i

4-4

rA

00

"

:j
U)

rn

r-i

"

00 r-I

o 1
if)" r-I0
01

r-1
r-i

I
0
r-I

--r

0"

00

rn o

"

t 0
-4
__:
y{ 0 iS
"

rn

rn i

_:t 0

r1 c1

lr

\10
cl)

0"

ri1

ln

rn
"

"

cn

rn

rn

C\l

0)

C1

QO43
4)

O
C

1
rl

1
C\l

4H

O cd

ri

l
rn" o
r-I
01 k

rI

io4

1
0
H
iS

(b)

for

Correction

Block

coefficient
((0.85
xD-

for

(Cb0.8

(c)

for

D>

Cb

(1.0

Cb)

T))

Eq.

tabular

freeboard

TABFBD

(Eq.

= TABFBD

5.38)

Eq.

mm
for

correction

15p

i5P

for

correction

for

depth

(CORRDE)

for

depth

(CORRDE)

LBP

< 120.0

m R=

LBP/0.48

mm

LBP

120.0

m R=

250

mm

(d)

sheer

the

effective
(SHEERS)

sheer

>

correction;

sheer

=0

mm
i5P)x

(D

(e)

Eq.

x 0.001

Containerships
drafts
board

more

attain

which

are

x LBP + 6000)/48.0
(CORSHR)
= (0.75
- 250)

by
than

less

the
the

zero

and

(48).

Standard

mm
x

SHEERS

mmEq.

in

is

(CORRDE)

correction

sheer

correction

m.

their

dead

than

those

of

actual

program
minimum

(FBCAL)

freeboard

A check

rules.

calculated
is

(200.0

minimum

= FBCAL

0.3xLBP

5.41

by,

+ depth
= TABFBD
(CORSHR)
mm.

FBCAL

is

LBP

Therefore

FBCAL

is

sheer

actual

superstructure

given

correction

S=0.3

where

of

is

SHEERS
Then

assuming

length

5.40

(CORRDE)

depth

mm
where

5.39

> 0.68

Correction
D<

depth

T)/(3.0

D+0.68)
1.3

for

coefficient

0.85

at

0.85D

Cb at
Corrected

block

shows
freeboard

105

weight

by

freeboards

in

5.43

Eq.

5.44

requirements

allowed

that

Eq.

the
all

minimum
with

available
cases,

at
free-

those
freeboard

5.42

Freeboard
Name

Ship's

D(m)

T(m)

CB

D-T
Actual
W

Minimum*

(m)

274.32

24.60

13.03

0.595

11.57

5.14

Nihon

257.60

23.91

11.58

0.576

12.33

7.418

Euroliner

224.96

19.18

10.702

0.550

8.478

6.860

Verranzano

248.04

19.89

11.989

0.594

7.901

4.183

194.50

18.70

11.190

0.530

7.510

4.180

Tokyo

Maersk

Bay

L(m)

By

Ship

Program

106

CHAPTER
LIGHTSHIP

WEIGHT

AND CENTRE

6.0

INTRODUCTION

6.1

STEEL

6.2

OUTFIT

6.3

MACHINERY

OF GRAVITY

ESTIMATES

WEIGHT
AND HULL

ENGINEERING

WEIGHT

6.4

GUIDE

6.5

CENTRE OF GRAVITY
OF STEEL,
AND GUIDE WEIGHT
MACHINERY

OUTFIT,

6.6

LIGHTSHIP

OF GRAVITY

WEIGHT

WEIGHT

WEIGHT

AND

CENTRE

6.0

INTRODUCTION
The

(a)

light

steel

(b)

(e)

margin

The

following

weight

these

been

suggested

or

each

other

of

are

valid

differ

in

the

literature
of

gravity
less

were

steel,

satisfactory.

adopted,

validated

there

with

lighter

the

very

were

ships.

The

general

cargo

ships,

resulting

the

and

formulae

the

weight

of

structurally

over

and
the

are

in

in

ships

the
of

and

not

and the

error

search
outfit,
So
with

size

600

some

other

in

each

the

equations
with

each

estimated.

weights

past

of
Often

machinery.

comparable

studies,

TEU

to

compared

are

TEU and

3000

for

containerships

compared

with

the

one

speed
which

adopted

indicated.
for

estimating

machinery
the

consistent

algorithm.

are

available

items

estimating

subsections
suggested

knots

of

outfit
which

being

not

grouping

therefore

adopted

27

when

advance

steel,

following

program
The

size
and

of

data

weight

of

formulae

to

knots

due

ship

A family

these

of

predecessors.

to

range

one

above

data

many

container

much

is

the

18

are

for

categories

the

that

verified
into

reason

major

the

the

of

actual

container

technological

of

the

different

have

weight.

their

second

In

with

fact

built

newly

today

The

other.

each

established

were

because

than

stronger

estimating

equations

estimating

the

converted

were

containerships

with

to

estimating

consistent

were

lightship

Also

by

due

relationships

higher

with

not

of

other.

built

which

for

are

methods

many

past

relationships

empirical
ships

the

mainly

purpose

with

Though

they

is

empirical

in

in

each

This

weight.
deal

weights.

groups,
with

ship

subsections

of

few

light

on

each

and

of

weight

guide

weight

composed

weight

machinery

(d)

is

weight

weight

outfit

(c)

ship

latest

some

ships

107

and
available
data.

the
guide

centre

of

weight

was

formulation

is

6.1.

The

steel

the

Additionally,
to

the

There
net

by

ship

data

i.

Length

e.

block

The

each

for

calculating

is

also

are

on

vary

existing

dimensions

various
(D),
draft

(T)

and
depending

widely

dimensions.

parameters

the

formulae

or

indices

the

of

the

Depth

Moreover
to

appear

with
equations
1:

in

have

little

in

1965

as

was

and

method

modified

part

of

containership

the

steel

weight

steel

equivalent
METHOD

2:

in

modified
Hancock
term

first
to

380

for

The

both

in

first

in
the

was

METHOD
study

by

time

when

The

third

Chryssost.
the
It

was

by

by

adopted

by

is

very

his

was

(53)

1973
hip

containers
(see

equation

studies,

Table

to

general

the

ship.
subsequently
also

study.
6.1)
was

used
The

updated

steel
ships

cargo

1970

to

close

and

a higher

reflecting

in

verified

cargo

Miller

Marad

the

(51)

(52)

Miller

model.

by

used

of

Benford

Miller

a conventional

method

the

summary

weight
for

which

developed.

originally
3:

of

compared

containership

of a containership

weight

comparative

suggested

design

containerships

of

6.1.

Table

was
and

study
another
(54)
1972
in
340

in

literature

their
data.

ship

shown

the

weights

with

actual

are
first

The

steel

together

some

in

suggested

calculating

below,

mentioned

METHOD

built.

estimated.

ship

analysis

to

These

methods

for

various

it

methods

regression

influencing

various

evaluation

by

of

of

specifically

that

be

it

such,

significance.

physical

are

the

of

(Cb).

the

cases

many

as

the

of

available

methods

allotted
(B),
Breadth

influence

and

weight

cost

indices
(L),

significant

weight,

reliable

and

Most

coefficient
the

on

many

application
and

most

weight.

weight.

derived

ship

construction

steel

were

steel

light

a good

the

the

obviously

total

that

essential

related

is

weight

of

percentage
is

(WS)

WEIGHT

STEEL

first

formulation
(37)
Qmidis

1968,

generation

of

subsequently

was

used

108

in

used
and

was

containerships
in

another

containership

developed
were
container

at
just
ship

a
being

TABLE 6.1.

Summary of steel

CD
T

weight

equations.

Equation

Equation

Ref.

Yr.

51*(1)

65

52

70

53

54

73
72

37

68

40

74

FSTWT1 = 205.86 x 104

1.76B0.712D0.374
L

46

69

DHWT1 = 4555 x 10-4 x CN

WS4 = FSTWTI + DHWT1

39
55

71
74

FSTWT2 = VU x C1 < C2 x C3
x C4 x C5 x C6
x C7

56

72

DHWT2 = DHWT1

46

69

48

75

35

77

58

62

59

70

'0 -P

,;,
N
1

Dimensions
Weight in

in feet
long tons
)0"9
1000
28)
+
x

WS1 = 340 x(
(0.675
(0.00585

Dimensions
Weight in

)-0"9 x
WS1 = 8407(
1000
(0.675 + 28) x

x (p - 8.3)

(0.00585

+ 0.939)
2
3

WS2 = WS1x

where
4

WS2 = WS1 x 9396/8407

Lx B+D xK9
100
0.986.
K9 =

"

10-4L1.76B0.712

FSTWT1 =7x

x ( - 8.3)1'

+ 0.939)

380/340

WS3 = 2.107

in metres
tonnes

D0.374

4x
DHWTl = 129.63 x 10
CN =Lx8x
D/100.

CN

WS3 = 35.558

CN

Lx B+D)
100

1.19

=LxBxD100.

WS5 = FSTWT2 + DHWT1

WS6 = FSWT2 + DHWT3

WTFCLS = 0.014 xLxB

DKHWT = 160 + 0.00874 xLxB
DHWT3 = WTFCLS + DKHWT
7

WS7

= FSTWTI + DHWT3

WS8

= WSI(1
0.70)

+ 0.5(CBD-

WS1 = KxEl"
9

WS9 = 681.82

+ 227.27

WS9 =6

3
10

( LBD)x
100
(based on standard
freighters)
estimated

93 + 0.08154

xLxBxD

equation
from graph
WS10 =

10

See main text

NOTE (1)

Benford

had another

Ls = length
(2)

CN ='L

x8x

of

the

term

in

the

superstructure.

D/100.
log

equation

(1 + 0.36

L8
LB P

) where

by

study

4:

METHOD

The

estimating
It
used

The

to

weight
it

is

formula
Teu

subdivided
(FSTWT1)
and

weight

it

section

in

is

currently

other

shown

it

later

for

ships
20

between
into

to

steel

deck

house

weight

that

this

too,

This

method

was

known

of

hull

ships

for
1969

is

and

has

and

steel

e. g.

800

knots.

The

adopted

who

Teu
net

flush

weight
or
(DHWT1).
may

with

weight.

from

size

35

formula

contain-

eleven
ships
(55)
in
1974

Swift
with

weight

studies,

with

by

on
7 ships

built

steel

containership

validated

speeds

first

specifically
(46)
Chapman
in

by

applicable

and

the

was

proposed,

with

is

weight

be

and

validated

3500

to

formulation

developed

was

steel

further

1974.

subsequently
(39)
1971 who

Erichsen
known

fourth

equation

erships.
been

(40) in

Fortson

steel

Later

be

used

in

the

steel

in

the

for
parametric

study.
5:

METHOD
for

the

calculating

developed
built
that

was

during
the

general
The

hull

verified

steel
with

steel

is

weight

cargo

ships.

hull

steel

is

The

weight
for

higher

2-10%

weight

steel
found

was

(56)

Schneekluth
(FSWT2).

weight
actual

It

1967-1971.

by

proposed

of

1972

method
ships

containerships

than

the

corresponding

by

given

FSTWT2 = VU x C1 x C2 x C3 x C4 x C5 x C6 x C7
where

C1 = 0.103

where

C1

varies

for

LBP

c2

C3

C4

(1
from

290

0.103

t/m3

for

12))

LBP

= 110

m to

0.16

(1.0

+ 0.033

(L/D

(1.0

+ 0.06(n

(1.0

+ o. o4(L/B

- 7

+ 0.2(T/D

(0.96

+ 1.2(0.85

where

)),

n=

number

of

6.5))

- 0.85))
-

CBD)2)

c7 = (1.0 + 0.75 x CBDx (C. - 0.98))

where

CBD = block
CBD =Cb+

coefficient
(1

t/m3

m.

c5 = (1.0
c6=

(t/m3)

+ 17(L-110)2/106)

Cb)(D-T)/3T

110

of

T=D

and

estimated

as

decks

VU
Other

for

corrections

material

the

to verify
used
4.
To calculate
weight

is

METHOD

6:

deckhouse

weight

1975

or

construction,

This

by

by

was

5 to

deckhouse

to

if

see

4.

determine

to

added

was

Method

Method

equation

this

equation

assumed

given

an

Method

of

was

weight

proposed
(DHWT3),

of

calculated

it

deckhouse

5 was improved

Method

steel

steelweight

weight
(FSTWT2)

weight

steel

to

mode
(56).

in

given

flush

(48)

Nowacki
the

are

the

equal

in

differences

type

ship

or

(m3)

1.02

CBD x

=LxBxDx

the

the

flush

accuracy

of

not.

METHOD 7:
this

In
to

deckhouse

the
the

if

(DHWT3)

Method

of

was

method
to

alternative
is

weight
The

hull

because

it

was

applicable

value

E=Lx
0.75

E is

given

(B

+ T)

+ 0.85

was

Nowacki

added

to

see

not.

are

length

and

12,

h2

are

the

of

the

third

was

equation

assumed

Since

algorithm.
weight
0.70

at

0.8

value

the
of

It

E.

is

(35)

as follows:
(WS8)
is
This

based

to

numeral
range

of

as

on

The

1977.

assumed

a wide

be

directly

was

chosen

ship

types.

by
(D

xLx

T)

height

and
length
term
to

of

and

height

and

the

between

vary

E attaches

no

+ 0.85

was

related

to

of

the

depth.

Where

steel

11i.

K given

factor
was

111

of

erections

width
houses.

fourth

in

term

the

m2 in

200-300
to

the

fullness,

block

standard

the

coefficient

(tonnes)

E1.36
weight
(35)
in

full

importance

(WS)

WS' =Kx
K is

4.

algorithm

(m2)

12h2

hl

value

the

Method

to

of

11,

The

computer

numeral

where

where

in

& Gilfillan

weight

the

of

or

Watson

to

steel

by

estimated

used

estimated

steel

net

also

related

The

(FSWTl)

weight

4 was improved

Chapman's,
by

developed

method

The

steel

8:

This

steel

flush

weight

accuracy

METHOD

an

the

method

(STEELF)input
assumed

to

by
vary

from

the

user.
0.033

to

6000

for

0.040

In

ships.

the

(Nos.

erships
this

to

for

equation
Four

6.2)

the

was

value

values

validated

the

steel

(1968)(57))

32

(Table

and

thesis

present
l

study,

13000

<E<

K were
two

the

Emin

(B

+ T)

+ 0.85

xLx

(D

(B

+ T)

+ 0.85

xLx

(D

=Lx

max

The

values

ing

to

5000

of

Emax

r. t.

factoisw.
in

the

T eu,

particular
a minimum

KMAX2,

with

whereas

increase

in

from

for

only

apparent

data

points

from

Fig.

against

plotted

are

An

analysis

following

=
where

E'

There

was

equations

for

plotted
a

the

be

dated.
Lx

(B

and
(27)

the

value
for

case
the

is

This

value.
And

is

it

+ D)/100
line

1980

of

that

The

the
Teu

a particular
trend

is

in

increase

of

are

Teu,

(1-45)

for

weights

approximate

(n

x
(1267
=Lx
lack

K gave
left

of

K with

of

to

w. r. t.

used

a maximum

(1-32).

points

also

speed

for

speeds

factors

KMAX1

a higher

from

was

steelweight

4 and

from

by

E and
4 gave
Method

mE'-C

versus

value

the

as

Method

Teu
x

+ b)
10-10

+ 6067

x Teu

(B

+ D)/100

of

data

a poorer

C'

xE

to
fit

data
an input
4 was used
as

112

10-7)E'

0.00842

m2
establish

a better

to

the

data

available.

by

the

user.

For

indicated

earlier.

2)

correspond-

steel

are

a bit

are

data

data

are

and

the
shows
(1-45)
data

lower

at

increasing

K=

study

ship

for

overestimated

speeds.

thus

weight

steel

obviously

the

actual

(i=I,

E value

minimum

seems

to

which

6.3

Table

a particular

value

which

decrease

for

speed

containership

representative
actual

6.2,

+ 300

in

opposite

1-32

T)

Method

increase
to

a low

KMAX2

of

tends

value

increases

value

by

values

KMAX1

m2

KMAX2

and

With

+ 200

KMAXl

and

KMIN2

6.1.

Fig.

E in

KMIN1

The

T)

The

determined

weight

algorithm.

against

to

16800.
and

estimating

an

in

given

are

respectively.

weight

steel

of

values

Km

and

Emin

and

maximum

and

actual

Kmin.

for

collected

KminL and Kmax

mint
1"
Emin
and Emax .

determined

to

andE

container
45 contain-

of

establish

corresponding
=Lx

K.

of

of

to

used

weight
to 45

32

and

for

equation.
K is
parametric

6.2

Table

Lbp

Principal

BD

Particulars

and weights

Cb

of

containershipe

RR1.

SHP

NO.
ProP.

WWWW
Bomg

115

15100

4355

2287

980

549

115

18000

4406

2296

1178

544

2.150.57

23.77 13.41

9.14 o. 631 18.0

9. I4 0.609 19.0

3.156.06

23.77 13.41

9.14

0.562

21.0

115

22400

4460

2312

1483

530

4.160.93

23.77 13.41

9.14

0.516

23.0

115

28200

4490

2327

1889

520

5.159.41

27.43 15.85

9.14

0.652

J8.0

no

18000

5970

2435

1178

679

6.162.15

27.43 15.85

9.14

0.628

i9.0

IIO

20600

6001

2445

1356

675

7.166.72

27.43 15.85

9.14

0.58I

21.0

IN

26100

6021

2461

1747

668

8.171.60

27.43 15.85

9.14

0.536

23.0

110

31600

6061

2477

2113

650

9.179.20

27.43 15.85

9.14

0.683

18.0

110

18300

68i4

2513

1194

959

27.43 15.85

9.14

0.657

19.0

110

21100 .1

6775

2517

1392

955

184.41 27.43 15.85

9.14

0.610

21.0

iio

27000

6764

2530

1803

945

12.188.98

27.43 15.85

9.14

0.564

23.0

110

33500

6773

2546

2260

927

13.193.55

27.43 15.85

9.14

0.521

25.0

IN

41000

6783

2561

1600

924

14.196.90

30.48 15.85

9.14

0.703

18.0

110

21161

8239

2668

1392

1198

15.198.12

30.48 15.85

9.14

0.679

19.0

110

1600

1194

9.14

0.632

21.0

110

8195
8145

2672

30.48 15.85

24083
30899

16.201.48

2684

2077

136

17.205.43

30.48 15.85

9.14

0.588

23.0

110

2699

1483

1176

18.210.00

30.48 15.85

9.14

0.546

25.0

8125
8129

2717

1859

1162

19.215.19
20.235.61

30.48 15.85

9.14

0.504

35.05 18.29

10.67

0.744

21.237.14

35.05 18.29

10.67

22.239.58

35.05 18.29
35.05 18.29

25.252.99

35.05 18.29
35.05 18.29

1.147.22

10.180.44
II.

23.77 13.41

110

365+4
48299

27.0

110

31027

8149

2737

2154

1146

18.0

Ioo

31250

12445

3032

1910

1995

0.721

I9.0

100

10.67
Io. 67

0.676
0.632

21.0
23.0

100
100

32202
41237
49228

1
I

12391
3038
I2250,3048
3059
12128

2159
2794
1905

1989
1981
1973

io. 67

0.592

25.0

100

12112

3079

2245

1958

0.556

27.0

100

33386
40603

10.67

12186

3108

2479

1936

26.264.87

37.80 21.34

11.58

0.766

Ia. O

NO

35000

16063

3335

2215

3152

27.267.31

37.80 21.34

11.58

0.747

19.0

100

16070

3340

2600

3145

28.269.75
29.273.71

37.80 21.34

11.58

0.704

2I. 0

100

38508
49033

15889

3357

1899

3137

37.80 21.34

11.58

23.0

100

30.278.59

37.80 21.34

11.58

0.665
0.626

25.0

2194
2499

3123
3104

31.285.91

37.80 21.34
23.80 16.6o

11.58
8.20

0.590

32.177.10

0.628

33.212.44
34.206.30

30.48 16.46
28.90 16.50
27.40 16.20

9.14
9.50

23.242.32
24.246.89

15823

3375

100

32218
41028

15799

3399

27.0

100

48771

17500

1495

2718
826

3082

97

15926
4629

3437

20.1

0.599
0.587

22.0

140

32000

2699

1547

110

32000

1
I

8718

22.8

8761

2059

1158

268

0.631

20.7

106

10058

2050

1035

0.558

27.0

1941

376

37.185.00

11.00

25.0

42000

io446
6650

2230

0.500

135
IIO

28500
60000

30.63 17.37
32.20 18.70

8.8o
8.84

963
357
451

2150

--

38.215.00

32.20 18.70

11.00

0.52I

27.2

110

60000

8700

2800

--

39.250.00

32.20 19.50

11.00

0.538

26.8

110

6000o

11500

3300

40.259.08

32.00 18.29

9.14

0.558

27.0

110

600oo

14427

3556

-3352

41.268.38

32.16 19.51

9.14

0.539

31.0

135

60800

17350

1990

3950

42.248.20

32.26 24.15

12.00

0.652

21.0

126

51360

14800

43.271.00

32.20 24.00

0.65C

59138

4280

0.615

140

24943

16385
3156

2864
997

543

1031
255

45.234.39

22.00 13.80
27.43 16.15 10.06

24.0
I8.0

135

44.135.00

10.96
8.45

0.640

23.0

Ito

-1

10058

2546

1050

93

Dimensions

in metres and weights

35.234.40
36.215.12

ship

in tonnes

no. 1-31 are not actual

byi 5t ships.

9473

Table
Steel

Chapman

I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Io
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
i9
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41

3608.8
3748.7
3986.3
4202.3
4916.4
5061.9
5308.6
5577.6
6009.0
6079.3
6310.6
6581.4
6857.0
7625.7
7707.0
7932.8
8201.8
8517.9
8883.0
12183.2
12319.4
12537.9
12875.2
13202.3
13768. o
16763.9
17029.8
17297.5
17735.7
18282.1
19115.0
5410.6
8823.6
8079.2
9609.4
9249.3
7636.9
9877.8
13018.0
13424.2
14696.6

42 14057.4
43 16278.6
44 2973.3
45 9604.4

6.3

Calculation

wt.

"MTN

--'.

Actual

4355.0
4406.0
4460.0
4490.0
5970.0
6001.0
6021.0

6061.0
6814.o
6775.0
6764.0
6773.0
6783.0
8239.0

8195.0
8145.0
8125.0
8129.0

8149.0
12445.0
12391.0
12250.0
12128.0
12112.0
12186.0
16063.0
16070.0
15889.0
15823.0
15799.0
15926.0

4629.0
8718.0
8761.0
10058.0
10446.0
6650.0
8700.0
11500.0
14427.0
17350.0
14800.0
16385.0
3156.0
1oo58.0

Weight in tonnes,

min

5579.3
5701.8
5902,4
6080,3
6938.8
7054.6
7247.8
7454.1
7776.3
7827.8
7995.7
8188.8
8382.0
9124.2
9179.5
9331.8
9510.8
9717.9
9953.2
12498.1
12578,0
12705.4

of

KMIN and KMAX

`MAX

... .

5679.3
58oi, 8
6002.4
6180.3
7038.8
7154.6
7347.8
7554.1
7876.3
7927.8
8095.7
8288.8
8482.0
9224.2
9279.5
9431.8
9610.8
9817.9
10053.2
12598.1
12678.0
12805.4

12848.4 12948.4
13086.9 13186.9
13405.3 13505.3
15476.6 15576.6
15617.4 15717.4

15758.1 15858.1
15986.5 16086.5

16268.0
1669o.I
7131.7
9938.7
9349.4
10159.7
10250.5
9402.8
10895.2
12806.3
12873.5
13649.7
13748.6
149oo.s
4924.7
10200.6

16368.0
16790.1
7231.7
10038.7
9449.4
10259.7
10350.5
9502.8
10995.2
12906.8
12973.5
13749.7
13848.6
15000.1
5024.7
10300,6

and Emax in m2

114

KMTNT

KMART

.. __._

...... _

0.0350
0.0347
0.0344
0,0340
0,03 0
0,038
0,0344
0,0340
0.0338
0.0337
0.0334
0.0331
0.0327
0.0327
0.0326
0,0324
0,0321
0,0318
0,0314
0,0318
0,0317
0,0315
0,0313
0,0311
0.0308
0,0304
0,0302
0.0301
0,0298
0.0296
0,0292
o. o261
0,0322
0.0354
0.0355
0.0373
0.0278
0.0296
0.0310
0,0378
0,0419
0,0341
0.0336
0.0299
0.0355

0.0358
0,0356
0.0351
0,0348
0.0357
0.0354
0.0350
0,0346
0,0344
0.0343
0.0340
0.0336
0.0333
0,0332
0,0331
0,0328
0,0325
0.0322
0,0319
0.0321
0.0320
0,0319
b, 0317
0,0314
0,0311
0,0306
0.0305
0.0303
0.0301
0.0298
0,0295
0.0266
0.0326
0.0359
0.0359
0.0378
0.0282
0.0299
0,0314
0.0382
0,0424
0.0345
0.0339
0.0307
0.0360

"`NTN2

"MAXI

0.0290
0,0295
0.0307
0,0318
0.0288
0.0293
0.0303
0,0313
0.0298
0,0303
0.0312
0.0321
0.0331
0.0303
0.0307
0,0315
0,0324
0,0333
0.0343
0,0311
0,0315
0,0323
0.0330
0.0339
0,0348
0.0317
0.0320
0.0327
0.0334
0,0342
0.0351
0.0305
0.0326
0.0327
0.0339
0.0330
0.0320
0.0336
0.,0351
0.0351
0.0355
0.0324
0.0334
0,0282
0.0339

0.0297
0.0303
0.0314
0,0326
0.0294
0.0299
0.0309
0,0319
0.0304
0,0308
0,0317
0.0327
0.0336
0,0307
0,0311
0.0320
0,0328
0.0338
0,0348
0.0315
0,0319
0,0326
0.0334
0.0342
0.0351
0.0320
0,0323
0.0330
0.0337
0.0345
0.0354
0-0310
0,0330
0.0331
0.0343
0.0334
0,0324
0.0340
0.0355
0.0355
0.0359
0.0327
0.0337
0.0289
0.0344

.. ...

....,.,

C. I

at

r
+

*:

+
+

:;

r-.

+
:+:
:++

..

rl

-I

6I

at
Cl
v

LA
4

LLI

!f

'3"
l: '

S
i-i=
H

t4'
.r

4*

*+

*i

Z:

CL

*:

4: }r+
`*

f
`)

cU
..

C,

. -

...

6I

a:
C74

t.s1

v:

CL
Ff

r{)

-j
s

/`

al
al

:"++

at
at
at
001

+*
#
Q
I""
V.

+*

C)IIC,
.

* :

lT.

Lj

. -
al

cI
W

*++
;+

++

1.'1

Ir{)

+
+

:r

6o
.4

at
r

+*

(St

al
l1

~+**

ri

SI

JQ
"

"W
01
ML
Li.

V)
w
-w

LL

cl

Lf.l

W
H(n

SI
SI
Nm
IT tt
it
G1 (S) G

to vt M
tt
t It
G C1a G
..

\..

G+ m
J
W
W
!- rV1=
^
J+=W
QW
CJ

cc

CxN CO P- I.t+ Uo v
C4 (*i t"1 (1) Cl) (')
CD @S
(D St @
............

1..

Ctia S1

6 9

L9

Ct F-+
+

Li

115

(9

r? N -"
0 0-" 0-1 R- %G Li?
C+? {*a (1} MNNNNN
as r Q,1 @ ' Q El So ly1
G! 6 T

G S a

(9

L C1i

0
14-

+
+

i--

LL
irLl
f: l

rl-'i

IT
-4

L.!. .
Z

CT
T

ti
N
v

L1

iU

L"i
Li
tY

t-

I',f}

L
1

C1
-4

F-_

r.

C
C

c'I;

0
C4

-
_
(.%i

J
W
W
F0

LL
W
Of

al
NO

Vi

LL)
at
It

Co

Cl
`

.._

1=1

u
..,
lAJ

clJ

CE
J
LL1
NW
l
;
LL

G
+
F4

E.d
1

0.
tri

F4!

at

6,
@W
Ti Ctii
0
6o CD (D @
LP
CD N0
. -4

. -4

. -.

J
W
W
F- FV1 Zt
(.9
J +
I W+

cc

1-4

CD
l" tii
cz
"C'
. -4

(ri
0m
a,
(ri

m(D
m
(V
. -4

T
IS, Qf
d0
-@
.4

(D 0
@@
@0
(h 0.}

.y

+
+

116

CD
m
CD
ti

0
Cs @
at
0@0a0
cz
Q
V7 LP 'I

61

mm

6,
(r.'

C9
04

t9

-+

WS'

The

is
0.8D.

at

measured

in

variation

to

assumed
Thus

Cb

from

be

at

for

correction

0.70

is

made

fullness

standard

for

steelweight
the

using

0.70

of

two

following

relationships
(1.0

WS8 = WS'
Cbd

where
9:

METHOD

This

completeness.
(58)
Scott

is

It

used

was
and

account

but

dated
in

from

the

modifications,
i.

for
by

study
freighters,

standard
and

time,

that

here

containership

derived

in

T)/3T

xD-

mentioned

the

(tonnes)

0.70))

Cb)(0.8

was

built

containerships

(1.0

method

1962,

into

taking

= Cb

(Cbd

+ 0.5

the

reflecting

e.

mostly

converted

by

Carstens(59)

values

of

ships.
10:

This

was

found

METHOD
and

it

and

container

lower

draft.

study

such
No

method.

the
i.

unit
in

T/D

corrections,

The

method

steel

its

and

applicable

to

ships

of

Encounter

Bay

Evaluation

Steel
four

estimating

same,

on

with
have

for

apply

type

to

effect

estimating
for

adjust

use

of

LxBxD<

size

1500

1bu.

of

Further

steelweight.

ships

100,000

m3

1-8

can

be

into

broadly

summarised

categories

(a)

A method

based

on

volume

(b)

A method

based

on

area

(c)

A method

based

on

simple

(d)

A method

based

on classification

In

to

given

methods

carrier

containerships

one-off

Methods

of

1970,

bulk

the

about

detailed

however

is

Comparative

too
a good

method
e.

just
since

is

is

area

fact

is

but

guidance

tensile

higher

the
are

this,

as

developed

was

that

ships
for

allowance

method

design

studies,
to

detailed

be

such
of

were
preferred
(35)
that
found
and

partly

the

factors

study,

in

earlier

The

the

steel

various

the

beam

methods

number
numeral

analogy

rules.

this,

(c)

methods

So basically

is

weight

of
can
117

partly

volume
However

beyond

data
be

on

(a)
it

However

modulus.
is

(d)

and

methods

studies.

section
(35)
in

scarcity

cubic

surface

on

suggested
to

as
use.

dependent

due

or

much

(b)

or

the

scope

actual

steel

categorised

as

has

too

are
and

been

dependent,
estimating
of

this

weight.

follows:

Method

Function

Type

Type

(a)

f(LxBxD)

+ corrections

(a)

f(LxBxD)

(b)

f(L

+ corrections
(B+D))x

(a)

f(LxxByxDZ)

(a)

f(L,

(a)

B, D, T, Cb )+
B, D, T, Cb)

f(L,

(Cb,

L/D,
structure)

(a)

f(LxxByxDZ)

(b)

f(L,

(a)

f(LxBxD)

Method

8 and

8,

designer

the

is

weight

inputs
steel

The

and

in

indicated
steel

actual

ISTEEL

=2

20% higher

analysis

of

of

error

only

different

steel
6.5
0.5%

limits.

Therefore

Method

equation

estimating
weight

left

as

an

could

as

data

(32-45)4

As

actual
hence
4 was

for

option
not

be

factor.

118

steel

weight
6.4,

4 has

the

established

is

the
user,

Methods

1
3-7

based

on

percent-

and
tolerable

within

algorithm,
since
for

actual

data

a mean

weight,

are
in

Table

Methods

6.6

Table

steel

used

by

for

whereas

both

divided

that

shows

Method

are
between

in

FSTWT2

weight.

for

=1

flush

than

is

method

methods

shown

to

steel

difference

The

weight

10%,

of

of

weights

steel

from

deviation

the

methods

indicates

standard

Method

to

agreement

the

Table

of

FSTWT2,

be

nearly

various

estimated
6.5.
Table

the

ISTEEL

the

with

closer

of

ratio

4,

choice

by

Method

(STEELF)

Method

The

validated

2 underestimate

analysis

the

in

shown

the

in

calculated

In

factor

parameter
4.
Method

for

and

thesis.

weight

automatically.

in

overestimated

this

whereas

controlling

is

to

and found
(1-32)
but

steel

weight

weight

weight
steel
(FSTWT1)
was

An

the

weights
6.4,
Table

steel

in

adopted

the

using

8,

Method

were

calculated

by

given

with

"")

B, D, T, Cb)

Method4

the

determine

age

L/B,

C)

a, b, c

10

and

(L/D,

corrections
T/D,
Cb,
tr

super-

the

an
steel

Table 6.4

Actual
Steel
weight

Steel

weight

calculated

by different

methods

YSI

WS2

YS3

iIS4

VS-5

YS6

YS

4585

2913

3393

3748

2977

2939
3000

3632

4655

4101
4213

3606

2.4406

4102
4165

3771

3530

3.4460

4265

4744

4396

3986

3055

4.4490

4304

4810

4560

4202

1.4355

5778

5.5970
6.6o0i

5815

6458
6499

5402
5513

4916
5061

FSTVTI F51WP2

DYYTI

D}irT2

DHYT3

2699
2758

213
218

213
218

239

3073

4004 3759 2828

226

226

244

3111

3125

4215

3968

2878

233

233

247

4130

4073

4860

4660

3814

315

315

259

4183

4123

5001

4740

3862

321

321

261

3922

330

330

z64

241

7.6o2I

5854

6543

5698

5308

4252

4186

5242

4978

8.6061

5907

6602

5897

5577

4343

4270

550+

5237

4003

339

339

267

9.6814

6700

7488

6210

6009

5263

5180

5925

569+

4908

354

354

271

Io. 6775

6668

7452

6261

6079

5730

5145

5994

5721

4873

357

357

272

6764

6686

7472

6425

6310

5274

5184

6220

5945

4909

365

365

275

5262

6485

6207

4984

374

374

277

6473

5071

383

383

280

II.

12.6773

6730

7521

6615

6581

5358

13.6783

6781

7578

6806

6857

5454

5351

6754

N.

8364

934+8 7533

7625

7009

6872

7488

7192

6575

433

433

296

15.8195

8333

9314

7588

7707

6971

6832

7568

7271

6535

436

436

297

M. 8145

8323

9302

7742

7932

6974

6830

7789

7489

6530

443

443

299

8125

8352

9335

7922

8201

7039

6889

8052

7749

6587

452

452

302

18.8129

8421

9412

8133

8517

7162

7005

8361

8055

6700

462

462

305

19.8I49

8520

9522

8372

8883

7332

7168

8718

8409

6859

473

473

309

V.

8239

13134

14679

11029

12183

12581 12241 11843 11195 11893

688

688

347

21.12391 13104

14645

11114

12319

12546 12203 11976 11627 118y+

692

692

349

22.12250 12999

14528

11250

12357

12416 12067 12189 11838 11716

699

699

351

23.12128 12917

14436

II403

12785

12342 11988 12430 12077 II634

707

707

353

24.12112 12990

14518

II660

13202

12539 12175 12838 12481 11818

720

720

356

25.12186 13199

14751

I2004

13768

12975 12597 13390 13029 Iz236

738

738

362

26.16063 17852

19952

14334

16763

18874 18288 16178 15790 17900

973

973

387

27. i6o7o

17905

20011

14491

17029

19046 18453 16437 16047 18063

982

982

389

28.15889

17749

19837

14649

17297

18877 18278 16698 16306 17886

991

991

392

29.1523

17753

19841

14905

17735

19057 18446 17125 16730 18051

1005

1005

395

30.15799

17830

19927

15222

18282

19417 18793 17658 17258 18394

1023

1023

399

31.15926 18142

20276

15699

19115

20300 19655 18470 18064 19249

1050

1050

405

32.4629

5827

6513

5641

5410

4604

4541

5347

5091

4285

318

33i

255

33.8718

8940

9992

8375

8823

7774

7595

8645

8338

7288

485

485

307

34.8761

8155

9114

7773

8079

6917

6765

7926

7631

6469

448

448

295

35.10058

9438

10548

8623

9609

9258

9091

9441

9135

8785

473

473

306

36. I0446

9170

10249

6729

9249

8043

7831

9037

8727

7521

521

521

309

37.6650

8162

9122

7822

7636

5861

5649

7425

7129

5354

507

507

295

9786

10938

9354

9877

8118

7845

9605

9288

7528

589

589

317

12234

13673

II403

I3JI6

11935 11565 12646 Iz553 112WZ

715

715

3+3

40.14427 12601

14084

11513

13424

13259 12917 13082 12733 12569

691

691

348

41.17350 13491

15078

12399

14696

14854 14444 14285 13929 14087

767

767

356

12542

14057

13374 13035 13518 13176 12693

881

881

342

43.16385 16041 17928 13863 16278 17114 16518 15683 15324 16160

954

954

358

20. i2445

38.8700
jy. II5u

42. I4800

14608

16327

4+. 3156

3519

3933

3537

2973

2385

2426

3014

2786

2199

187

187

227

45.10058

9481 10596

8618

9604

9202

9035

9437

9131

8729

473

473

306

All

weights

in tonnes.
119

Table

6.5

wsI
I
2

3
4
5
6

Difference
fraction

ws2

0.058 -0.053
0,055 -0.057

of

from actual
steel
weight
actual
steel
weight.

ws3

ws4

0.058

0,172
0.149

0.106
0,064
0.176
0.156

0,044

0.04.8-0.064 0,014
0.041 -0.071 -0.016
0.032 -0.082 0.095
0.031 -0.083 0.081
7 0.028 -0,087
0,054
8 0.025 -0.089 0.027
0.089
9 0.017

IO
II
12

-0.099
0.016 -0.100
0.0I2 -0, I05
0.006

-0.111

0. I18

WS5

expressed

ws6

ws7

0.331
0.324

0.325
0.319

0.166
0.144

0.315
0.307
0.308
0.303

0.311
0.3o4
0,318
0.313

0.102
0.061
0.186
0.166

0.294

0.305

0.129

0.080 0.283 0.295 0.092

0.076
0.050

0.118
0.103
0.067

0.228
0.228
0.220

0.240
0.240
0.234

0.130
0,115
0.080

0.023

0.028

0.209

0.223
0,21I

0.01+3

13 0.000 -0.117 -0.003 -0.011

o. i96

18 -0.036

0.119
04100

0.004

0.086 0.074 o.149 0.166 0.091

15 -0,017 -0.137 0.074 0,060 0.149 0,166 0.076
0,049 0.026
o. 144 0,161
0,044
16 -0,0122 -0.142
17 -0,028 -0.149 0,025 -0.009 0.134 0,152 0,009
14 -0.015

-0.135

-0.158
19 -0.04.6 -0.169

20 -0.055

-0.180

-0,001
-0.027

0,114

-0.048
-0.090
0.02I

-0.011

21
0.103 0.006 -0,013
-0.058 -o. 182 0.082
22 -0.061 -0.186
-0.024 -0.014
0.060 -0.054 -0,018
23 -0.065 -0.190

o, d48

0.015 0,033

0,015 0.005
0.012 -0.025

0.037 -0,090 -0,035 -0.00 -0.060

-0.199 0,015

24

25 -0.072
-0.083 -0.211

26 -0.111 -0.242

27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34

0.138 -0.029
-0.070

0.120
0.016

-0.114

-0.117
-0.122
-0.129
-0.139
-0.259
-0.025
0.069

-0.130

-0,065

-0.03

-0.099

0.108 -0.044 -0.175 -0.139 -0.007

0.098

-0.245
-0.248
-0.254
-0.261
-0.273
-0.407
-0.146
-0.040

-0.060
-0.089
-0. I21
-0.157
-0.200
-0.219 -0.169
0.039 -0.012
0.113 0.078

-0.372

-0.176

0.078
0,058
0.036
0.014

-0.185
-0.188
-0.204
-0.229
-0.275
0.005
0.108
0.210

-0.148
-0.150
-0. I66
-0.190
-0.234
0.019
0.129
0.228

-0.023
-0.051
-0.082
-0.118
-o. 16o
-0.155
0.008
0.095

35 0.062 -0,049 0.143 0.045 0.079 0.096 o. 06i

0.164 0,115 0,230 0.250 0.135
0.122
0.019
36
37 -0.227

-0.148

0. I19

0.150 -0. I17

38 -0,125 -0.257 -0.075 -0.135 0.067 0.098 -0.104

o64
0,008

39
40 -o.
0.127

-0.189
0.024

0.202

41
42
43 0.021 -0.094 0.154
44 -0.115 -0.246 -0.12I
45

-0.132 -0,038 -0.005 -0.100

0.070
0.081 0,105 0.093

0.006 -0.045 -0.008

0.058 0.244 0.231

120

0.043
0.045

as a

TABLE

6.6.

Method

Analysis

of

steel

Mean of
Percentage
Difference

wt.

estimation

methods.

Standard
Deviation

Variance

1 (ws1)

-5.43

1.060

1.097

2 (ws2)

-14.89

9.566

89.329

8.231

66.144

3 (ws3)

3.826

4 (ws4)

0.412

10.23

102.33

5 (ws5)

11.712

23.195

525.19

6 (ws6)

11.990

16.270

258.42

7 (ws7)

2.390

9.303

121

84.485

6.2.
Unlike

is

wide

variation

the

the

years

used

in

validation

er

ships,

hull

is

on

In

Chryssostomidis
containerships
(WOHE3)
eering
4:

1971

and

The

weight

equation

The
also

jobs.

is
,
item

ship
to

relation

It

The

cost.

stage

an

then

then

and

to
by

the

item

square

in

used

earlier

wood/outfit
study
(37)
was
was

used

equation
(51)
1965.

bulk

first

as

in

1968

a later
like

(L
given

out

by

by

Swift

Method

1.

derived

1973
to

by
for

and gull
1.
B) .

study

122

number.

(WOHE2).

weight

and

used

specifically

of
was

contain-

cubic

1 was

carried

a function

ascertained

(53)

engineering

Wood/outfit

weight

wood/outfit

Method

formula

1970

on break

ship

of

formula

in

(52)

1965

was

The

containership

Hull

shown

generation

on

containership

was

and

a function

made

formulation
in

ship,
of

is

container

mainly).

suggested.

fourth

the

section.

Miller
(5)

Benford

that

on

made

by

given

studies

and

the

was

data

vessels
(WOHEl)
was

in
methods

method

the

of

later

over

the

different

of

was

existing

indicate

out

work

a break

of

suggested

evaluation

carried

assumption

that

formulae

various

formulation

with
(conversion

the

METHOD

in

in

in

labour

as

can

recorded

subcontracted

basis

ships,

equations

The

3:

from
weight

in
two
METHOD 2: Later
(54)
the
1972
same
and

METHOD

items

design

A comparative

engineering

estimate

or

the

There

differences

of

cost

the

first

The

than

by

the

weight

container

based

less

of

preliminary

study.

ships.

because

material

here

summary
of
6.7.
Table

was

outfit

respect

in

rationalise.

of

in

methods

1:

included

B).

this

METHOD

items
to

may be

determination

weight
of

(WO)

WEIGHT

weight

outfit

for

different

-bulk

the

outfit

We consider

was

difficult

the

at

procedure

proportion
(L X
number

and

more

as

and

in

variety

of

recorded

ascertain

The

the

procedures,

be

best

outfit

shipyards

accounting
may

to

much

different

ENGINEERING

weight,

due

it

outfit

two

steel

but

simpler

be

AND HULL

OUTFIT

engin-

(39)

Erichsen
(55)
from

1972.
Benford's

6.7.

TABLE

Summary

of

engineering

in

N
1

in

long

1000)

/c

WOHE3 = 0.15[

in metres
tonnes

Ref.

Yr.

(CN/

51

65

52

70

53

71

54

72

37
4o

68
74

(CNC/1o8052539

71

1000)2 + 3302
(CN/1000)
-

10 5.66
WOHE2 = WOHE1

Lxs xo.996
woHE3 = 6.673
100

GC w04 = 8.5 x (cNc/186615

/C WHE4
= 53 x (cNC/180gj5
WOHE4 = wo4 + WHE4

/C

W04 = 86.36

(LxB)

WHE4 = 53.85

x
(CNC/1000)

o. sz5

55

72

WOHE4 = wo4 + WHE4

51

65

WOHE5 = Col

35

77

27

80

46

69

61

74

WoHE6

1.6

100

xLxB

CO1 = 0.32
for
container
6

hull

and

WOHE1 = -885.39

104

W01-IE2 = WOHEl

BB

tons

+ 93.5 x (cN/

/c

Dimensions
in
Weight

feet

WOHE1 = -0.71(CN/1000)2

BB

wood/outfit

weight.

Dimensions

Weight

for

equations

C06

ships

xLxB

co6 = 0.44
fitted
7

BOFWT

(LxBxD)0"425

equation

OFWT= 4.62

SOFWT =

(LxBxDj106)0.65

SOFWT= 10.31 x0
(LxBxD/106)

HATWT

(L

HATWT

x. B)0'57

WOHE7 = BOFW*T + SOFWT + WOHE7

HATWT
8

WOHE8

GC

C08
9

(LxBxD)0'425

(L

= BOFWT+SOFWT
HATWT

B)O57
+

= C08 x L1-3 x
3
B0Sc8D0'x3Cb0'

= 0.065

WOHE9

= 3.94

. 65

= C08

10

Ship

CC

= COlo

CO10

REF. ( 62 ) '58

2000

<

Type:

BB A-

100

Break
All

discussic

= 0.065

62

ft3

bulk;
ship

Ctype;
123

58
Container;
OC -

Ore

GC carrier.

n)

P. S.
77
35

100

< 150000

77

KatsouliE

L1.

WOHE10

35

discussic

0-8 0-3
BD
C08

Katsoulis
P. S.

General

cargo;

-58
62

n)

Benford's
(W04)

into
subdivided
(WHE4),
engineering

equation

weight

Hull

and

wood/outfit

was

tons,

W04 = c0(cN/1000)0825

WHE4

and

CHE(CN/1000)0'825

tons
where

CN =LxBx

D/100

was

that

It

assumed

to

belonging

blocks

to

compared

replaced

by

equation

is

5:

This
is

it

since
the

current

the

outfit

does

not

increase

1962

to

the

(35)for

does

ship

weight

against

length

another
METHOD

curve

vary

outfit

where
line

not

is

6:

This

given

length

note

that

of

the

one

given

in

for

equation
0.36

modified

m3,0

= displacement

ship

And

L.

as
B)

is

a straight
(27)
1980.

also
line,

124

based

B),

of

containership
the

(60)

in

cargo

ships

tonnes

to

a 10%

increase
of

weight
in
as

Fig.

in
in

container6.3,

a horizontal

is

square
was

It

ship.

given

plots

on

shows

value

shown

which

and

0.39

conclusion
6.
Method

in

The

for

Similar

1980

reflects

outfitting.

outfit

size

with
ship
(WOHE5)/(L

and

B)

with

the

program,

co-authors

corresponds

1962.

computer

general

(L

compared

when

method
by

The

was

(CNC/1000)0'825
tonnes

tonnes/m2,
in

(27)

source

B),

increase

since

weight

cubic

(CN)

available

with

cargo

general

outfit

and

0.36

of

value

higher

= 53

the

ship
(L
number

square

WORE =
This

in

container

following

the

gave

in

x0

adopted

weight/(L

interesting

containerships

WHE4

formulation
in

on

that

is

was

latest

based

Since

and

m3.

practice

is

method

tonnes,

CN + 0.442

method

the

insulation,

number
(CNC).

number

not

fittings,

and

have

cubic

items

cargo

vessels

the

cubic

CN in

tonnes,

METHOD

covers.

cargo

for

was

booms

e. g.

ratio,

a modified

CNC = 17.66

where
in

dry
ns)

weight

refrigerated

(CNC/1000)0.825

85

of

hatch

of

ordinary
(CN/,

displacement

W04

and

weights

additional

23%
ships,

container

and

riggings

ft3.

fitted

reached

number
to

from

(L
the

B)

I
Iyl

lT-

i
I
J-.

Al

--4
lT

Ix

w:
h:

Cl
Lfi
oJ

c;
J

'd
"~"_

I. L

i* *

* ::
r1

t*
J

'

#:

ir
*

'"
-
.

"'

*i

CI

Cr.

LL-

w
CL

I
i

LL!
=3

1-4
L1.
D
{+E

-I

*i

=
ri

LX
0

*i
I

6f
LO

r1

s
LLI-

1-

.4

*I

C;
ti
1-

F-

-''

:4

::'s

LI

F--q

at

i
M.

f--

SH

"J

LL.

III fill III III lit ,,, fill , il1

LD
(St
r
t0
.......
@

Q
J

-L-Lu

@
Li?

Lf!
dv

(si

Lfi
t117

t
(*}

Li?
CU

Q
CV

tS

t9

rL

i,...

Lr)
Lfi

r.

Jh-

Iii ,, iI,

C
%D

a.
*

"

=s
C. J
i"9 JW
'

a
l
Co
rt"
"-+

cr La-

rr

CLP4

Cr

Gi
W

i
125

-4
-4

_
I`I

W
J

WOHE6 = o. 437
WOHE6
index

The
of

0.32

of

outfit

built

ships

ships

plus

in

In

the

(i)

in

here
as

in

1977

a bit

it

for

to

used
was

the

formula

to

Method

K by

Method

with

three

purpose

9 was
values

10:

This

built

the

analysis.

and

Hull

the

weight

the

lie

close

to

0.065

engineering
of

was

1962

assumed
(WOHE10)

containership

and

126

For

outfit

is
the

most

closely

o.re

formula

data

be

dropped

value

of

to

0.0714

by

Katsoulis.

developed
included

K is

of

weight
The

0.0354

was

Katsoulis

weight

can

suggested

the

by

containerships

weights.

that

and

weight

ship

of

as

considered

value

term

between

from

outfit

the

K.

values

to

ships

low

container

found

(58)

is

suggested

of

the

a fraction

supplied

Since

actual

All

shipyard.

method

ships.

the

container

the

were

lower

sub-

bought

category.

very

coefficient

9 or

method

It

gives

block

was

generally

This

value

(61)

Volker

items

generally

a new

gave

this

by

built

recently

evaluate
that

compared

of

by

all

category.
(SOFWT),

equations

(46)

Chapman

into

it

types

found

because

METHOD

These

some

built

weight

(BOFWT),

supplied
(HATWT),

only,
6.8.

by

engineering

equipment.

all

dated,

were

this

weight

9:

American

European

study

categories:

and

Table

8 and

METHODS

hull

material

reference

shown

design

fall

into

standard

shipyard

between

to

variability

one

probably

proposed

material

weight

as
as

(35)

outfit

cover

Method

the

from

compared

following

outfit

total
of the
(iii)
Hatch

case

a later

suppliers

Shipyard

38%

as

first

and

fall

items

that

shows

much

in

suggested

differences.

in

the

tonnes

that

heavier

wood/outfit

outside

outside

this

method,

used

Bought

major
(ii)

in
are

this

into

from

as

0.99

This

be

another,

also

divided

can

+ 9.09

in

than

demarcation

and

B)

higher

which

7:

METHOD

(L

containerships.

to

1974,

is

weight

practice

1969

0.44

0.44
for

x (L x B)
(correlation

to

prior
to

carrier

any

complete
outfit

approximates
is

based

on

Table 6.8 Outfit

methods
and Hull Engineering weights by different
Actual
WORE
WoHEI WOHE2 WOHE3 WOHE4 WORE. WOHE6 WOHE7 WOHE8 WOHE9
1.2287

2.2296
3.2312

4.2327
5.2435
6.2445
7.2461
8.2477
9.2513
Io. 2517
II.
2530
12.2546
13.2561
14.2668
15.2672
i6.2684
17.2699
18.2717
19.2737
20.3032
21.3038
22.3048
23.3059
24.3079
25.3108
26.3335
27.3340
28.3357
29.3375
30.3399
31.3437
32.1495
33.2699
34.2059
35.2050
36.2230
37.2150
38.2800
39.3300
40.3556
41.1990
42.
43.2864
44.997
45.2546

1250
I276
1319

1250
I276
1319

1940
2011
2129

1455
1460
1454

1119
I145
1187

1539
1574
1632

860
870
885

1024
I043
1067

1356
1759
1783
1824

1356
1759
1783
I824

2237
2770
2847
2977

1441
1897
1895
1881

1224
1399
1423
1463

1683
1924
1957
2012

899
997
1005
1019

1082
1352
1367
1384

1175
I210
1268
I;, 20
1537
1571
1629

1866
1931
1941
1974

1866
1931
1941
1974

3117
3342
3378
3498

1869
2130
2108
2084

1506
1573
1583
1618

2071
2163
2177
2225

1034
1056
1060
1071

1403
1596
1592
1601

1691
1790
1806
1857

2011
2047
2235
2245
2271
2300
2334
2371
2863
2869
2878
2888
2903
2922
2908
2899
2888
2869
2844
2801
1772
2409
2287
2372
2515
2475
2686
2897
2866
2945
2970
2927
I10o
2369

2011
2047
2235
2245
2271
2300
2334
2371
2863
2869
2878
2888
2903
2922
2908
2899
2888
2869
2844
2801
1772
2409
2287
2372
2515
2475
2686
2897
2866
2945
2970
2927
I100
2369

3638
3779
4598
4644
4771
4921
5098
5301
7663
7743
7871
8016
8259
8588

2063
2044
2542
2518
2480
2450
2426
2404
3833
3802
3731
3664
3626
3612

1658
1698
1920
1932
1965
2003
2048
2098
2642
2659
2687
2717
2769
2837

2280
2336
2640
2657
2702
2755
2816
2886
3633
3657
3694
3737
3807
3901

1085
1097
I166
I170
1179
1191
1204
1219
1410
1414
1421
1430
1443
1460

1615
1627
1980
1975
1967
1983
1996
2011
2969
2966
2948
2932
2946
2984

1918
1978
2201
2218
2268
2325
2393
2470
3244
3272
3316
3365
3448
3559

I (Y+29
10583
10738
10992
11307
11786

5009
4994
4909
4855
4811
4806

3203
3233
3262
3310
3369
3458

4405
4445
4486
4552
4633
4755

1775
2579
2429
2558
2582
2556
2937
3431
3236
3413
4174
4318
1231
2713

1348
2072
1907
2055
2I08
1906
2215
2576
2653
2762
2562
2792
950
2057

3880
3897
3874
3881
3900
3962

4203
4253
4304
4386
4488
4642

2612
5193
4550
5125
5340
4544
5779
7357
7712
8225
7294
8370
1492
5134

1605
1613
1620
1631
1646
1667

1854
2849
2623
2825
2899
262I
3046
3542
3647
3797
3523
3839
1306
2828

989
I22I
1173
1212
I246
1206
1299
1412
1413
1462
1480
1541
798
1212

1387
2I07
1933
2222
2139
1810
2228
2771
2865
3038
31o6
3467
860
2232

1595
2457
2268
2552
2548
2228
2709
3338
3413
3657
3531
3945
996
2551

Weight in tonnes.
127

an earlier
Comparative

6.8.

in

WORE by

6.9

as

gave

the

this

percentage

it

least

5 was,

Method

these

wide

variation

in

selected

by

indicated

from

indicated.

actual

Method
Analysis

in
out
(mean)

in

weights

clearly

eliminated.

WORE of

above

in
is

of

indicated

difference

carried

however,

is

variation

AWOHE is
was

the

of

methods

wide

percentage

trend

the

reflects

is

error

each

gave

and

(AWOHE)

engineering
with

of

of

results

the

Hull

percentage

a ratio

worst

9 gave

Method

the

where,

WOHE weights

1-10

each

This

methods.

Table

Methods

compared

WOHE weights

different

1958.

and

were

The

methods.
Table

of

wood/outfit

containerships

(62)

Benford

Evaluation

Actual
45

by

study

of

6.10,

Table

where

error.
it

since

built

recently

felt

was

that

container

ships.
A plot

The

as

that

in

user
the

6.3.

taken

as

input

can

lie

containerships
as

by

given

Method6.

OUFITF

= 0.32

steel

weight

and

Method

5 was

with

the

outfit

factor

fitted

and

outfit

adopted.
(OUFITF)

(WM)

of

machinery

for

proposed

include

Direct

drive

Geared

medium

Geared

steam

Geared

gas

Nuclear

consumption

to

value

types

various

include:

of
(35).

in

given

WEIGHT

containerships

Factors

Fig.

MACHINERY
The

tonnes/m2,

= 0.44
out

grouping

any

program.

OUFITF

for

Actual

as

5 (35)1977.

the

since

B)

carried

by Method

Moreover

The

was

defined

OUFITF

of

where

study

recommended
was

value

0.32,

parametric

weight

engineering/(L

the

to

0.44

between

Hull

and

wood/outfit
6.3,
shows

(OUF*ITF)

factor

outfit

of

slow

diesels

speed

diesels

speed
turbines

(a)

turbines

Aero

(b)

type

type

industrial

power.
which
affect
thspecific
rate

the

choice

weight,

the

which

often
128

of
space
means

the

type
required,

that

the

of

machinery
and

weight

the
is

fuel
based

Table 6.9 Difference

WoHEI

in percentage

WOHE2 WOHE3

45.32 15.17
44.39 12.4o
42.93
7.88
41.70
3.86
27.76 -13.79
27.05 -16.46
25.88 -20.97
24.65 -25.86
23.15 -32.99
22.87 -34.23
21.97 -38.27
21.00 -42.89
20.05 -47.59
13.20.05
16.21 -72.37
14.16.21
15.97 -73.82
15.15.97
15.39 -77.76
16.15.39
17. I . 75 14.75 -82.35
14. o8 -87.64
18.14.08
13.35 -93.69
19.13.35
5.57-152.76
20.5.57
5.55
5.55-154.89
2I.
5,56-158.25
22.5.56
5.57-162.05
23.5.57
5,69-168,24
24.5.69
5.98-176.32
25.5.98
26.12.78
12.78-212.74
13.20-216.88
27.13.20
13.96-219.89
28.13.96
14.96-225.69
29.14.96
30.16. 1 16.31-232.67
3i. 18.49 18.49-242.93
32. -18.58 -18.58 -74.77
16,73 -92.41
33.10.73
34, -11.09 -11.09-121.01
35. -15.75 -15.75-150.04
36. -12.79 -12.79-139.47
37. -15.13 -15.13-111.37
4.05-106,42
38 4.05
12.20-122.94
39.12.20
40.19.38
19.38-116.87
41. -48.01 -48.01-313.32
42.
43. -2.22
-2.22-192.27
44. -10.39 -10.39 -49.67
6,92-101.67
45.6.92
1.45.23
2.4439
3.42.93
4.41.70
5.27.76
6.27.05
7.25.88
8.24.65
9.23.15
I0.22.87
II. 21.97
12.21,01

from actual

woHD4

WOHES

Outfit

weight

woHE6 WOHE7
62.37
62.09
61.68
61.34
59.04
58.86

WOHE8

W0HE9

55.22

48.59

36.35
36.39
37.08
38,04
22.06
22.46
25.53
24.51
15.21
16.22
17.63
18.95
20.19
4.71
5.74
7.59
9.23
10,71
12.14
-26.44
-25.16
-22.43
-19.79
-17.78
-16.23
-50.21
-49.52
-46.24
-43.87
-41.56
-39.85
-18.79
4.43
-17.98
-24.78
-15.80
-18.91
-4.90
-3.98
8.99
-72.52

51.04
50.12
48.66
47.40
42.54
41.79
40.54
39.19
37.40
37.07
36.02
34.85
33.66
28.02
27.68
26.78
25.76
24.61
23.31
12.84
12.45
11.84
11.15
10.06
8.70
3.93
3.19
2.80
1.90
0.86
-00.62
9.78
23.23
7.34
-00.25
5.45
11.34
20.88
21.94
25.39
-38.79

32.67
31.41
29.40
27.67
20.99
19.96
18.24
16.39
13.93
13.48
12.03
10.41
8.79
1.02
0.56
-0.67
-2.08
-3.66
-5.44
-19.84
-20.38
-21.22
-22.17
-23.66
-25.53
-32.09
-33.11
-33.65
-34.88
-36.32
-38.35
-24.05
-5.56
-27,41
-37.85
-30.01
-21.91
-8.79
-7.33
-2.58
-90.84

_58.24
57.94
57.87
57.63
57.39
57.13
56.28
56.21
56.04
55.86
55.67
55.46
53.49
53.63
53.35
53.25
53.13
53.00
; 1.85
51.71
51.74
51.65
51.57
51.49
33.68
54.75
43.02
40.87
44,09
43.90
53.61
57.19
60.27
26.52

-50.77
-23.49
-6.59

2.50
4.67
19.19

-34.06
-31.07
-11.11

46.17 -21.07 -37.77

0,10
19.88 13.66
52.40 12.33 -0.23

129

58.56

54"56
53.85
53.49
44.47
44.09
43.74
43.35
36.46
36.74
36.69
36.56
36.47
25.77
26.06
26.37
26.51
26.53
26.51
2.07
2.36
3.27
4.13
4.31
3.97
-16.35
-16.69
-15.41
-15.00
-14.75
-15.30
7.18
21.93
6.1o
8,43
4.07
15.80
20,42
16.01
19.43
-52.70

47.27
45.14
43.27
36.86
35.71
33.78

31.70
28.76
28.25

26.57
24.67

22.75
17.50
16.96

15.50
13.82

II. 91

9.73
-7.02
-7.71

-8.79
-10.02
-11.99
-14.52
-26.04
-27.36
-28.22
-29.98
-32.06
-35,08
-6.72
8.95
-10.17
-24.50
-14.27
-3.67
3.23-1.16
4,02
-83.81

TABLE

6.10.

Analysis

of

& hull

wood/outfit

eng.

estimation

methods.

Method

Mean
of
Percentage
Difference

Deviation

Standard

Variance

(WOHE1)

11.85

17.86

312.00

(woHE2)

11.85

17.86

312.00

3 (woHE3)

-107.66

79.79

6222.00

4 (woHE4)

-6.009

27.928

762.26

5 (woHE5)

20.186

18.137

321.50

6 (woHE6)

-9.743

24.938

607.79

7 (woHE7)

52.54

8.762

75.03

8 (woHE8)

16.025

24.438

583.67

9 (woHE9)

3.044

27.762

753.00

130

the

on

sum

the

of

fuelling

given

machinery

weight
Naturally

range.

the

type

of

ship

may

also

be

important.

Nuclear

and

cargo

has

power

the

and

been

difficulties

items

usual

capital

have
this
cost
prevented
6.11
Table
the
distribution
shows

machinery

in

bunker

on

the

fitted
fuel

in

illustrated
1000

Teu
to

compared

to

been

and

for
for

machinery

weight

in

selected

drive

Direct

the
this
all

the

the

Most

of

oil

price

type

of

ships

was

is

subdivided

installhas

due

to

their

advantage
by

lower

of
specific
for

is

built

as

machinery
type

screw

the

and
is

into

in

the

of

Table

6.13.

engine

main

Each
and

range

shown
the

of

type

of

weight

equations

indicated.

diesel

speed
newly

the

auxiliaries.

algorithm

1000

oil

convert

particularly

developed

briefly

The
are:

of

increases

above

installation.
weights

it

engine

1974,

in

turbine

position,

twin

discussed

slow

before

T.eu,

offset

machinery
or

weights
is

installation

ships

to

calculating

single

weight
the

and

for

the

which

well

Teu.

with

installation,

is

built

This

diesel,

speed

formulae

of

This

propulsion

1000

6.12.

increase

effect

increases

speed

than

more

types

The

steam

than

Table

volume,

slow

together

less

sizes.

1000

with

far.

various

shipowners

Medium

of

over

power

ships

is

consumption
size

many

high

so

turbine

Recent

forced

capacity

A summary

after

ship

used

significant

steam

date.

but

and

containerships.

propulsion.
to

cargo

weight,

had

reliability,

ports

the

of

propellers

being

had

for

containerships
in

with

this

after

as

propulsion
unit.
69% of newly
where

existing

weight

ship's

The

equipped

diesel

lighter

fuel

were

1979,

confined

higher

Table

main
6.11

37%

after
prices,
(63,64,65,66)
ation

the

of

such

for

plant

1973

since

weight

of

acceptability

existing

on

prices

choice

above

of

fuel

number

discussed

the

of

plus

containerships
of

shown

Teu

1979

and

earlier,

are

various

1973

so
to

assumed
methods

of

1000

above
were

installed

the

program,

in
have

this

type

TEU,
with

of

the

estimating

METHOD

1:

This

*Note:

Equations

formula*
are

1,2
mentioned
131

was
in

suggested

Table

6.13.

by

Watson

in

.
+)

tO

ra
ri

I-

r+
ri

r-I

W
.0
7 4.)
Co 0
F-

r)

! I)

LI)
N

co

UO

N
rq

CC)

O
t7

C)

0
(A
Co I N
N

co

ri

r-I

r)

r-i

r7

l 01 O

co

r)

ri

01

%T
r-I

r-I

r-I

01

O
0
N

01
CA
I LO
N

C)

Cj%

to

01

I "-i
N

CC)

01
r-4

r-I

CD
N
O
r-1

(3%

0
N

1r

0
0
t0

(M
1

0
0

I O1
Ln

r-1

r-I

(3%
I M
cm

r-I

ri

o
O

r-I

r-I

r-I

-1

co

co

L!7

01

ri

m
n
E
0

z
r-1
.
.-1
4.3
O
0.
"I
L
co
H
(D

cm

(3)

r)

Ln

r-I

1-+

l m

t0

LO

0
O
0

01
1 01
N

LO

4O
Q)
4-)
C
w
-1

ri

r-"1

c
.ca
11

01

03

d-3
C
0
U

r-I

ON

1
Ln

-4

0
--I
0

r-1

0_
0
H

0.
1i

ri

W
J
CO

F-

co

01

13

01

:3

m
et
N

:d

n.

01

L+,
1

r'i

C
0
-'rl

0_

O_
O
H
0.

m
W

co

CD
m

r-I

(n

r-I

c
O

W
W
n.

co

'D
" W
N 3
01 c
r-I
O

W
CD

0.

r1

W
I
"
'D

Q)

a)
V

01

ID
L4
0.

r to
%-.
N 3
01 C
r-1 O

E
W. a
m fa
+> >

0)
m
-r1

in F-

132

'D

%I
N 3

co

m
H
(1

O)

01

O1 C
r-I O

OD
W

c
., I

7
1-

TABLE 6.12.

Specific
formula

1m n.
Maker
cc>.

weights
adopted

Horsepower
(PS)

Type

types,

of some engine
in the program.

RPM

and comparison

KG/PS

with

Weight in
tonnes

Weight in
tonnes
Eq. 10

w ". 4 +3

r-I

m
CD

0
N

OD
EL=
m " m

m
"r1 0) -0

CD
m

-1

CL
mm

c+

01

"rq

40,900

94

31.8

1300

1544

Sulzer

9RND105M

41,400

108

32.1

1329

1388

Sulzer

9RND105

36,000

108

35.4

1274

1234

B&W

12K90GF

40,900

114

31.4

1284

1312

MHI

10UEC85/180 E 38,000

120

27.5

1045

1182

B&W

9L55GF

12,100

150

23.6

285

374

MHI

8UET52/90D

9,000

198

16.8

151

232

PC

12PC4V

18,000

400

9.7

175

229

MAN

12V40/54

6,700

430

11.4

76

146

MAN

12U52/551t

12,66U

450

10.3

130

155

PC

12PC2-5U

7,800

520

8.6

67

91

Diahatsu

8PSHTb 26D

1,000

720

12.1

12.1

12.36

BUSHTb26D

2,000

720

10.1

20.2

22.13

720

11.3

9.61

10.78

Yanmar

13
mU",

LH

12L90GF

it

" 0
0 "14C

B&W

6GL-DT

850

6ZL-DT

1,400

720

10.9

15.26

16.39

85H24Ac-5

1,600

900

7.2

11.52

15.21

S16NTK

1,000

1,200

6.0

6.0

GE(aero)

LM2500

20,700

3,600

0.24

GE(heavy
(duty)

Model
5000B

28,000

4,670

6.9

MHI

MS40(HP)

20,000

6,307

1.2

MHI

MS40(LP)

20,000

3,420

2.1

MHI

0m

it

w- cm
*
N

(D*
E ""i
H

OD
:3
U) 4)

8.05

4.3

NOTE: In

the

case

of

and condensers
not

steam
are

turbine,

included

it

will

and for

included.

133

be 10 kg/PS
gas turbines

if

reduction

reduction

gears

gears
are

TABLE 6.13.

Summary of

S T

Y
P
E

H Y
I P
P E

Main

BHP/10

Single

Screw

weight

Eq.
No.

equations.

Twin Screw
Coeff.
Factor

Aux.
+ 200

0.95(BHP/10

1
+ 200)

1 . 10

4.31

CD
k

60

62

39

70

Aft

55

74

Aft

53

72

Amidshi
Aft -5io

SS 3-15

1.0

302(BHP/1000)0.55

1.02

BHP(895-0.0025
BHP)/104

Aft

48

75

Aft

41

75

300

Amidship

35

76

9.38(LP)0.84
RPM
0.56(BHP)0'70

10
11

Aft
mainly

35

77

SHP 17 + 280
0.95 SHP 17+280

12
13

1.10

60

62

AVG 24g(SHP/
1000)0'

14

313

1.267

MIN

230

15

301

1.309

it

51

65

MIN

213

16

289

1.357

Aft

39,
55
39

70,
74
70

55

74

G
G

BARASS

BHP/18 +

225

C
Q,

214

WET

BARASS SHP/30 +
500

C .41

CARREYETTE
244(SHP/1000)

4.2

TS 61-120

6.4(BHP/100)

AVG

E
CD
N

Year

L
.F4

Ref.
No.

SHP x 1 0

SS 8-60

CD
ED

Machfinery
position

Range of

4(BHP/100
2.3
(BHP/loo)
WET 6.3(BHP 100

C
vCo

machinery

(5HP/1000)0'5

[7.18(sHP)0.4

0 . 58
p

WATSON 0.16(S

T#

BUXTON 8.8(SHP)0"

Amidships
Af
Amidships

Aft

17

301

1.338

SS 0-0
TS 616120

18

367

1.631

TRP 121-180

426

1.893

Quad-181-240

1.15

Aft

SS 0-20
TS
20

Aft

5 2,54
53

Aft

37

SS 17.532.5

23

P9 24

At

SS 3-15

Amidship s 35

12.58.0

Aft

68
76

OLD
35

Contd.

134

70,74
72

77

(Contd.

TABLE 6.13

T
Y
P
E

ST
HY
IP
PE

Single

Screw

(Main

WET

05
8.8(SHP)
5

5.0(SHF

26

12.2

1.386

27

200(SHP/1065728

100(SHP/100B)
C

Range of
SHP x 103

15-120
SS 0-15

Mlachinery
position

Ref.
No.

Year

Aft
Aft

Aft

61

78

type

Aero

29

1.10

53

72

30

1.10

53

72

31

1.12

53

72

32

61

78

431

EO
L'

Twin Screw
Coeff.
Factor

Aux.

WATSON
modified

Eq.
No.

type

Indus

172(SHP/1008)5
C

182 (BHP/1000)

WET
180(BHP/1000)

'62

.D
3 *0
= m

0.57

CD
E
Type

Ship
C-

Container

T-

Tanker

B-

Bulk

G-

General

A-

All

L-

Liner

All

carrier
cargo

types

formulae

weight

in

marked

like

this

BHP or

tonnes.

135

SHP is

in

metric

horse

power

and

(60)

1962

for

limited

was
Since

that

weight

of

15000,

date

there

14%,
This

METHOD

Erichsen

in

twin

existing
(55)"

with
1974

METHOD

3:

container
to

similar
METHOD

4:

This

formula

ship

design

that

METHOD

in

ing

(35)
to

was

and
give

for

as

medium

Equation

of

some
speed
10

SHP of

installation

weight

in

carrier

a bulk

(48),

but

(67)

for

in

for
and

0.55
equation.

originally

as

the

by

is

set

of

line

mean

ships

weight

main
diesel

estimates

the

and

types

Erichsen
6.3

used

design
as
(39)

6.4

to

by

used
and

reflect-

is
by

main

accurately.

136

1977

(35)

and

found

because

amidships.
latest

Watson
into
formula

slow
in

Table
engine

and

available

& Gilfillan

in

main

weight

is

engine
also

A cross

both
shown

in

10,11

the

broken

Barrass

Gilfillan

machinery

engines

the

formula

same

from

and

10,11

is

liner

cargo

by

formulae
with

is

suggested

Watson

than

ship

in

used

was

installation.

speed

of

study

diesel

medium

Swift

by

study

both

validated

index

is

The

for

later

an

1971

auxiliaries.

of

for

liners.

formula

weight

container

in

changed

cargo

weights

and

for

Marad

and

constant

compared

: This

7.

by

1975

was

(41)

formula

is

Method

applicable
was

in

are

program
(53)
1973

design

for

for
all
suggested
(35).
The total

weights

1978

the

higher

formula
METHOD

in

This

h. p.

only.

weight

6:

engine

a computer

used

equation

formula

but

higher

METHOD

in

containership

earlier
(55)
Swift

was

main

in

turbine

& Polko

weight

Sen

is

another

had

period.

developed

It

used

Groeneweg

This

by

program

It

program

comparison
5:

(39).

in

formula

The

for

here

were

that

by

superceded

3,4,5

of

range

120,000

installation.

steam

design
by

reduction

been

formula
of

during

with

developed

earlier

preliminary

diagrams.

1970

screw

This

developed

containerships

to

compared

been

has

method

horsepower

possible

containerships

formulae

and

single

has

These

2:
by

highest

and

The

ships.

cargo

to

operation.

ships

general

speed

applicable
check

diesel

6.12.
weight

1977

quite

with
as

well

Comparative

Evaluation

The

formulae

two

auxiliaries
Up

is

40,000

to

Eq.

11

hp

vice

side

of

hp

are

hp

Eqs.

intermediate

the

wider

range

Also

the

of

the

horse

mode
of

requirement
As

unloading.
the

requirements
fuel

bills.

ships

were

equipped

the

by

31
Volker

are

shown

all

as

low

at

powers.

good

agree-

because

selected

in

shown
in

it

for

applicable

by Eq. 11 is

Eq. 6

and
giv

gave

as

other
with

5&8

in

in

have

a
6.12

Table

close

lower

lower

agreement

aft

access

out

earlier,

diesels
the

this

type

of

1973,100

of

of

and this
as

to

power

advantage

engine

confined

loading

higher

1974,

after

largely

of

because

trailer

the

crisis

makes

ships,

for
for

weight

height

RO-RO

have

oil

specific

engine

and

speed

are

formulae
by

developed

equation

31

than

in

1973
in

shown

either
the

giving

between

Marad

was
which
6.5.
The Eq.

Fig.

weight

for

available

(61),

1978

machinery

difference

r. p. m.

specific

30,000

Eq.

for

completed

Eq. 10 & 11

with

than

is

it

and

either

in

shown

ships

to

rose

size

of

Teu.

The
Eq.

was

on

other,

ships

& 11

40,000

above

each

propulsion

fore

with

They
1000

of

Before

ships

6.11.
than

actual

given

pointed

slow

lower

Table

high

.
Eq.

Eq. 6and

and

weight

attractive

22% of

power

quite

less

powers

diesel
engines
speed
6.12)
Its
and volume.

Table
an

horse

same

11

by

above

the

to

power

Eq

and

and

lies

close

10

4
is

lie

for

Eq.

of

weights

Diesel

Medium

it

carriers

practice

auxiliary
4.

Speed

Medium

bulk

Eq.

current
of

Eq.

with

(see

6.

Eq.

reflects

for

plotted

points

with

ment

gave

between

results

A few

1&2

horse

the

estimated

Eq.

Eqs.

higher

at

underestimates

by

difference

at

For

auxiliaries

that

5,8,9,6

overestimates

giving

less

.
7

Eq.

of

the

estimating

6.4.

the

and

40,000

equations.

and

than

for

available

weight

greater

6.13

Fig.

were

the

versa,

weight/h

in

shown

formulae

1-7

Table

in

given

weight

machinery

Methods

of

eq.

Eq.

heaviest
32

from

137

Table
used
10
31

6.13,
in

& 11
or

machinery
eq.

the

estimating
(53)
and the

10

other

was

the

weight,
developed

compared
These

program.
lighter

gives
32

Eq.

weight.
& 11

is

with
The

between

U"f
L'i

r)
If)

Lr)
c

4;
c

0\

\\\'

\'

k-j

m
W

4
.,,.
-C

v
U
N

\\\

1\

ID
CL
0
31

\\\

o
r-4
o

'~
c,

%-

\\

\\\

\\ \\

w\\\

0_\\\

31

u
4-3

>1
m

1\I
1\ 10
\
nc4
111

\\

\\

4-4
C;

-a n
tV

\\

.-1*AI

W-4
``

;
c:

ID
rn
.i
t

,_o
qo,%r'

:'\N.

.
v
.

1=

Q
`4

H
H
"

o r
H
Er IZ
N

"

zH

O
H
N

lo

IIIIIIi1III1III
0
0

0000000
0O
!7NN

0Q

t0
.-1

aauuo,4 uT ly6TsA
1 'S

.i

rl

AsauTyoft

r/

m
E

it
E

111x

\ \\\\

cd

t"f

1\

\\\\

Z\

\\\

\\1

\\


C
0
0.
-4
m
0
s
v
0

c.
v
v
0
c.

0
v
L
o

m
3
N

C
+i
U
O
IA
t0

rn

wl
L-

"8uuo1 UT 445TOM AzOuT40*W

139

to

23%
it

10

fairly

gives

6.12

Eq.

50%.

is

diesel

and

Steam

Turbine
The

engine

speed

advantages

their

of

very

low

true

is

Equally

volume.
board

for

etc.

Also

in

steam
be

can

boilers

the

quantity

of

fuel

fuel

quality

is

a decisive

from

Table

over

to

6.11

diesel

and

subsequently

the

shipowners
to

in

here,

reviewed

as

considered
1:

METHOD

and

1977,
and

the
to

METHOD
suggested
and

This

was

Erichsen

turbine

6.13.

Of

upper
120,000
2:

an

This
by

later
(39)

plants

these

alternative

formula

12,13

of

1979

even

1973
forced

in

the

1962

were

derived

and

are

from

formulae

are
is

not

plant.
Watson

by
the
48%

of

in

1962
(35)

in

author

increased

range

estimating

since

27, by

weight

steam

with

installation

eq.

change

for

15000

hp

from

15,000

in

p.

formulae
Benford

in

modified
and

to
of

these

of

in

apparent

crisis

developed

updated,

limit

is

for

propulsion

a decrease

many

turbine

steam

although

engines.

forced

suggested

Each

subsequently

reflecting

1962

been

containerships.

converted

(60),

have

steam

in

costs

gm/bhp-hr)

difference

It

the

of

200

diesel

the

oil

built

existing
containerships
(63,64,65,66).

propulsion

of
Table

fuel

convert

formulae

the

after

of

because
(

were

tanks

of

newly

engine

now.

on

(quality)

few

than

rather

shipowners

in

washing

speed

factor

many

rises

diesel

slow

and

steam

grade

of

power,
6.12)

having

consumption

of

saved,

that

to

weights

fuel

of

(Table

very

type

propulsion

Various

lowest

speed

are

ranges

and

Table

slow

engine

of

However

gm/bhp-hr)

The

both

benefit

in

shown

weight

heating

specific

(140

to

compared

the

as

higher

specific

because

program

rotary

the

with'this

higher

relatively

shown

simple

burned.

installed

are

the

weights.

drives,

auxiliary

fuel

plant

diesel

in

the

weight
estimating

this

of

in

used

for

particularly

because

ships

main

applicable

medium

considerable,

bunker

was

good

it

and

& 11

Swift

eq.

14,15,16

1965

(51)

for

(Table
for

container

(55).

These
140

general
ship

6.13)

was

cargo

ships

studies

formulae

are

by
generally

this

of

form

WM =Kx
Erichsen

the

expanded

screw

configurations.

METHOD

3:

and

by

studies
Eq.

20

with

machinery

gives

4:

METHOD

21

to

5:

the

first

in

Miller
(54).

1972

Method

developed

2 for

by

weights

of

built

purpose
therefore

user

ships

Chryssosto-

converted
containership
higher
gives

21

eq.

25

26
of

the

the

eq.

Shp

of

2,3
in

&

14

to

modified

Methods

26

index

an

Eq.

considered

by

&

had

was

index

in

as
not

given

27

was
and

the

with

4.

thesis,
some

agreement.

introduce
is

Shp

This

and

was

Watson

suggested

28

27

eq.

good

installation

steam

Eq.

ships

weights

easily

types.

ship

and

and

gave

by

given

previously

weight

data

was

all

equations

eq.

can

for

built

analysis

ship

24

eq.

Eq.

0.5,

these

the

in

equations

program

considered.

Turbines
type

This

(230

sumption
fuel

quality,

Its

space

have

ments

are
Since

get

weight

advantages,

the

one

the

they

better

are
for

the

performance
costly

fuel

extra

of

that

Table

highest
is

do

not

failure

installed

with

not

economical

for

ships,

to
fuel.

of

grades
6.12,

ships

naval

con-

sensitive

The

costs.

fuel

where

of
gas

'Euro

turbines

merchant
design

ships,
require-

different.

quite
only

a new

and its
requiring

much

although

has

gm/bhp-hr)
thereby

for

proved

installation

of

and

compensate
(68)
liner'

to

in

than

from

1968,

(35)

1977

validating

Gas

the
in

recently

An

The

by

quadruple

containership

Hancock

was

derived

and

formula

23

as

actual

other

less

21

eq.

since

unlike
Eq.

given

if

(37)

This

reflect

but

formula

in

0.89

in

and

and

developed

was

weight

triple

weights.

Gilfillan
of

1973

operation

machinery
METHOD

include

used
(53)

19

aft.

ships

into

20

eq.

machinery

1968

container
came

in

This

in

midis

to

subsequently

Marad

14 to

eq.

formula

formula

This

(52),

1970

SHP0'5

formula.

ships

have

been

However

built

Frankel

141

so
(53)

far

it

suggests

is

difficult
two

formulae

for

one

type

industrial
heavier

than

type

aero

30

eq.

the

former.

considered

in

the

can

be

introduced

6.4.

GUIDE

The

CNT

container

and

the
two

guide

this

reason

be

equation

made

largely

the

is

suggested

that

of

the

guide

and

weight

container

subsequently

by
6.33

Eq.

dependent
the

give

stability
capacity

different.

misleading

the

the

on
container

be

may

For

weights.

following

tons,

form

where

container

guide

the

of

the

of

ship,

dimensions.

given
actual

This

which

is

and

thus

assumption

(Table

data

ship

(GWT)

weight

capacity,

geometry

some

data

older
heavier

of
guide

based

probably

construction

weight

design

6.2)

as

of
the

and

giving
6.33

eq.

actual

on

twice

nearly

Ships
is

conversion

9-10-11
about

2/3

are

carried

in

It

follows

that

weight

weight.

calculated

hold

of

are

thus

Assuming
the

equation

6.14.

1-8

recent

the

ship

Table

of

of

against

are

one

modification,

And

CNTHLD 0.92

function

calculated

only

Teu.

is

ship

can

the

equations,

tons

dimensions

hold

and

same

of

Ships
ships,

of

function

in

in

capacity

equation

for

shown

not

adopted

checked

was

turbine

used

given

CNT0.92

constant

is

been

requirements.

GWT =Kx
is

installation

without
is

this
it

Therefore

times

(GWT)

has

weight

0.713

operational
of

12

steam

weight

This

capacity

ships

for

user.

studies

Container

of

like
the

other

being

type

guide

containership

The

of

by

1970.

GWT
where

latter

but

the

estimating
(46)
available

various
(39,53,55).

the

the

and

(WG)

WEIGHT

in

29

This

program

For

was

'

eq.

that

2/3

the

rest

can

be

the

of
1/3rd

made

containers
the

on

directly

deck.
a

function

of

the

hold

capacity.

GWT = 0.713

x 1.016

x CNTHLD0.92

= 0.724

x CNTHLD

0.92

tonnes
Eq.

or

alternatively

if

the

total
14z

capacity

is

only

known

then

6.34

C
0
4-)

rn

"rl Lf1
m
tD

t0

-0
.,.j .
JQ
0 LaJ

1D
t0
M)

IT
co

O
O

-1

te)

co
H

co
CO

t")

L17
C'')

V))
O

N
N

C'7
N

U)
r-1
L')

co
t0
t0

r-I
N
N

Q
11
U)

to
t0

LO
N
t')

01
0

01
t0

t0
10

O
01

C14
r%I

r-I
ri

j.

N
r-1

U (d
QU

"

"

t0

"

"

"

"

t0

10
0

"

C)1
O

"

O
CD
0
"
r-I

:: 3 N
"
ri

ID
_0

t0 "rl
U70

01

U)

10

CD
T

U)

U)

O
d

.
OD

co

r-4

-*

r-I

U)

_0
.,

01

t0

l;:

t0

t0

C
0

to

to
t0

01

4-)

4.)

0)
ca

N
U

3
c
CD
(D "r4
fa 01 O
fa
U C"rl
C "r1 7
O
4Q1
"rl

L")

CO
t')

U)

N
H

0
CD
r-I
;

14
tD
01

C4
O
r-1
ti

co
N
H

r-I
tq

*
11
CA
t
O

LO
)
I

r-i

r-1

I
10
O
01
rf

U)
M
U)

U)

10

tO

tD

-*

ri

U)
in
N

d
te)
O
t"7

13
CD
tD
CL
W

CO
tD
N

N
in

r-I

d
N

Ln
1

t-)
0
r-I

co
rl

C
"rl

4
t
rn
m
3
m
'O
.,.

4J
. r1

r-I LO
0a

N.

t0

ID

r-I

Q
40

r-q 4-3

C
0
",

+j

co

(D W

U)

d h-"
41

N)

ri

ri

tO
t+)

L')
t+)

O
O

O
ri

U)

r-I

0
N

0
L")

Lf)
N

to

N
r-1
N

Cr)

r-I

r-1

tn

U)
Cr)

M
d

co

tp

01

in

CV

t")

L)

L.C)
Lt)

--I

CD

"N

t1
m

-V
(a
H
cc

OD
crO.

.ri

t0
.

z.

tD
r-4

D
ca

1
.-i

in

co
I
tn

ON

a
E
0
U

-.1
ri

o
N

r-1

U3
N

N
to

r)

4-)
U

Lt +3
tp r-1
ID "ri

co
t0
01

7
m

ri

.i

co
tD
as
ri

to
t0
as
r-I

co

t0

01

O
tD
01

ri

r"1

ED
0
O1
H

to
t0
01

to
tD
01

ri

ri

O
CO
as
.-i

Co
as

O
CD
as

ri

rf

FFI fN
m
+3 C
'D
0) 0
C
C: -H
=3

L7

U)

143

M3

tD

CT

r4

r-1

r-I

N
r-1

+5
0A
H

crIl

t
W
J
m
d
F-

t')

r-I

P4
.r.,

GWT = 0.713

The

CNT0.92

0.5

-v

estimated
6.14.
Table

in

6.33

until

some more
6.35
eq.
.
6.6
together

and
Fig.
6.5.

CENTRE
GUIDE

are

Each

of

with

without
to

actual

are

Therefore

in

plotted

data.

ship

OF STEEL,

eq.

modification
6.34
eq.

validate

equations

some

that

show

accurately.

retained

shown

OUTFIT,

MACHINERY

AND

WEIGHT

of

weight

showed

for

search

gravity

were
the

quite

available

is

equations

12-13

ships

these

OF GRAVITY

centre

to

weight
is

these

of

guide
6.33

data

A literature

Most

either

two

eq.

program

6.35

Eq.

against

the

estimates

the

in

by

checks

CNTO'92

= 0.483

tonnes

weights

However

CNT0.92

x3x1.016

of
that

steel,

there

simple,

outfit,
were

ship,

methods
(KGS),

for

of

few

centre

thereby

and

methods
of

the

estimating

machinery

very

the

relating
the

depth

for

equations

guide

available.

gravity

of
the

neglecting

weights

effect

of

fullness.
Various
(KG)

steel
(KGGW)
guide
of

and

weights

comparative

evaluation

data

to

points

Table

the

of

centre

the

validate

selected.

carried

gravity

the

steel,

in

few

very
the

results

formulae

outfit,

were

chosen

reasonable

summarises
of

and

There

out.

gave

of gravity
(KGM/C)

below,

equations

which

6.15

centre

machinery

indicated

are
is

equations

so

program,

the

estimating
(KGOUT),
outfit

for

were
estimating
and

machinery

guide

weight.
STEEL(FKGS)
Seven
centre

of

1:

the

ship

METHOD
in

1972

per

This

size
2:

of

as

for

developed

were

gravity
to

referred
METHOD

equations

steel
6.15.

Table
1

is

increases,

the

equation

3,4,5

for

dry

the

cargo

was
vessels,

144

latest

Taggert

KG/D

the

estimating
the

weight,,

by

containerships

This
(56)

the

equation

for

available

value

in

specifically
(27).
1980

are

and

As

decreases.

developed
taking

equations

by
into

Schne(kluth
account

the

sauuo4

ui

3u2-Tam

145

apznj)

4-

"

m0Z

Co

to

U)

Uo
U)

UO

U)

L43

N
N

m
01

U)
N
01

co
(D

N
01

O1

UO
01

>-

r-I

ri

r"i

r'i

ri

ri

C.
r-1
L

fa
Lo
. I-)

7
Q

4-)
LI

CD
01

Ol

co

>

4.)
7

ri

co

ri
-Y

CD
C
L
U
U)

03
C
L

>

0)

r-I

Co

CD

LI

CD
C
L

a
7

U)

a)

U)

co

CO

UO
01

CO
(31
,-i

V7
N
01

U)

Co

N)

CO
01
ri

U)

CO

CC)N UO
01 01 01

UO

ri

CO N

NdM

. -

ri

r-I

4.)

m
0

O
Q1
I-

m"rl
>. 'O
N ".i
LE
U

ID

mm

a-)

Nmm
(0

N m
co
m
O1 F(

m ".mi +J
(N
>: -0 +)
fa "r1 0
L EU
U)
U

On

O1 G-1 O) "-I
CT a cA t)
(0 7 >" ""I
i- YNE

L
U

O
U)
N

V/
^

^
04
0
CD

co

"-.
m
O

co
N
a.)

0)
C
O

O
X
i1

"rl

m
C

"ri
'fl
a

.,

r-4
r-l

(0

N
ch

4O

"rI

a)

co
Q

:3

m
H
4-3
C
m
U
(D
L
4.)
01
C
"rl

(a
E
" rl
4-3
0)
CD
4O
m
(a
rl
E
H
0
U..
LC)

LLJ

CO

U)
co

C;

"
O

ri

m
C
",-I

J
\/
N

Co

r"I
N
N

.. i

CD
O
O
"
0

U)
M
"-I
"
O

....
X

U)
N

"

ri
0"
O

r-l

m"

UD
"

X
U)
U)
"
O

t0

J!

c0
O
O
"
O

X
^
U)
"

Uo
I

O
JIM
-. I-/
.

LO

%D

0
v

. _,"

0
0

U)
CO

"

ri

00

"

X
X

^
U)
"
UO

U)
M
r-1

UO

"
O

in

.. v

LO
Q

"

X
U)
U)
,-i
"
O

.-1
O
0
f4-

^
U)

X
^

rn

co
UO
C3
p
0

.v

%13
d
+

X OIO

X C31C3 X OIO

O
X

"

4-

N
X N
X N
X N
X
^
^
^
^
Jl O r-I J1 O ri Jl O r-I Jl CI ri
O
v
O
%-/
%-., O
%-" 10
"
"

J
.

Vf

"

"
U)
N
ri

"

U)

.4300

O
C)
"

"

r1

^
0
"
Lo
N
ri

1
J

v
X

^CD

I m.

0^

"r1 r-1 "rI

"

0
U)
N
^
J

L
N
P
-t m
7 CD 3

4-) "r1 4-)

O
E-E
W

4-

U)
v

X U)
..

ri

UO

U)
N

U)
N

r-i

r-1

r-1

"

co

0
CD
(-4
U

ca
H

O F- O
XXX

N
d

U)
UD

NU)
ri U)
"""
OOO

Li
U
N

m
.

OD
N

H
H

N 4-)

cc
U

CD Co
+)

r-1

3U
CL C
E CD
OE

C.) O

ri

C9
Y
J

F-

Cf1

N
O
Y
J

1(f)

C'")
(9

d
C7

U)

UO

C9
Y
J
H

Y
J

0
Y
J

F-

FU)

in

F-

in

N
('U

r-{

N
CD
Y
0

J
N

0
Y
0

U)

: E3 :E3

,-i

.-i

C7 (. 7 C7

0
F-

-Y
. -1
:3

YYY
U) 0
E: i=

:a

C7

M
C7
Y

U)
E:

:23 3

II
U

m
am

i a
",
L>.

C.)

cn I-.

U
C7

U
U

C.)

CJ

CU UU

F4

I_-

'm
.,()i +)

1331S

1I3 1fID

1-1

0)

U
W

"rI
7
CO
A

OO

ri

(I')

146

UO

O]

01

O
ri

ri

H
CD
C
.,

4-3
C
0
L]
11

r-1 NMI
ri

"w

CL
", I
L
ID

D
W
J
m
Q
F-

"

m
C
CD
a
11

r-I

in

variation

type
Cb

coefficient
with

actual

and

applicable

D1

ford.

(sheer

=D+

CBD1

= Cb

+ 0.25

CBD2

= Cb

+ 0.5

This

was

dropped

120

m,

3:

METHOD

These

the

against

the

length

of

these

to

for

size
and

same

KG/D

KG/D

lie

between

ship

data

gives

Ref.
6.2

No.

of

the

by

and

the

were

both

the
with

following

1-45

of

plotted
(Table

6.2)

with

increasing

Equations

remains
The

against

constant

values

of

5 actual

values.

Calculated
Eq.
1 Table

KG/D
6.15

% Diff.
in
from
actual

36
33
32
34

0.572
0.590
0.542
0.593

0.5697
0.5717
0.5972
0.5761

-10.18
2.85

35

0.648

0.5558

14.22

147

the

centre

6.7.

values

for

relate

Fig.

speed.

KG/D

developed

was

ships

A check

0.55.

than

xDm

The

depth

KG/D

term

less

They

depth.

characteristics,

to

Actual
KG/D

0.001

in

in

by

shown

Dl/D

ship

dated.

for

ship

of

framing

Kupras

the

given

the

sheer.

framing

by

study

function

increases
0.45

heavier

a bit

speed

value

with

are

methods,

a particular

the

Ship's
Table

of

ships

length

and

divided

steel

the

show

light

-(p)

6
and

as

gravity

with

was

(1

2)+

Other

m.

ships

for

D,

+0.2%6

parabolic

modifications,

gravity

equations

of

of

180

for

carrier

And

5.

studies

of

each

minor

eq.

gravity

for

with

centre

containership
centre

in

= STLKGIEq,

STLKG2

bulk

used

D and

than

aft)/7.0

Cb)(DTT)

validated

follows:

as

sheer

were

-0.5%

less

Cb)(DTT)

(1

from

steel

(1

was
equation
(48),
eqn 2,

1975

defined

are

of

length

of

block

ratio,

formulae

a deviation

ships

equations

The

ratio.

giving

for

L/D

construction,

L/B

and

ships

in

values

of

0.40
3.10

KG/D

11
Q.

_:C
.

I +isx0

.._..

ix0

f-

.+*u0""

14

/"

It
i

r.

"
14 0

1N
C'7
w

.,..!

{.

0 `"

+x.

,"

Li
-z
/

++.

U'
r.

41 "

.a"

+.

:+, xx0+#6

C,
i,_,
iU

F-

W
ii

LiJ
Li
.}.

-i
LLI

i1:i. ax
Y#"
%i x"

""
11

1: '{

P-1

+.
* 't '4# *0

T_
-11

Fro

fi.

CL

+,

LL

W
J

`F1 $""
!t"

:}

:a:
L:
W
CL

10
it

JM

r,
*.

u
A

r-4

9
t "

?kSJ
.}K"
4.

*0

r-

cl
Uj

:+x.
y ri"

rd

lD

l-4

fl

# * r

IZI

c i,

+:

i. 1..

T_

.y
1J

*X0

W
F-

.4

1.L

f r,

hIiI1Ii1"ILLI

r-1

-4

Oi'-+l,
CT"0? f", OLOd-c,,? f"J-4t;. R'"Vf- yiLCtifvrr.
(, - L u? 7P j j D ti ~11.L? UiUiV? LfU?Ui tr? Lfit1"a-1 ` 7
wS

S, V1 F, alSt

S@

PiiVr

tnfmtD

+1
W
LJ
1_+

"+

W*
W*

F- A

Is' lD Ce fy G, Clo

-=
LJ
LJ
F- 171
V?

(17,

^+
ovD*OL,
r+
F-

Y+O

r..
- *

L,

EL
1

'"r
)K

=t

Lai

F-

f-

r)

Cl' "p

ti

Ir

148

1=1 "

'1 r
C'

LSbWO

s-i tL iSZ,

JJ
LJ
WWm

'?

rt v

'
Am
W\0

lC
rn
"-" '..

tS
"

"
"

t3
. r. l Y
4.3

fI7

Except

for

the

of
with
2

Ships

for

eqn.

show

length

Eqn.

was

available

sparse

data

OUTFIT

(FKGO)

centre

and

described

1:

The

of

decrease

that

of

Steel

The

the

to

ships

by

study

by

Eq.

of

0.925.

except

ship

ships
of

the

estimate

36

the

in

Table

(27)

is

and

to

similar
steel.

weight
(see

divided

by

depth

6.8),

Fig.

the

is

slope

developed
and

for

the

though
lower

is

1.10

to

the

lowest

gives
Eq.

1.2

m above

than

for

the

three

actual

results

good
which

was

of

gravity

included

149

of

deck

for

above
smaller

containership
from

derived

were

methods

length

with

lies

dated.

these

value

shows

and

a bit

ships

1975

comparison

weight

for

(37)

gives

for

in

ships.

against

1.15

against
No. 41,
which

outfit

of

values
Eq.

the

1968

Kupras

here

used

developed

was

and

by

bigger

evaluation

centre

for

specifically

of

from

in

6.8.

8.

estimating

gravity

of

10

check

eq.

the

with

of

by

was

deck

KG/D

and

centre

gravity

formula

33

of

equation,

plotting

gives

1980

study

containership

between

KG/D

m above

Fig.

in

outfit

Chryssostomidis

in

shown

the

1).

A comparative
out

is

summarised

developed

was

indicated

carrier

This

converted

it

for
are

of

27 knots.

agreement

available

increases

formula

this

2.5

3:

METHOD

of

(Eq.

centre

by

deck

8,

length

a bulk

for

good

Eqn

m and
ships

since

These

Taggert

as

This

2:

gives

for
to

program

gravity.

gravity

of

only.

of

the

as

the

equations

estimation

rate

(48)

available.

by
the

METHOD

was

25

agreement

170

speeds

it

also

equation

containerships
for
1
eq.

decreases

in

good

than

eqn.

5%

within

briefly.

This

centre

m and

are

show

less

with

and

three

were

outfit

METHOD

250

length

of

adopted

that

There

6 and

agreement

than

latest

6.15

ships

ships

other

Eqns.

good

greater

35,

and

1.

equation

to

the

32

highest
of

the

of

110

m to

0.80

data

overestimate
in

the

wood/outfit

300

to
that

shows
to

agreement

and

with

between

ship

ship

value

length

KG/D

carried

Eq.

11

by

+5%

program

to

and

Hull

m.

I
T

in.
,.
i
=..

i r

w
t
.

u
i

a!

f-

N
.

11

i `.

..

iwco

..

+}.

Li

L
C.J

+.

:4.
+

V)

ES.
!AJ
r4

[',

i 3

LJ
Li

4: :43:

F--1 CL
j. . -

Fa-

Cu
11
4w
_
F-

`r.

W
J

.y

V1

##

4:

r.
.

Cl

t
}

k
4:
*
:4
:*

LL
Li
Lt

rl

Cl

CL

Ifl

T-C.

C;

LJ

F--

". r

l2:

4*
cl

ILL-

.. s'

.fal

F
C,

*
*

r-
F--

('v

F-

i.

$-A

it

+
I

CZ.

LL-

--

LL^

111

III
'ItLill

111 fil

11

III

II'l

LAIIIIIIIlIIUILIUIlIilllilillllll;

!i

ll

-I
. -i

6,
6
(,J
.r

U? S U? tv Lll Gti Lf.' C) Ui C, U7 6 LL @

( LO ('J tSt f"_ U? CM C f.. LU CtiJ 6 (' U?
, -4
ri

. -4
. -1

.r

, -1

TU G6

t-

rl

F-

a,

ti

1-1

01
Q1
Co ',

l9 Cr, CT O+ cT" AU Co Ci- - f""- r-

Vi

i'-f

I-

-4

EF

F-
[W.,

L4
Y7

,+n.
1Y

CO
-'

rtl

U-. 11 U? Z. LL 19
(V tT, ("- LD lll in

-.
174

4: m

C,

O-

iJ
.;

in

OIc

c;i
150

u' 00

Q1 @p

f f..

s'

Cn.,

engineering

weight.

Calculated
KG/D Eq.

36

0.837

0.8567

+2.36

33

0.907

0.8586

+5.33

41

0.984

0.8201

+16.66

Container
the

centre

was

not

had
of

METHOD

1:

the

This

draft

and
2:

METHOD

1980
centre
The
by

depth

for

and
six

installations

machinery

formulae
turbine

steam

depth

were

available

installations

of

for

one
these

and

gravity
of

centre

shown

in
with

by

gravity

methods
Fig.
steam

speed
weight

proposed

for

studies,

eq.

ship

was

these

ships

were

13

Kupras

in

a bulk

diesels,

where

was

a function

made

ship.

container
eq.

slow

machinery

the

of

by

proposed
for

equations

and
of

was
(48)

1975

in
(27)

12

gravity

These

installations

ship

in

of

centre

The

Three

eqn.

study

carrier

diesel

of

therefore

and

briefly.

discussed

are

in

gravity

for

installations

turbine

steam

two

and

(37,39,40,52,54,55,58)

studies

considered.

diesel

of

ship

past

the

(FKGM)

MACHINERY

in

% Diff.

Actual
KG/D

Ship
Ref.
No.
6.2
Table

were
6.9.

Chryssostomidis
as

of

machinery

A check

installations

151

in

function

given

plotted

steam
plant
(11)
by Taggert

of

divided
the

against
was

made

and

as

(37)"

1968

depth.
by

the

length
against
shown

of
data
below.

++

L.
W

1_

w
W
T

r.

E:

N
N
N

w
co
r
--7:

+
+

r
cv

L1i
-4

A
1

tJ)

X:
. -
-0
0
0
0

t
i
4

2
U
i

W
Z:
Q
T_

.il

Q'
CL

tII

+4

a
w
_
FU
z
w
J

17

C,

C,
C.

IOL
PQ

-1

ti
..

W
J
rn

4
4
+

?Li
z
. -+
Z
U

C'

U)

x
L`
0

rn
tA-

Q,

I
Z

CE
CL
E fG CL
U LJ

i
3

Gh

cr,
iV

4
4

0
f

m
N

uLulluumixi..

- ..... .

J.
U,
UL=MULULi.
-...
....
-....
U)
U)

mm

NJW
QWt
ce Nt
dWtz
: 3
YA

CD
U?

U)

d)

W
2EZ

r W

.,

RW
E
a0
FNE
QI
F-

M
10
N

11
all H Is I ul III M ul

@
tt

rr

1- W
(/1fY
00
0z
}Q
I

EM-

fi

152

r;

w
Fw
z
zp-4

Depth
M.

Draft
M.

Actual
CG

Calcul.
CG
11
eq.

Calcul.
CG
12
eq.

36

17.37

8.84

7.833

8.16

7.756

9.55

33

16.46

9.14

11.27

7.74

7.48

5.05

32
34
35
41

16.60
16.50

8.20
9.50
8.8

9.0
8.4
8.8
12.0

7.37
7.55
7.33
8.58

5.13
9.08
8.91

9.14

7.80
7.76
7.61
9.17

Ships
ef. No.
6.2
able

The

16.20
19.51

table

above
have

will

centre

11

eq.

in

the

There
estimating
Previous

the

centre

of

a centre

guide

engine

the
plant
12

eq.

weight

method

or

is

the

outfit

'Encounter

Bay'

guide

value
the

10.72

program

taken

was

WEIGHT

AND CENTRE

as

of

No. 33,
of

gravity
depth

the

of

gives

ref.
of

centre
65% of

gravity

which

m,
(ship

0.65

as

therefore

and

Centre

of

weight

weight.
weight

weight,

was

for

available

guide

developed.

were

in

the

of

taken

either

Therefore

container

gravity

gravity/depth

6.2).

Table

had

of

diesel

than

turbine

steam

estimation

of

equations

weight

guide

separate

steel

separate

For

installation

lower

machinery

for

and

diesel

with

(FKGW)

no

the

of
plant.

used,

was

studies

of

ships

10.73

program.

GUIDES

CONTAINER

no

be

the

gravity

turbine

may

included

part

of

steam

with

ships

that

shows

Calcul.
CG
13
eq.

of

the

ship.
6.6.

SHIP

LIGHT
The

final

is

weight

the

ship
Watson

metal

deposited

And

margin.

weight

to

required

+ outfit

allowance
light

item

weight

light

OF GRAVITY

make
ship

+ machinery

up

the

(WTLT,

light

FKGLTW)
ship

weight

= steel

weight

weight

+ guide

weight

margin.
(35)

& Gilfillan
and

the

rolling

153

suggest
margin

an

for

allowance
of

l%

of

the

weld
net

steel

weight.
the

of

purpose

of

attainment

figure

light

ship

the

displacement.
to

margin

another

The

gravity.

progresses

and

later

experiment

of

the

influence

their

(69)

Gale

the

by

from

Percentage

growth

figures

if

there

the
is

margin
centre

is

gravity

of

given

construction

the

of

ship

inclining

the

out

the

of

the

of

an

weight

the

centre

margin

can

study
of
(70,71).
above

reduced

is

given

various

and
by

design

ship

Following

the

are

studies.
50%

which

gravity

be

construction

of

the

of

the

of

did

ships

past

exceed.

not

Margin

Category

Preliminary

Weight
in

Rise

ship

height

light

ship

and
weight

(35)

recommends

ship

weight.
A

ship

a light

was
margin.

Except

Ships

of

light

about

ship

centre

of

1.03

and

2 to

3%.

gravity

+ outfit

for

is

2.0

weight

weight
+0.1

of

gravity.

45,

taken
margin
ship

machinery

tonnes

154

in

of
the

in

rise

2% of

data

ships

margin

light

of

& Gilfillan
of

ship

other

3-6%

m for

margin

A weight

Light

+ 0.3

actual

all

of

Watson

weight

some

growth

margin

m to

of

therefore

Therefore;

Design

4.6

ship

43

weight

program.

1.01

made

Detailed
2.6

ship

a margin
.
centre

weight

margin

the

check

light

gives

Design

10.9
CG

(27)

Taggert

ensure

weight

carrying

how

of

Hockberger

figures

to

ship.

cost

indicative

by

parametric

given

the

as

ship
the

that
of

The

program.

overestimate

ship

centre

verified

on

and
is

margins

the

an

light
is

growth

light

even

or

considered

exposition

the

and

margin

the

completed

A detailed

weight

Besides

the
is

margin

dead

on

weight

of

weight

weight

margin

in

adopted

light

be

the

because

is

specified

of

underestimate
load

This

on

have
3% of
program.

light

light

weight
the
And

weight

taken
in
m is
(steel
weight
=

weight

+ guide

of

+0.3

weight)

Ref.
Ship
No.
6.2
Table

% of

Wt.

ship
margin

light
weight

ship

36
40

15425
21844

432
508

2.800
2.326

32

7296

77

1.055

34

12762

427

14201

19o

3.345
1.337

43

24560

44

5020

1031
69

45

14872
14227

1125
300

33
And

Light

Light
ship
weight

light

ship

FKGLTW

weight

(WS x

FKGS

centre

of

+ WO x

FKGO

4.198
1.375

8.184
2.109
is

gravity
+ WM x

by

given

FKGM

+ WG x

FKGW)/

WTLT m
= FKGLTW

FKGLTW
light

The

ship

with

in

shown

are

of

of

is

which

of

centre

weights
The

gravity

were

21

ships

following

with

with

steam

known

actual

as

weight
a

mean
45

for

ship
23

were
in

plant

light

the

gravity

gives

There

the

are

by

light

12.15%

of
limits.

and

ship

of

weight

deviation

centre
in

ship

acceptable

actual

calculated

and

light

standard

and

weight

difference

propulsion

There

sample.

other

actual

for

validated

ship

within

diesel

with

ships

the

and

-9.0%

sample,

the

then

light

6.16.

Table

percentage

error

was

The

together

program

weight

6.2.

Table

data,

+ 0.3

ship
and

weight

calculated

values.
Ship
Ref.
No.
6.2
Table

As
both

Actual
Light
ship

CG (m)

Program
Light
ship

32

10.08

10.59

33

10.97

10.19

34

10.18

35

11.27

36
41

10.38
12.47

10.59
11.13

42

13.97

14.03

seen
light

from

above
ship

the

weight

-5.06

+7.11

10.26

-0.785

9.79

program
and

% Diff.
CG. (m)

its

155

gives
centre

reasonable
of

gravity.

+13.13
-2.02
+10.75

-0.429
results

for

Table

6.16.

M
"
CY
Y"

"

and centre

.;
s

.
.' -"^

UUN

Weight

M.
u.
4y

f-

Un.
CL
z

" :.

ti

CMYY

4O
r
31

&, 30

22F7.. L

I 11c. 8 12". 12

600.0

19.00

4406.0

4860.6

8". i6

'[2: 6.0

1145.3

12". ^C

60C. 0 71-. 00

4460.0

5170.5

8". 21

2312.0

I 1F7.1

12". C4

16C0. G 23". 00

4490.0

5452.2

e", 16

2327.0

75C.. L 1P", 00

59 70. C

6160

9". 67

? 435.0

1399.2

750.0

6001.0

6549.9

9 64
,

2445.0

14? 3.3

75C. 0 ? 1.00

6071.

750.0

? 3.00

6061.0

9 1000.0

18.00

6814.

11

1000. C 21.00

12

1; . 00

6871.1

9.58

2461.0

72? 1.3

9". 53

277.

7783.0

9,44

2513.0

1224 .1

1463.4
C

Y
C

.
1
.
0t
av

"
u! If.!

1.
M
f

S
0w

07

4675.6

`\w

"]
UO

43 55.0

.5

'o
.v?

woi

2NO
~4
UMq
q7
O

0
r"

I R. 00

1000.0

a
6.3'

S i6.0

11 78.0

120f.. 2

6.3E

541.0

? Sf

14 E3-. C

1422.7

6.38

530.0

256.4

&. 72

9 r94,

18P9.0

1477.!

6.3E

520.0

l12.2

&. 72

9549.0

1 L. 19

117&. 0

1225. w

7.? 6

679.0

311.9

14-. 16

13 56.0

1361.1

7.26

675.0

314.

174.7-. 0

t636c

7.26

66R. 0

? 113.. C

190G. 5

7.26

650.0

11 96.0

1241.2

7.26

959.0
955.0

11". 99

144.11

15G6.2

14,

1573.1

13.97

25r. t b. 72

C4U
"uY

-j

7360.1

d4e1,0
8722.1

.46.72

EiP
.+a

'. L
"P
U~J
-I

++M F
ULJ
6 Ut

1047.1

9EP-. 0

4
Or

p
y.
u ti
mO
n

6.93

1 }. 01

7736.. S

6. lt 6

11". 30

E331,. 0

6.77

p, 39

9106". 0

6.74

4.61

9646. S

1 G. 3S

F. 76

16.29

7.!

G. 3[

1O01.3

G. 3C

1053".

314,9

G. 3c

11285.9

11665.. 6

10.18

S. 5C

314,9

C-. 3c

117p2.. s

11345.6

1G. 08

3.05

3 C.. 3c

11P94-. e

41 &. C 1G. 17

4.01

41[,

1 1: C76.1

9 . 43

2517.0

15F3.6

13-.; 6

1392. C

1386. E

7.26

9". 3E

i530.0

1616.7

13.92

1601.0

16l0.6

7.26

945.0

9". 33

2546.

1656.8

13-. 67

226C-. 0

1969.2

7.26

927". 0

9-. 28

2561.

9 13-. E2

1600.. 0

1781.

7.26

924.0

9880.0

9". 24

2665.. G

1920.5

13". 78

1392-. 0

1389.9

7.26

192.0

9985.9

9.22

2672". 0

1932.4

13-. 77

16 00.. 0

1537.4

7.26

1194.0

SC3. E "6.3C

10280.1

9". 19

26F4.

1965.2

13-. 73

2077". C

1! 67.5

7.26

1186.0

s03.!

23". 00

11125. C 10630.6

9". 14

2659.0

2003.7

13.69

1423-. 0

1682.3

7.26

1176.0

503.!

"D. 3C

1250.0

25". 00

8129.1

11042.3

9.09

2717.0

204E.

18 59.0

1934.0

7.26

1162.0

503.!

0.30

1250.0

2 7", J0

81 L9.0

11518.1

9". 03

2737.0

2099.9

21 5(.. 0

2149.0

7,26

1146.0

503.!

C 1 5773.3

10". 15

3032". C

2642". 6 15,41

19 1a. c

2113.8

6.4C

1995.0

77t.

15950.5

10 . 13

3038.0

2659.8

21 s9.0

2022.1

8.40

19F9.. 0

776.3

tt. Ei

1225C.

C 16234.9

10". 10

334b.

2455.1

9.4C

19 F 1., 0

776.3

11. ES 2CP01 .4

1212e.

C 16556.9

10

O6

3C 54.0

2717.

G 15". 33

1905. C

1952.5

g. 4C

1971.0

776.3

1 O".:, 0

31 79.0

2 769

5". 2 7

2745-0

2229.2

B. LC

1955.. 0

776.3

2479.0

2456.3

g. LC

1936.0

776.3

11, LS 20425". 8 2 4809.4

9.65

31 52". 0

112 7,!

29395.5

12". 35

-14.50

29801.4

12.31

-14.19
-1 b. 39

6775.0

7874.6

6764.0

8175.

I000". 0 23". 00

6773.0

8526.6

13

1000.0

? 5".:, 0

6763.0

8857.

14

1250.0

1e.:,

8239.

15

1250.0

19. C0

8195.

It

1250.0

21". 00

E145.0

17

1250.0

18
19
2C

2ooc.

21

2000.0

19. D0 12391.0

22

2000..

21.30

23

2000.

24

20CC.

25" LC 12112.0

25

2000.0

27.00

26

3000. C 1E. 00

27

3000.0

19.100

16070.0

22025.9

11". 35

33t0".

2E

3000.0

21"1 OC 15889.0

22374.0

11.32

29

3000. C 23.00

E 11.26

3C

3000.0

25". L0

1$799.

23654.5

31

3000-. C 27" 00

tg926.

32

97. G 2; i-. 10

o 16". CO 12445.

C 23"-00

16063.

22.00

871F.

1336.0

22". bC

x761.;

35

1712. G 2v- 70

10056.

36

120Cr. C 27,00

10446.

37

16CC. C 2 5. CC

6650.

3F

200G

87C0.1

C 27" ? Cl

31. EL.C'

2 11.30

3335.0

15". 39

? 60,1

15,36

.11

2E37.5

15". 19

43

3045.

24,, C0
16,00
23". 00

13253-.?

S. 93

-7. e1

503.

0.3C

13986.

14155". 2 144e1". 1

1G. 01
G. 96

-2.30

7 15160.9

6.89

-1.13

13971.2

15374.4

6.9P

-1 0.04

14366.7

16107". 9

6.80

-12". 11

1D. 3C 14695.5

16876.5

6.72

-1 4-. D1

11. ES 20091.6

22107". 6 10.99

0-. 30

E 14206.6

1459&.

20291". 9 22215.2

1 i.. 98

-10.03
-9.48

22985.2

10.91

-10.50

/L. ES 19761.9

22834.2

iG, 93

-15.51

7t, E5 20100.6

23736.1

10.15

-1[..

10.75

-21-. 46

09

3357.0

3262.9

17", 4?

1899.

1946-. 6

9.65

3137.0

1127.3

15.67

25174.1

29804.6

12.30

3375.0

331C. E 17". 42

2194.

21l9.

9.65

3125.0

1127.3

15,67

23413.4

30695.2

12-. 23

-20.78

11 .1E

33 99.0

3369.8

17". S5

2.699-. 0

2471.. 2

9.6`

3104.0

1127-. 3 1S-. F7 25707-. 8 31785.1

12". 13

-23.64

24737.9

11,07

3437.0

3459.4

17". 24

2711-. 0

269t,

9.65

3082". 0

1127.3

1S. s7

26081". 9 33233.2

12". 01

-27". 42

7008.9

9.91

1495.0

1346,6

14.66

E26.0

1164.1

7.37

t%N. 0

38.3-. C 1 ). 75

7482". 2 10274.1

10.50

-37". f1

2 072.1

11,13

1547, C

1574.2

7". 4F

963-. 0

60 6.. 2 1}, 7C

14227". 0 16269.7

10.19

-14.36

3s7.. c

535-. 6 1}-73

12780.0

15030.4

1G. 26

-17.

672 .7

1"') .53

13 P00.0

17315-. 5

4E5.2

11.25

15425.0

17355.1

10.59

-12". 51

11250". 0

14735.7

11". 91

-3G. 96

14650.0

16596.9

11-, 44

-20.94

17650.0

23357-. 1 11-. 0

-31". 33

23782". 4L 1 C".65

-8,87

9 , 4.1

26: 9,0

9.51

205;.

= 12472.7

9, -0

C 11960.5

9,9C

1047C.

9865.9
127a0.2

11

, C6

10.66

19 07 .9

14,24

115&. 0

1S74.2

7. `. s

2C-5D. 0

2055.?

13". 66

1C35.0

148 S. 6

7., 33

<s1

223G.

210o-. 5 14". F

2155.6

7.76

376.0

1941.

15. 7

1936.2

16". 41

D. 0

1803.5

. 6c

a. 0

t32.2

ti.

2F00.0

2215.4

16". 12

C,. 0

2155.6

a. cc

c.:

77b.

3 1 2"1t

2155.6

a. EC

0".0

91!.

1 ii"tF

15.12

3352". C

2155.6

a. 14

0.0

70..

3005.2

b. SF

6. G

764.5

G. C

93:.

1 c; z. [

2762.0

16-, '"C

395C.. C

14800.1

18158.1

13,1F

9473.0

23#_22

2C". 14

C.. c

163E5.3

21046.9

12.. 71

if

3156.0

3851.5

8.66

12166.5

3.9E

64'. 0
997.0

25.6.

2792.. 4

19-. 64

95G. 4 12.. 59
C

2C57.4

tt

C". C

10.37

13". t2

42 EG. 0
543-. C
105C". 0

156

2773-. F 1G. 73
209_*. 2

6. SC

1414.4

6.

LG

7.52

1/.
I;

FS 21 944.0
2129G.
. 6F

7 1S"7C

tp31., p

1142.0

lc-.

6C

255.0

256.7

t.

97

95. C

25673.4

3 1S. E7 26; 75.2

215i0

C 19043.9

t005.

12293.9

1127..

2653.0

21"C0

O. 3C

3145.0

-0.7$

411.3

9.65

3556.

2436.

5.93

2326-. 6

9 . E4

42

13052.4

261G. 0

27 , WO 141.27. C 17402.6
0 1735G.

12950.9

17-. 52

16". 24

196b. 2 31".

6.30

1-. 17

3233.4

2576.0

41

41G. ]

4 10.03

i215.0

18CC..

12472-. 9 1232b.

17". 55

33 ".

4C

27SC, G

3.1E

12Q5&. 0 11674.3

G. 3C

3203.9

C 11435.1

13., 5E

10". 62

24CC. C 20" !0

17C`-.,:

3 13". 64

11SOC. C 16E56.5

39

550.0

9-. 9?

169;.

10.13

G. )c

<1D. 3

2311.2

22943.

4629,0

1512.0

17B36.3
L 2161C.

15823.0

34

17099.8

121e"6.0

33

45

4Y
o.

600.0

19.00

'

Y
a
7
4

calculated)

10

44

vereue

~
3__O

oa.

O"CYY
UM"1!
yU

(actual

of gravity

6 71. c

1;. "-`;

24273.0

0 2o542.5

1'72-.

11.13

25344-. 6 1 4.03

56 L1.0 29031". t
5C20.0

6.79

13.59

-25--47

-13". 97
-4.41
-14.21

6686.3

6.06

-331.18

0 15779.5

6.97

-6.10

CHAPTER
POWERING

ESTIMATES

7.0.

INTRODUCTION

7.1.

STANDARDS

7.2.

PROGRAM

7.3"

EFFECTIVE

7.4.

7.5.

OF SHIP

PERFORMANCE

STRUCTURE
POWER ESTIMATES

7.3.1.

MOOR-SMALL

7.3.2.

COMPUTER

PREDICTION

METHOD
ALGORITHM

OF DELIVERED
DESIGN

POWER

7.4.1.

PROPELLER

BY BP-S

7.4.2.

FIELD

7.4.3.

WAKE, THRUST DEDUCTION

ROTATIVE
EFFICIENCY

7.4.4.

DESIGN PROCEDURE

DIAGRAM

EFFICIENCY

SHAFT POWER VALIDATION

AND RELATIVE

7.0

INTRODUCTION
The
installed

the
total

horse

suite

to

of

programs.

incorporate

to

(a)

methods

based

method

horse

power

particulars

(b)

and

and

of

the

e. g.

(c)

1977

Swift

Other

efficiency.

In

this

have

been

by

resistance

the

this

step

open

water

method

open

B-series.

The

various

values

these

Consequently
propeller
be

is

is

tests

i.

for

propulsion

factors

(e. g.

series
(39)

open

Holtrop

BP-6

depart
and
a blade

cavitation

charts

mentioned
the

deriving

of

propeller
of

the

Wageningen
to

need
means

propeller

The

charts

the

to

Up

series.
(c).

of

and

that

try
the

from

the

optimum

efficiency.

also

the

ability

to

relate

that

is

likely

in

the

area
are

based

157

ones

from

derived

e.

the

performance

to

similar

,
Silver-

power.

attainable

of

are

on

1971

from

delivered

based

ratio
included
on

for

water

derived

to

60)

by

method
open

are

restrictions

acceptable

e. g.

methodical

however

features

efficiency

power,

etc.

propeller

average

is

to

of

propeller

of

the

several

may

scale

e. g.

approach

revolutions

efficiency

propeller

of

This

diameter
of

application

adopted

water

full

Erichsen

power

derive

from

efficiency

propeller

series

a different

combining

delivered

power,

factors

to

power

main

"

adopted.

horse

effective

the

components

deduction

propulsion

thesis

to

of

various

service

and

1969

propulsion

horse

relationships

empirical

it

(46)

horse

, and then
for
prediction

1967

the

of

one

trial

of

relating

of

methodical

effective

1974

(74)

above

on

of
(55)

leaf

based

be

used

analysis

thrust

1978

refers

easily

have

Chapman

the

of

(73)

and

effective

wake,

here

can

analysis

prediction

e.

efficiency,

A method

Other

for

but

past

statistical

components

prediction

to

on

i.

the

regression

ship

described

the

of

part

prediction:

ships

power

water
(72)

in

calculate

types.

ship

power

on

based

various

forms

existing

models

installed

hull

of

A method

ships

of

important

an
method

studies

to

chapter

The

all

Containership
following

fine

or

this

forms

power

containerships

extended

in

described

algorithm

well-known

program.

empirical

to

relationships
in

which

turn

the

derive

quasi

propulsive

gives

the

delivered

horse

as

shaft

losses,

service

allowances

such

machinery

derating

are

to

applied

coefficients,
Further

power.
conditions

derive

the

and

installed

power.
Thus

the

to

approximation
the

be

design

other

in

diameter,
or

a first

give

but

requirements,

propeller

units,

7.1

to

required

the

of

be
simplest

the

'new

given

also

deliver

Moor

designer

until

real

tests
the

data
the

performance

precise

is

the

is

has

'last

in

imperial

metric

units.

idea

of

each

and

A detailed

can

to

those

Moor

158

design.

the

ship

it

is

designed.

of

is

the

on
likely

Perform-

powering

standards
(1974).

estimation

performance.

ship

for

notion

based

the

(75)

This

the

if

adopted

design'

'last

performs

standards

of

if

even

the

at

evaluate

elements

And

the

judge

exposition
by

best

some

which
the

than

how

of

which

But

because

have

he

method

the

level

that

(75).

design'.

out

must

as

parameters

better

is

carried

for

given

effective

in

are

defined

introduced

for

is

propeller

with

are

known

it

no

which

briefly

own

design

of

is

performance

discussed

its

is

designer

standards

indicated.

(75)

against

The

values

set

that

are

blade

propeller,

program

output

performance

by

for

methods.
the

given

by

guarantee

Therefore

other

performance'
a

no

the

on

readily

studies

etc.

used

can

PERFORMANCE

standard

the

give

and

for

stage

parametric
of

within

of

design'

is

there

by

estimated

the

be

also

OF SHIP

performance

would

e. g.

thus

and

efficiency

input

'standard

nature

revolutions

can

STANDARDS
A

studies

calculations

and

in

modular

calculated

power
The

are

to

able

power

the

propeller

program

horse

is

for

ratio

area

ance

only

installed
of

program

used

changes

to

not

power.
The

past

the

characteristics

this

as

is

program

estimates

program
of

ship

RESISTANCE
Methodical
standard

of

best

resistance

them

plotting

level

attainable
data

in

resistance

decided

by

these

that

of

the

against

today

on
results

Such

single

basis

twin

and

of

prediction

assessment
NSMB (82)

at
(83,84).

the

These

in

a computer.

for

prediction

the

form

of

Bp-5

(79)

updated

(81).

Moor

However

they

since

do

It

coefficient
of
and

is more

and

propeller

open

relative

been

not

fullness.

and

rotative

taken

advanced

propellers

in

the

are
most

Wageningen-Troost

computer

faired

the

prediction

thesis.

this

efficiency

as

program

propeller
by

and

speed

has

the

Emerson

propulsive

presented

In
of

of

background,

is

for

misleading

approach

many

and

(80)

is

coefficient.

suggested
by

been

performance

propulsive

components

water

having

propulsive

efficiency

theoretical

be

quasi

an

open

While

been

hull
Such

Propeller

have

constituent

efficiency,

efficiency.

quasi

effects

the

up

the

determine

the

can

account

tobreak

water

data

optimum

for

the

of

coefficients
(35),
Lap

& Gilfillan

into

correct

not

reasonable.

performance

quality

relationships

take

for

the

propulsive

by Watson

(a)

resistance

relationships

quasi

forms

do

series

and

both

al.

series

thesis.

of

above,

determined

of

and

this

quality
as

Simple

et

of

standard

seems

as

FACTORS

PROPULSION
The

many

point

predicting

amount

attainable

Moor

(76,77,78)

ships

For

large

performance
by

starting

methodical

from

average

of

collected

was

screw
of

as

the

of

taken

ships

good

performance.

collation
of

But

attainable

resistance,

and

be

can

performance.

the

ensure
ship

series

Wageningen

be

159

stored

B-series

open water
efficiency
(83)
was used.

Sabit

results

equations
can

standard

suitable

B-series

regression
data

designed

in
easily
results
given

in

(b)

Hull

efficiency

The
for

hull

the

are

Series,

thrust

Cameron
because

both

Ship

the

all

is

dhp,

has

that

they

be

The

various

in

7.1

Fig.

screw
(1+x)

ships
froude'
As can

formula

given

average

hull

line

3-3

for

average

chosen,

far

as

wake

in

and
there-

was
(84).

A
for

developed

equations

found

for

available

efficiency

(85)

Comstock

and

Schoenherr's

equations
factors

propulsion

can

results.

the

to

apply

models

to

extrapolated
the

of

used

twin

but

is

data

from

seen
by

screw
with

8-8

condition

and

BTTP

65

hull

condition
given

line

screws

ships

ship

trend
best
3'-3'.
and

by

160

and

actual

7.1

hp

that

in

by

the

by

(75)

plotted.

7.2

twin

for

data

on

(simplified)

Scott's
lies

trial

condition

trial

1965

(89).

were
Fig.

were

Moor

Scott

by

line,

best

For

ITTC

BTTP

published

Therefore

Eq.

factor.

recommended

ships

Fig.

'YLD

adopted

presented
(l+x)froude
for

some

mean

as

For

by

EHP/

correlation

standards

single

together

is

far

power

froude

formulations

be

be

must

ship-model

(87).

been

for

so

delivered

(l+x)

superceded

and

and

standards.

rotative

these

interim

Scott

(88)

so

is

roude
the

by

developed

known

by

given

(l+x)f.
screw

any
best

mentioned

The

dhp

single

values

such

screws

standards

conditions.

then

where

series

elements

reasonable

conditions,

trial

the

are

recommends

twin

give

of

the

correlation

model

controlled

under

not

lines

regression

equations

be

(86)
and

as

different

can

single
and

Since

data

of

Cameron

calculated,

and

Schoenherr's

deduction

(86).

(c)

series

evaluation

determined

usually

resistance,

relative

from

thrust

wake,

with

random

and

are

efficiency

presented

efficiency

calculated

comparative

in

hull

deduction

fore

as

of

of

and

those

collation

estimation

be

and
to

rotative

elements
series

particular

However

relative

efficiency

methodical

BSRA

e. g.

and

to

close

of
Moor's

condition

the
Moor
line
was

3-3

7.1

Co

O
.,i
+>

"-I
"rl U
F4 C
O

-O

U
(D
>

CD
". -1
.L
U

(0

ir
m
>

"rl

O
CJ

4-)

0)

m
OD
1

co
`J

I
I

0)
m

CTI
to
f-r

O1

(fl
f4

l0

(1)

G)

id

CD
>
a

. -.

CL
.,
U)

a)

Q1

41
0)

+.i

CD

4-3

"l
'"'1 U
7C

4.)
0)
m
m

. -. .rn-.

r"

'J

..m

I
I

J"
%:

Lf)

3
OD

c+
U
cJ,
(D
-4
cri
c
-4
Lr)
N
0
Q.m
v

0
N

w
. X-.
+
.--1

.
C
0

4-)
ca
-4
CD
c+
G+
0
U

161

iD

co

"

[-

I
co

C
O

.,U
c
0
0m
.-

". -1
4+
F-

rn
4-2
0)
m>
co

4J
CD

H
m

CO

C
0
",
", i

cm
o
U

a
CL
"ri
L
U)

-1
. -f
Z)
-r

4.31
a
o>>
m

CD
v
to
L+
(D

rn
en
G
Co

C
0

3
OD
iN
U
U)
C
.,.
3
F--

ill.,

i
co

i-1
0
4-

co

CO
m

co

vv

II

m
_0
3
0
id
4. -

II

X
+
r-I

I'

II

C
0
.,..

0
r-i
m
N
fr
0
U

0
b
m

4-)
CD

CD
U

00r

"II

...

r--I
(D
'O
O
E

"1,

I
I
I

CL
-. 1
L
U)

N
C;

"
""
0

00
N
14

"""

I'

/1

O
d

A"

U
P

CD
0

I-i
epno1j

(X+T)
162

0
0
r
O

C
-11
L
4-)
O1
C
CD
J

(1+x)fro

0.367

ude -

+ 2.5

x LBPjft)

+ 27.5

1.0

Lsingle

For

twin

as

the

screw,
line

straight

trial

Scott's

hull

twin

condition

(d)

= 1.07

Service

the

service
power

its
to

BTTP

1965

80% of

not

from

as given
(WEAIRA)

by

line

trial

service
jL

V/

its

to

is

into

in
loss

account

fouling

and

For

the

same

which

is

close

to

gives

a value

water

routes

as

of
to

in

requires

Eq.

ship

Eq.

indicating

route,
of

the

163

ship

in

ship
the

to

of

on
for

and

also

margin
(27)

Taggert

smooth-

relatively
ships

a decrease
as

of

18.7%

of

smaller

increases,

and

deterioration

hull

18%.

the

voluntary

seakeeping

to

7.4

ft

a value

ships

margin

margin

a service

gives

figure

large

35% service

length

7.4

above

15% for

due

speed

1.05

of

Vknots

account
due

speeds

vary

by

a container

into

corrosion

the

Atlantic
the

that

usually
to

V/IL

service

given

+ 0.1667

is

assumed

25% at
the

fixed
trials

on

margin
was

standard

reached

margin
0.45

of

taking

route,

18%.

margin

7.3

trial
The

power

Therefore

found

reductions

North

Eq.

differences

adopting
is

this

conditions

1974

Atlantic

involuntary

the

the

screw

condition.

speed

and

(86).

Cameron

(55)

Swift

to

in

for

between

CL

due

average

chosen

allowance

margintby

WEAIRA = 1.075

taking

as

of

twin

an

ship

design

the

15% at

over

service

power

program

linearly

North

average

accepted

was

service

that

normal

the

In

of

such

the

as

'average'

adopt

margin,

25%.

is

and

LBP(ft)

serves

requirements

is

practice

at

data

condition

0.0002

margin

and

condition

power

hull

plots

margin

The
in

trial

3-3)

7.2

by

given

(1+x)froude

ships,

best

and

and

program

screw

line

average

Scott's

Since

for

standard

for

equation

conditions.

(mean

data

Eq.

screw

in
in

on
service

Eq.

7.4.

7.2.

PROGRAM
The

calculation

the

delivered

flow

chart

in

efficiency
The

(MAIN)

main
CALL

(EFECHP)
and

shown

in

Fig.

the

various

computer

digital
is

be

must

presented

manner

and

group
for

are
is

7.3.1"

MOOR-SMALL
This
in

the

for

values

ratio
(LCB).
of

as functions
(V/jL)
and
First

length

based

on

(76)

which

falls

400
the

for
length

draft

corresponding
form

METHOD

of

effective
However

results.

data

varied

models

of

results

The

presentation.
to

compared

as

latter

the

the

earlier

out

pointed

block

into

are

the

actual

feet

and

the

second

is

values
a

of

tabular

of

length
speed
b)9
buoyancy
position

tabulated
of

164

in

converted

appropriate
values

standard

(C

centre
ship

was

category
Circular

presented

coefficient

longitudinal

particular

of

of

computerization.
400 feet
and

beam

and
of

below.

preferred.

program

ships

7.1.

presents

a logical

and

be

approach

which

the

and

standard-series

difficult

generally
to

group

adopted

to

is

structure

Table

a family

series

computerization

latter

true

installed

size

series

for

reduced

the

estimation

standard

between

made

tests

model

on

are

results

former
group

based

usually

the

and

subroutine

nature,

for

program

output

discussed

now

a logical

many

are

POWER ESTIMATION

choice

in

programs

the

parts,

program

in

programs

various

possible.

calculate

the

with

a
prop-

calculation

The

together

select

three

input,

to

propeller.

EFFECTIVE

power

where

7.3

of

The
7.3.

the

ratio

horsepower
(POWER)

subroutine

select

functions

the

the

highest

into

subdivided

effective

and

power

is

area

containing

program

statements,

diameter,

blade

by

to

then

and

given
is

objective

permissible

program

power

is

power

Our

lowest

and

whole

horse
1.

maximum

horse

effective

installed

Appendix

with

eller

the

of

and

propeller

STRUCTURE

Cb,

V/jL

to

a geosim
OC
is
obtained

and

LCB

position.

FIG.

7.3.

MAIN STRUCTURE OF THE POWERING PROGRAM

PROGRAM

It

MAIN
4i
SUBROUTINE
-

EFECHP
---SUBROUTINE

-I
FUNCTION

OVSLE1

--E

FUNCTION

LAGINT

OUSLE2

FUNCTION
j

DENSMB
FUNCTION
EFNSMB

POWER

SUBROUTINE

40 SUBROUTINE

CAVIT

FUNCTION

SUBROUTINE

PRNSMB
TABLE 7.1.

POLONE
ATTRIBUTES OF THE VARIOUS PROGRAMS.

NAME

ATTRIBUTE

MAIN

PROGRAM

3245

Main
write
ation

EFECHP

SUBROUTINE

3210

to calculate
the effectSubroutine
hull
ive horsepower,
naked
of the
Moor
& Small
based
ship
on method of

POWER

SUBROUTINE

1950

the shaft
horsepower
Calculates
and
based on
the best propeller
selects

OCCUPANCY
SIZE, BYTE

DESCRIPTION
program for
statements.
of powering

READ, CALL and

Used for validsubroutine.

Wageningen B-series
eller.

5 bladed prop-

CAVIT

SUBROUTINE

530

Check for cavitation,

of minimum required
based on Burrillts

LAGINT

SUBROUTINE

212

Carries

OVSLEI

FUNCTION

168

Circular(
values
length
from 30.48

for ship of
m to 122 m.

OVSLE2

FUNCTION

134

CircularO

for

length

out

for
blade
chart.

lagrangian

values

(6)

FUNCTION

266

Values of delta
line.
efficiency

EENSMB
PRNSMB

FUNCTION
FUNCTION

266
266

Values
Values

156

the optimum efficiency

Value of a polynomial
multiplication.

SUBROUTINE

interpolation

ship

of

from 122 m to 365 m.

DENSMB

POLONE

selection
area ratio

of
of

on the optimum

optimum efficiency
diameter
pitch
ratio

line.
by nested

on

This

value

and

draft

ally

for

by

The

ships

was

was

the

Fin-

correct
for

value

program

the

procedure

0.72

to

Cb

and

Where

the

overlap,

optimum

The

the

effective

of

Cb

by

calculated

The

this

beam

standard

the

Mumford's
beam

values

the
value

of

circular

first

for

Cb

purpose

in

of

Indices

deviation

55'

(C),,

O1

of

and
(76,90).

draft

is

given

correction

of

0.40

range
to

are

of

full

load

twin

and
to

be

screw
the

a standard

ship

after

The

the

where

166

and

by

value
given
OC
em.
is
,
for
V/jL.
then
three

18'

and
is

value
0

points

from
by

done
of

1,

draft

using

the

where

11)x -2/3

Eq.

x 55

draft

is

LAGINT.

beam

of

40o
(LBP

the

between

subroutine

mx
value

for

are

of

taken

For

interpolation

01_0

the

V/jL
the

ship.

of

for

correction

the

the

required

method
for

applied

of

interpolating

Lagrangian

in

is

values

V/jL.

and

best
and the
OC
The
values

partial
(S. S. )

screw

Cb

screw

bp (LBP),
the
length
program
are
(T),
Cb and speed
V and the
output

power

the

two
OC

at

twin

of

and

Cb

for

18'.

draft

V/, rL

the

0.78

1.20

single

The

horse

and

to
have

to

for

to*the

design

0.48

0.40

of

values

attainable.
of

V/jL
OC

for

array
OC

usually

mean

input

(B),

after

values

attainable.
400'
x 55'

size

beam

always

(78)

Moor

& Pattullo(77)

Moor

optimum

Containerships

1.5.

(T. S. )

the

are

by

given

two-dimensional

that

for

draft.

by

OC

the

get

as

by

and
as

LCB

of

0.52

And

to

applied

describes

values

ships

assumed

tabulated
to

stored

position

is

(90,76).

ALGORITHM

optimum

screw

single

The

to

length

beam

actual

indices

is

correction

subsection

COMPUTER
The

of

the

Mumford's

of

actual

next

to

corrected

detail.

7.3.2.

It

then

friction

ship's

ship.

is

application

skin

the

in

()

of

correction

is

given

7-5

02

01

=
the

where
and

value

regression

2/3

the

by

values

Oo

by;

- 0.11

OO

for

by

x 10-3

to

V/jL

gives

of

versus

least

(corr.

for

applied

= 0.981)
Eq. 7.7

deviation

400'.

The

length

as

squares

x 10-5L2

xL+0.24

- 0.10

10-1

0.37

x 10-13L5

Eq.

10-4L

+ 0.26

10-7L2

7.8

0.75
Eq.

(S)

surface

is

by

calculated

x
7.9

Mumford's

using

(76)
Eq.

7.10

0-0935
xS
A23

Eq.

7.11

1.055

Eq.

7.12

Eq.

7.13

Eq.

7.14

S=1.7
O=

Cb

xLxT+

xLxB

V/jL
OO

correction
friction

The

skin

eq.

7.11,7.12,7.13

L-0.0741

correction

correction

(SFC)

from

is

SFC = toi correction

xQ
Oo.
175

Therefore
7.14

x 10-8L3

- 0.81

400'

wetted

formula

and

given
(50)

method

10-11L3...
The

(78)

1.10
1.5.

7.6

400'

<L<

x 10-10L4

L>

= 0.85

100'

- 0.39

O9OO

fitted

0.40

length

standard

to

0.360

then

circular

was

for

+ 0.14
and

of

(91)

given

the

and

is

Eq.

= 0.40
=

2/3)

V,fLft

from

Acevedo

and

(Y

of

V/jL
V/jL

at

correction

length

tabulated

same

= 0.447

friction

skin

of

the

analysis

Y-

be

Y-2/3

T
18)

for

x=0.90

of

to

assumed

400
LBP

the

required

value

of

circular

from

7.6

and

is
0=02+

SFC

167

Eq.

7.15

And

the

from

horse

effective

EHPN

Once

4z7. i

effective

delivered

The

to

the

quasi

the

value

Quasi

ship

can

be

I . lb
.

Eq.
r

is

known,

as

by

coefficient.

mentioned

parts

the

predicted

propulsive

and

is

earlier

each

hull

is

them

of

hull

the

is

in

the

Each

of

presentation

the

delivered

approach'

use

is

or

made

an

such

'marine

engineer's

approach'

propeller
line

selected,
or

optimum

In

near

rotation,
a

case
is

the

adopted

diagram.

open

efficiency

of

velocity.

propeller

as field

is

engine

advance

the

efficiency

choice

usually

(92).

advantages

standard

open

diagrams.

KQ-J

of

algorithm

optimum

series
& or KT,
own

the

propeller
(82)
are

rate

computer

Any

fraction

wake

in

propeller

The

optimum.

its

the

the

rotative

the

used
the

Bu-

nearest

Bp-6

of

5,

has

given
and

usually

Wageningen-B

is

problem

power

7.17

efficiency.

water

from

ascertain

Bp-

relative

DIAGRAMS

are

to

of

the

propeller

optimum

'power

form

cases

design

Eq .

(t).

BY Bp-S

stage

presented

most

= 71H ??R ,no

the

determined

series

The

is

open

fraction

DESIGN

efficiency.

In

propeller

deduction

design

type

71

efficiency,

Wageningen-B

preliminary

D=

horsepower.

PROPELLER
The

EpHP

coefficient

is
0
efficiency

thrust

and

7.4.1.

to

.. i-.

ii.

the

quasi

constituent

propulsive

The

that

the

coefficient

its

PD = delivered
the
Where'
is
H
and
efficiency

and

propeller
of

and

and

calculated

separately.

estimated

water

.
in

of

power

propulsive
into

divided

(W)

then

POWER

OF DELIVERED

the

estimating

Q2/3

xv3x

PREDICTION

power

is

7.15

eq.

7.4.

(EHPN)

power,

has
water

opt

in

7Zo.

168

with

written

efficiency

efficiency
??

been

can

lying
a Bp-

away
diagram

be

a view
than

other

from
is

the
referred

(a)

SELECTING
To

THE

obtain

highly

be

reasonably

low.

the

propeller

RPM

direct

case

of

gear

ratio

the

RPM.

the

diameter

can

be

However

(b)

The

the

head

THE

of

be

can

(c

Single

maximum

power

50,000

THE

(d)

this

appropriate

design
on

is

a minimum

is

to

RPM. This
the

assigned.

of

value.

to

enough

ensure
the

blades
is

propeller
are

11.0

also
diameter

possible

be

hull

the

There

largest

to

logical

that

the

the

as

fits
To

than

is

M.

twin

that

power

it

be

can
is

are

delivered
the

that

assumed

through

delivered

as

screws
There

concerned.

single

shaft

two

chooses

automatically

is

shafts

reached.

AREA

RATIO
the

govern

Blade

consideration

is

such

efficient

of

be

the

it
which

Therefore

BLADE

increases

draft.

the

consideration

cavitation

the

change

OF SCREWS

program

limit

value

when

value
of

of

assumed

more

can

efficiency

propeller

above

the

amount

The

THE

the

calculate

to

value

tip

efficiency

that

SELECTING

the

in

efficiency

clearances.

diameter

shaft.

upper

to

us

the

the

NUMBER

the

Cavitation

and

of

are

single

hp.

cases

other

necessary

propeller

This

on

through

once

70%

propeller

limitations

in

diameter
all

the

screws

the

as

and

efficiency

propeller

cast.

SELECTING

chosen,
RPM

Therefore

limitations

manufacturing
that

water

immersed
be

is

engine

assigning

increases.

above

to

restricted

is

by

considering

completely

are

RP. M should

DIETER

maximum

water

its

the

propeller

otherwise

open

after

aperture

the
it

IREVLD

minute)

engine

allows

gear

program

diameter

choose

is

the

propeller

propeller

engines

restricted,

in

SELECTING

to

improve

to

is

standard

equivalent
diesel

per

propeller,

the

reduction

parameter

control

far

is

the

done

efficient

Since

drive
of

RPM (Revolutions

PROPELLER

Area
BAR

ratio

must

be

169

as

small

that

requires
Therefore

selection
(BAR).
For

the

program

the

as

of
maximum
possible
be

BAR must
selects

the

smallest

value
The

criterion.
(93)

Burill
And

the

(c)

THE

7--%

by

of

(82)

1975

have

set

of

advance

and

delivered

(145)gives

to

used

updated

define

?Z

a0

opt

1nBp

+ a1

for

Therefore
is

opt

values

of

the

optimum

by

given

the

but

program

defined
be

can
the

of

values

the

EFNSMB

5 bladed

coefficients

2BAR

and

efficiency
in

the
the

changing
Eq.

in

a9

values

P/Dia.

and

propellers

a0.....

Eq.

corresponding

optimum

by

the

BAR,

DENSMB

4 simply

to

changed

and

+ a7(1nBp

BP and

The

the

Sabit

a3(1nBp)3

subprogram

rotation,

form

2+

of

of

ratio

the

of

obtain

+ a9(1nBp)

PRNSMB.
for

to

+ a6(BAR)3

subprogram

subprogram

been

have

pitch

of

values

by

given

rate

values

+ a8(1nBp)(BAR)2

the

e.

BP,

e.

and

+ a5(BAR)2

by

is

i.

+ a2(l. nBp)

predetermined
given

i.

parameters

equations

(BAR)

7.18

(83).

from

EFFICIENCY
In

an

earlier

is

diameter
various

be

propellers

subsequently

corresponding

regression

a4(BAR)

lie

been

diameter

optimum

the

P/D,

FIELD

was

5 bladed

and

and

power

the

and
the

consequently

7.4.2.

cavitation

the

1969

design

given

efficiency

lines

for

Lammeren

(83)

optimum

is

cavitation.

lines.

speed

back

of

equations

Van

Oosterveld

For

of

back

of

by

given

EFFICIENCY

OPTIMUM

regression

efficiency

S,

limit

one

cavitation

acceptable.

SELECTING

published
by

be

was

upper

permissible

the

satisfies

criterion

representing

to

The

also

cavitation

as

line

thought

BAR which

of

restricted

values

on

the

of

optimum
to

possible

or
RPM the

for

ship

established

was

determining

efficiency
In

such

72O.

There

are

gives

170

simple
the

value

when
to

a need

line.

?Zovso
which

is

propeller

the

that

mentioned

there

when

efficiency

determine

formulae
was

it

section

may
cases
no

72

no

longer

it

must

established
relation-

empirical
of

try

once

the

7.18

value

of

calculated
rotation

As
into

grids.

line

was

point

can

shown

in

for

more

for

constructed
All

the

of

lines

value

b)
values

and

given

by

of

other
6 and

(sb+lo

be

was

7.19

Eq.
in

off.
to
6

we

subdivided

read

is

in

7.4.

Fig.
are

values

have

repeated
of

grids

(7Z0)

0.80

are

numbers
shown

diagram

the

This

etc.

as

and

efficiency

sufficient
and

BP-

perpendicular

optimum

0.80

get

lines

to

0.95

at

be

opt
delta

value

read

off.

characteristics

between

those

the

lifted

Cameron

BAR

= 0.60

applicable

for

BAR

of

efficiency

equal

to

Eq.

0.45

the

(? Z0)

is

x (1.0

to

values

from

for

field

delta

knowing

, then
efficiency

field

basic

Eq.

agreement.

in

by

denoted

ass

the

?
-opt

expression

The72opt

was

made

and

good

&

the

line

71o = ?2opt - (1.5(1.0 -s+0.065)

b
A check

EFNSMB,

and

oPt
Next

efficiency

delta

of

any
5b,

of

line.

7Zopt
Let

until

the7?

and

0.85

field

at

P/D

Bp

of

read

0.95
BAR on

the

and

these

is

other

rate

subroutines

diagram

corresponding

Bp

construct

Similarly

0.90,

Bp-

intersects

of

the

value

of

e.

values
to

points

the

particular
which

i.

BP is

power,

From

"Zopt,

the

calculated.
7.4

value

0.95
0.95,

line

erected

at

be

delivered

of

of

values

BAR,

assumed

advance.

of

Fig.

At

corresponding
off

speed
the

an

values

given

DENSMB

that

at

For

known.

the

and

PRNSMB,

is

oPt
from

0.75

7.19

is

70

can

1.05

and

graphs

(86)

first

1.05,
for

derived

by Eq.

7.19.

171

as

calculated
(82)
and

that

shown

a particular
for

any

value

by
found

to

this

used

found

was

defined
be

Ylo

the

it

and

of

7.19

is

it
in

equally

Table

7.2.

BAR.

The

of

BAR

, -.
a)

(D
C) ". i
-P H
L+ m
ri co
L

a3

au(D
U

I
ai
mm

EC
ow
H Cl
4- C
"rI
>. C
U (D
C 01
CD w
".
U
". 4_
40
4w
_0
-i

-4)
-4
7

CDCO
w

"rI

4-

64

4-- 4-)
o (D
CD
C +J
O

"rl
4-)
0
C
", 1
E

H
(D
43
co
3

t+
CD

C
m

4-) a
CD o
0 -,
4

rn
.,

'-I

0
CL
172

co
0

TABLE 7.2.

COMPARATIVE VALUES OF FIELD EFFICIENCY

BP-6 CHARTS)

Bar = 0.60
x 1.0
Ex0.95

6x

0.90

(6)

Delta

120

140

160

180

(CALCULATED AND FROM

200

220

240

260 280

0.700

0.665

0.634

0.601

0.571

0.543

0.518

0.492

0.696

0.660

0.627

0.595

0.563

0.535

0.510

0.486(1461,

0.694

0.659

0.627

0.594

0.564

0.536

IZ charts

0.648

0.614

0.580

0.549

0.520

0.495

0.470(145=!

'7, cal.

0.645

0.614

0.581

0.551

0.522

charts

0.629

0.592

0.558

0.525

0.500

0.474

0.450L1 43;

cal.

0.625

0.593

0.560

0.529

0.501
0.448

0.4250.40i:

opt
S charts
'Z cal.

E>X 0.85
SX0.80

0.472

charts
7Zcal.

0.565

0.532

0.502

0.473

Bar = 0.75

bx1.0
6x

0.95

E>X 0.90

Lx0.85

rZ opt.
Z charts

0.671

0.642

0.612

0.584

0.555

0.526

0.500

0.666

0.636

0.605

0.577

0.545

0.521

0.495

cal.

0.665

0.636

0.605

0.577

0.548

0.519

' charts
'Z cal

0.658

0.620

0.590

0.560

0.532

0.505

0.622

0.592

0.564

0.535

0.505

0.565

0.538

0.510

0.484

0.571

0.543

0.514

0.484

0.481

0.460

'Z charts
Z cal.

bx 0.80

0.602

charts
cal.

0.543

0.515

0.485

0.456

0.480

0.460

0.435

Bar = 1.05

E)x 1.0
6x 0.95

5x

0.90

0.85

opt.

0.645

0.615

0.585

0.553

0.523

0.495

0.469

0.445

y1 charts

0.639

0.610

0.580

0.549

0.517

0.490

0.464

0.440

'Z cal.

0.639

0.609

0.578

0.546

0.516

0.488

"1 charts
n
cal.
7Z charts

0.621

0.591

0.562

0.532

0.503

0.476

0.450

0.426

0.595

0.565

0.533

0.503

0.474

0.538

0.511

0.484

0.457

0.432

0.410

0.544

0.512

0.482

0.453

0.489

0.459

0.432

0.408

0.385

0.484

0.454

0.425

n cal.
6x

0.80

0.575

'Z charts
70
cal

0.516

173

7,4,3.

CALCULATION

OF WAKE,

EFFICIENCY

(84,86)

For

screw

single
Wake

= 0.1

WI

W1 =

w2

Relative

Lx

Cw x

0.5

deduction

Thrust

xBx

Twin

screw

Wake

=2x

Thrust

deduction

DESIGN

Cb)

+ 0.2

The

design

rotation
the

with
The

propeller
-propulsive

chart

(V

0.8662

dia.

0.5))

0.02

be

power,

diameter

constraints

on

iterative

coefficient

speed

(Cb),

draft

rate

and

Eq.

7.21

Eq.

7.22

Eq.

7.23

Eq"

7.24

Eq"

7.25

to

the

in

nature.

is

assumed

174

of

A certain
get

is
1.
of

rate

a propeller

RPM and

to

the

blade

smallest

choice

(RPM),

Appendix

given

select

the

the

logic

program

as;

length

(T),

POWER in

diameter,
for

(V),

rotation

of

The

formulated

delivered

procedure

the

subroutine

possible

design
is

of
can

the

and

ratio

0.873

= 0.985

IREVLD.

parameter

problem

largest

PROCEDURE

flow

Clu

+ 0.14

x wake

efficiency

control
by

given

Cb

= 1.02

accepts
as input
program
(L),
Beam (B),
block
coefficient
(naked
hull),
the
effective
power
the

+ 0.4

The

and

1.8

(2.8

0.625

x
(0.5

= 0.25

rotative

7.4.4.

(dia.

cw

efficiency

Cb5(1.0

Relative

q,

-6x

= wake

rotative

C}

Cb

(7.0

W3 =

ROTATIVE

13

4.5

AND RELATIVE

xW I
-'

W2
where

DEDUCTION

THRUST

the

of
area

cavitation.
the
value

appropriate
of

approximate

quasi

value

of

horse

shaft
to

assumed

be

propeller

to

be

or

7.23,

and

twin

shafts.

deduction

Eq.

Eq.

efficiency
is

this

being

The

77
Sb

0.1

SHP

of

on

thrust

BP

EHPN,

to

the

range

BAR.

from

diameter

is

basic

From

7.21

and

Bp

in

Eq.

7.20

determined.

of

BP-

diagram.

value

of

the
value

to

the

b),

155

Bp

of

delta

assumed

wake

are

(P/Dia)and

of

is

relative

calculated

and

propeller

by

given

dia.

propeller

of

value

line

opt

value

calculated

of

hp

50,000

and

0.60.

of

number

7.24,

or

between

the

the

is

of

ratio

values

7.25

ratio

determined

assumed

The

-Q

Pitch-diameter

opt,
is

than

SHP

value

area

higher

lie
the

of

blade

or

The

initial

an

decides

7.22

constrained

EHPN.

SHP

of

value

delivered

rotative

the

of

the

approximation

propellers.

The

times

efficiency

initial

The

1.5

from

SHP)

power

Sb

Va

Eq

7.26

rpm
If

the

diameter

is

greater

than

lesser

of

the

values

the

than
propeller

diameter.

obviously

lies

of

is

In

this

earlier,

is

program

then

goes

initial

value

of

that

so

is

as

to

check

absurd

the

Eq.

the

values

of

efficiency
the
The

If
that

value

correct

for

new

propeller

than

28'

or

the

as

7.19.

less

efficiency

propeller

taken

case

from

accepted
on

is

T'

line,
therefore
oPt
the
new diameter.

calculated
(PFNEW)

efficiency

propeller

from

is

70

such

from

away

recalculated

efficiency

0.1

two

0.70

either

value
field

the
assumed
the

and

cavitation.
(PFBNEW)

However

the

is

at

efficiency

are

propeller

kept

not

calculated.
The

value

calculated
RRE

with

and

the

new

of

quasi

the

propulsive

value

value

of

of
shaft

coefficient

PFNEW,
horse

hull
power

(QPC)
efficiency
(SHPNEW)

is
and
is

calculated.
SHPNEW =

EHPN

CF x

WQPCRA

NOPROP

175

H. P.

Eq.

7.27

This

value

of

the

Shp

If

the

difference

is

greater

which

less

the

diameter

increase

an

The

value

(PFNEW)

is

the

value
the

of
the

the

cavitation

to

The
assumed
7.5"
To
wide

SHAFT

taken.
speed

from

horse

power

94)

be

are

standard

shaft

the

until
horse

shaft

only

the

power

to

way

RPM.

and

the

check

is

IREVLD

=2

area

the

design

the

made

iteration

3% of
new

values

each

value

the

is

other

with

initial

accepted

assumption
the

as

upper
(DBAR).

ratio
area
(DBAR)
is less

acceptable

blade

of

value

range

that

than

the

Otherwise

accepted.

a new

the

of

blade

is

and

output.

for

ratio

the

efficiency

successive

the

RPM is

15% of

of

the

of

within

cavitation

blade

steps

point

and

acceptable

The

de rating

lo%

the

the

of

horse

ship

ship
18

in

Shp

blade

of

ratio

area
ratio

area

the

and
calculated

is

losses

mechanical
power.

POWER VALIDATION

of

The

power

1.05.

validate
range

the

propeller

When

an

machinery
to

of

parameter

of

are

restarted

DBAR.

to

o. 45

is

gives

is

value

the

in

starting

back

initially

iteration
equal

the

RPM stop

A 7121%

assumed

new

increase

value

efficiency

developed

horse

repeated

control

recalculated.

on

which

shaft

of

increased

last

efficiency

BAR.

limit

the
as

iterations

to

the

RPM is

propeller

The

If

the

exist,

is

EHPN.

RPM.

and

of

propeller

on

the

taken

is

value

1.5

to

values

through

propeller

initial

the

procedure

power

input
in

then

restrictions

necessary
can

of

successive

3%.

user

values

initial

SHP

approximation

whole

between

the

absorb

initial

the

and

the

assuming

SHP

the

of

to

compared

two

the

the

than

If

The

3%

is

calculated

in

becomes

power
-horse
difference
is

was

than

(SHPNEW)

(SHPNEW)

Shp

of

to

size
size
27

deviation

and

As

by

the

agreement
of

8.07%.

176

600

shown
program

giving

the

program,
(57,94)
from

data

speed,
from

knots.

by

given

varies

calculated
close

power

in

3000

TEU

Table

7.3,

the

and

a mean

were

to

TEU

those
error

from
of

over

and
shaft
(57,

4.95%

and

N
^N
-.
XNXN
oO
r-1 11 m t')
O CD " Ln0
"
t') o to N
r4 N
1
O

E
co

L4
O
0
FL
O_

U)

Lf7ri

ri

M NMN
II

XX

"
Cl- d
0^
fr

r-

CD Q3

N
M ko
p

ON

KI 01

to

01

LD -1
C::)

N
CD
T

OOm

.L")
-i N

Ll]

Lf)

N
0
0
Ft
Cl

Lr)

LD

";T

II

II

O
0N

01

,_.L

ca

ri
LO
01

korM"
C') N
I
U)

II

N
(D (TO
.
rU)

^
co m

01
O
FL

CL

mM

0)
N" r-I
NM

MI

01

lo
NN

"

01

^
O

ri

U]

MI
v

"

tr)

p101M

co Lf] N
in "N

-; r

COIn

MIM

co

Lf)

LD N
co N

M7 LO

rn
t')

LD

N
d"
01

^
m

m 01

N
U)

o
U3

O
C14
m

LO
d
LO

O
O
Ln

LD

ri

LD Lo
N-4

NN
U)

MN

Cl

LO "
M
ri
N

LO

4-d
CD O1

o
0

O
0

fr

N.

11
N

U)

r-1
LO
N

O
KI
0
O

N
X
co

co
N
I

FL

"
Lo

Nv

M"m
NO
-1 . -I

Nv

t0

LO
. -i

C14
01

N
X

IT mO
U)

II

LO
Lf)

co to
. -L t'')

NQ

ON LO
11
M

to

LD
11

OO

O
O

O
N
r-

N
NI

M^

CD
m
d

co
P
H
CD
3
0

CL
CD
CD

--

Ol-I
r-4 to

Lf7
ri
ri

01
O

FI

CL

oca
40

Q
H

r'i

H
0
H
(D
C
Co
0
Ew

t
l0
U) t'7
CV ID

E
0
H
40
U
C
m
H
0
44"rl
'0

Ibpl

O
C3

co
r-4

O
N

. -.
Ln U)
LD -4
N"
MN

U) to
1* U)
N

CO^

Ln N

N"

ri

ri

FL
CL
co
r-I

(a

W
J

r-1
ri

m O1
m
N
U)

W
H
01

co

co
ri

N"

01 . --1
O Lfl
01
"N
0)

4-

Lf)

4-3

o.
E
0
U

rf

11

Ch

0
r

C
0
m
"rl

NLO^

LO
01

r"'I
0
3

U
0

0O

in

C) -4
Nd0
M t0

.-1
N
OO

01

m
O

11-

0
7
CO t0

11

II

N
r-L
1;T

O
CD

co LD LD
MN

'" 1 01
t

U)

E
01

co kD
NM
00

01

II

Cr)
N
4-

04

U) O
L' )N

dm
LO N-4
O "--1
M LO

N
X
-4

uw
N
X
co

O1
!M

d1

OI

II

co N
MN

-1

co N

LT

m
U
C
(U
". i

Nd

C%4-;;I

E
co
(

U:)

C14

..

LrILD

01
II

LDNM
EI-)N
co
Lr) CD
"
N LO Lf)
MN

MNO

LO

14

MNN
LO N"

LO CD

co

I;

lnO

m
0

co

) CN
%J:
U') O

N^

01CD
(1 01 -to
NN
r tr)LQ M riD
Lr) `'m
U1 --XV

-1 co

co

r-"

NN
rf
N
N

Lf)

"

LD NN I
01 01
;T O1
II

II

N Lo

X
LD
ri NN

C'14 Lfl

11

NN

N
XN
LO ON

N
X
. ri
N d-;:
O rf
"
O
N-1
M LO 1

4- Q
OD (3)

o
O

fr

ri

W
4)
0.

U)

Lf)

ri

ri
v

OM
O

r-1
N

. -.

o
O
O

CO
ri

ri

O
0

O
O
L1)

CO
M

O1 M)
Lf)
ri

CO
M

_0
(D

M
CO
ri

CD
O.
U)

tv
4-)
C
0
Uu

m
OD
H
0
L

C
i

Co

U
0
H

41
-. I
H
CD

7
01
MI
LA-

"rl

L)
CO O
CL Li
Cl) 1-

(D
.i. )
0
U
"rl

W
m

La
m >.
C+1
"rl

CD
3
0
a

-0
C
-I

o
o

C
C
"rI

m
L
41

O
O
t0

O
U)
N

OOO
O

U)

r-I

r-1

ON

co
U)
H

177

0O
U)
NO
"-i

O
O

Lo
N

O
O
U)
N

OO
Ln
N
NM

O
CD

m
4J
0

C
-rI
H
CD
3
0
n

CHAPTER
DEADWEIGHT

AND CAPACITY

8.0

INTRODUCTION

8.1

ROUND VOYAGE

8.2

CARGO DEADWEIGHT

8.3

ESTIMATES

TIME
ESTIMATE

8.2.1.

WEIGHT

OF CREW & EFFECTS

8.2.2.

WEIGHT

OF PROVISIONS

8.2.3.

WEIGHT

OF FUEL

8.2.4.

WEIGHT

OF BALLAST

CAPACITY

ESTIMATES

& STORES

8.0

INTRODUCTION

In
are

the

the

program

systematically

which
is

known

these

the

constituent

stores

are

the

Once

estimated
adequate

of

fuel,

to

of

estimate
the

and

round

capacity

estimates

ROUND VOYAGE

8.1.

The
(a)

round
time

Sea

(b)

ports

of

Port

time

port

required.
have
if

fuel

fresh

and
to

space

carry
The

stability.

deadweight

discussed

there

in

estimate
turn.

TIME
time

voyage
for

and/or

stores

the

cargo

water,

ascertain

some

improve

are

fresh

is

to

its

into

sea

port

require

time,

voyage

at

made

be

can

deadweight.

Besides

to

from

ship

water,

these.

ballast

temporary/permanent

the

fuel,

and

be

usually

of

cargo

fresh

to

carry

containerships

water,

has

displacement

calculated

spent

sea

the

Cb

and
designs

of

be

like

time
at

check

space

the

apportioned

the
items

spent

weights

then

estimate

on

time

of

can

is

T,

a number

deadweight

deadweight

dependent

estimate

is

to

B,

Since

deadweight

the

of

generate

weight
the

elements
most

been

lightship

The

L,

constraints.

dimensions,

main

ascertained.

an

the

all

and

Since

to

varied

satisfy

dimensions

main

is

transiting

composed
the

of

distance

between

each

loading

and

call.
for

berthing/unberthing

and

un-

loading.
(c)

in

Delays

Time

trip

at

sea

In

the

is

calculated

DAS
where

DIST

miles,

and

= round
Vs
(55)

is

in
loss
to

speed
in
maintain

at

the
x

trip

due

speed

due

to

to

between
in

an

hull

in

ports

(8.1)

nautical

knots.

fouling

where
the
and

of

the

? expected

deterioration

corrosion,

involuntary

performance

178

Eq.

account

or

days/round

days

approach

into

in

equation

distance

voluntary

seakeeping

(DAS)

in

taking

age

sea

Vs)

introduces

with

circumstances.

following

speed

service

determined

the

unforeseen

time

from

DIST/(24

Swift
speed'

the

program

to

due

port

speed
the

ship.

and
reduction
Such

a model
and

will

weather

(54)

the

speed
(51)

Benford's
due

to

the

same

for

MARAD

the

North

the

Atlantic
in

so

Section

by

There

are

three

time

spent

in

(a)

Analytical

Time

in

Novaes

thesis

to

&

Marcus

reduction
(53)

used

developed

model

type

of

calm

water

for

for

expression
design

speed.

taking

view

a much

the

speed

containerships

more

on

the

maintain
also

with

age

take

of

the

approach

included

in

design

to

power

simplistic

is

margin

and

speed

into

under

to

hull

is

margin

most

the

account
due

ship

service

the

given

(7.4).

Eq.

basic

the

approach
is

However

these

models

Queuing

(98)

ship

and

employ

terminal

require

extensive

average

values

and
(12),

UNCTAD

theory.

Nehrling

and

facilities

port

an

such

simulation.
data

input

on

terminal

operations.

Methods
This

based

on

the

usual

is

The

studies.

Time

container
by

simulated
(97)
& Frankel

Time

the

estimating

methods

this

ship

to

approaches

port:

container

(ii)

speed

The

for

ship
(i)

service

as

approach

and
(b)

or

port

In
operations

simplistic

speed

7.1

in

the

a more

corrosion.

and

similar

A service

in

fouling

conditions

deterioration

increase

containership

given

this

power

weather

from

outbound

route.

adopted.

installed

the

gives

takes
of

speed
Frankel

reduction

3.5%

been

for

and

into

Administration).

(40)

However
has

route

takes

study

inbound

good,

for

(Maritime

speed
(39)
of

containership

deadweight.

equations

Erichsen

made

in

Fortson

loss

in

equation

change

service

intended

the

on

conditions.

Hancock
account

data

extensive

require

spent
spent

in

method

total
berthing

in

loading

time

in

employed
spent

in

and

unberthing

and

unloading

179

most

container-

is

composed

port
of
of

the

ship.

containers.

of

(iii)

Delays
as,

in

for

waiting

tidal

due

port

due

Such

an
(54)

Hancock
The

in

average

port
This

leads

time

at

and

the

(39)

The

the

relation

and

ship

between
turnaround
out

carried

such

terminals.
a

It

is

difficult

the

general

(99)

and

Robinson

of

Edmond

container

the

turnaround

time

Turnaround

and
by

the

time

Maggs

= 17.5

of

call.

that

at

port

(39).
more
value

carrying
data.

ship
data

to

and

U. K.

of

any

investigate

unloaded
(99)

Maggs
container

similar

analysis

formula

general

This

ports.

Whereas

that

and

Maggs

concludes

that

the

and

or

that

time

that

cargo

handled.
time

turnaround

there
between

relationships

size

smaller

turnaround

varied,

linear

evident

than

quickly

which

is

Edmond

by
Robinson

conclude

ship

by

and

reached

found

following

at

Kong.

extremely

and

cargo

constant

Edmond

out

various

simple

loaded

data

Hong

more

are

an

spend

as

actual

port.

develop

Maggs

and

lifts/hr

and

cargo

on

at

25

time
on

estimated

on

carried

conclusions
(100).

satisfactory

Edmond
predicted

in

to

ships

no

time

turnaround

vessels

are

size,

conditions

from

vessels,

ship

in

based

ships

port

performed

terminal

the

reflects

actual

(100)

is

discharged

is

port

analysis

Ross

container

larger

an

The

its

taken

as

analysis

of

is

analysis

hours/port

in

analysis

Regression

on

time

taken

(39).

larger

statistical

turnaround

statistical

out

on

is

are
2

and

usually

all

that
port

resources.
(39)

call

12.5

of

cargo

assumes

based

of

is

ship

discharges

in

port,

lower

Erichsen

of

rate

assumption

Delays

port.

congested

containers

the

such

study.

hours/port

of

channel,

by

ship

part

at

use

adopted

unloading

the

to

Methods

inefficient

handling

Erichsen

e. g.

e. g.

that
or

to

berth/unberth

loading

(54)

(c)

to

and

approach

containership

container

(39,54)

the

in

value,

spent

in

was

their

circumstances,

berth

approach

time

constant

unforeseen

empty

an

variations

productivity

to

can

be

equation
+0.0558

handled

number
hours

180

of

containers
Eq.

(8.2)

And

(8.2)

Eq.

time

compared

size

or

in

is

the

load
is

by

given

ship's

container

load
maximum
(ALFO)
factor

total

factor

and

unloaded

capacity

in

i. e.

the

or

of

(99)

the

at

end

total

factor
of

of

the
at

of

home

PORTF

number

of

foreign

DELAY

number

round

study

i.

Round

voyage
The

= delays

Eq.

round
(8.1)

voyage.

port

of

PORTD

call
(8.5)

Eq.
+ PORTF,

ports
ports

in

port

CONTHP)

per,

(PORTD

in
delay

no
=

port
in

is

which
is

port

+ PORTF)/24.0

input

assumed

i;

-voyage-is

Eq.

days

DELAY

e.

a factor

TEU
=

(8.4)

loaded

are
giving

each

NPORT

days

of

+ 0.0558

program

Eq.

12.

number

(17.5

2 for

ports

leg,

sea

containers

number

total

containers

(8.3)

is

TEU

CONTHA/NPORT

to

the

of

Eq.
(CONTHA)

4.0

the

of

ALFI)

+ DELAY

from

adopted

outbound
(ALFI)
and

factor

handled

ALFMAX

PORTD

the

each

multiplied

the

of

(ALFO,

of

that

each

limited

Then

In

was

TEU was

load

containers

indicates

CONTHP

where

in

handled

maximum

inbound

= CNT x

of 2, and a further
(c)
Then
the
number
(CONTHP)
is

DIP

& Maggs

factor

number

4.0

The

(d)

port.

containers

Edmond

= maximum

CONTHA

is

in

by

The

and

time

below.

ALFMAX

where

turnaround

a function
of ship
(8.2)
Eq.
was adopted

of

number

the

of

as

the

calculate

described

given

(b)

time
Therefore

the

method

The

by

to

calculate

the

port

values

turnaround
rate.

program
To

reasonable

to

handling

the

and
(a)

gave

by
for

(8.6)

the

user.

the

parametric

0.

time
voyage
and

RVYTIM

Eq.

= DIP

time

in

(8.6)

+ DAS

181

(RVYTIM)

days
and

is

given

days

is

calculated

by

Eq.

(8.7)

The

ship

for

dry

is

docking,

Therefore

to

assumed

the

number

days

annum

The

at

are

The

Eq.

(8.9)

DIPPA

= DIP

RTPA

days

Eq.

(8.10)

are

carried

in

out

the

subroutine

ESTIMATES
is

by

calculated

the

and

crew

b)

Weight

of

fresh

c)

Weight

of

stores

d)

Weight

of

heavy

e)

Weight

of

ballast

are

following

subtracting

items

deadweight

of

TMAN

is

and

provisions

8.11

(b)

Weight

taken

was

weight

0.167

of

tonnes

and

lub.

oil

(OFF),

officers
by

the

petty

therefore

user,

(PO)

officers
total

crew-

+ PO + CREW

crew

and

from

fresh

of

oil

below.

(WTCREW)

effects

WTCREW = TMAN/6.0
Eq.

diesel

oil,

effects

of

input

= OFF
of

weight

and
fuel

number

(CREW)

effects

water

crew

of

total

and

described

as

estimated
Weight

be

per

days

of

and crew
(TMAN)
is

to

port

RTPA

Weight

The

in

= DAS x

a)

the

days

and

(8.8)

displacement

The

and

etc.
(RTPA)
is

DASPA

shipweight

the

8.2.1.

a year

Eq.

(DASPA)

annum

deadweight

cargo

light

and

maintenance

in

= 350/RVYTTM

CARGO DEADWEIGHT

from

days

VOYTIM.

subprogram

the

15

trips/annum

round

calculations

above

8.2.

repairs,

of

sea per
(DIPPA)

for

offhire

general

RTPA
and

be

is

given

tonnes

Eq.

Benford

(51).

water

(WTFW)

required

day

sea

by
(8.11)

water
fresh
per

WTFW = 0.167

man
x

per

TMAN x

182

DAS

at

tonnes

is

assumed

(51)
Eq.

(8.12)

8.2.2.

Weight
The

provisions

weight
to

assumed

of

of

be

provisions

0.01

tonnes

WTSTOR
weight

of

crew

the

weight

of

provisions

the

and

= WTCREW
centre
is

weights

of

are

8.2.3.

Weight
The

other

water

termed

and

the

as

by

given

tonnes
these

of

(8.13)

Eq.

fresh

of

is

and

(51)

sea

tonnes

is

stores

at

(8.14)

Eq.

miscellaneous

the

(8.15)

Eq.

xDM.

subroutine

PAYLOD.

subprogram

(ENDUR)

is

but

to

assumed
the

user

is

given

can

be

half

the

specify

round
input

as

ENDUR.

of

(FRANGE)

range

= ENDUR/(240
is

adopted

procedure

DAS

= 1.0

in

FRANGE
The

day

is

(37,106)

be

(DIST),

Fuelling

per

(FKGMX)

to

endurance

values

man

(WTSTOR)

fuel

of

distance

voyage

stores

+ WTSTOR

gravity

calculated

and

weight

and
(WTMISC)

+ WTFW

assumed

stores

effects,

FKGMX
These

TMAN

and

weight

WTMISC

per

= 0.01

The

miscellaneous

and

V)

x
by

given

by

(101)

Buxton

Femenia

and

(102)
(i)

Weight

Weight

where
Weight

of

consumed

at

heavy

engine

main

SFC is
of

fuel

of

sea

fuel

SHP x 0.90

x FRANGE

the

fuel

specific

AUXKW x

1.10

24

SFC

=
x

10

diesel

1-34x

(WDAUXS)

oil

x FRANGE

00

tonnes

10

=
6

SFC

of

main

engine
0.90

Weight

of

main

24.0

engine
SHP x

0.9

FRANGE

24

10

183

FRANGE

= 0.26

10

x
Eq.

tonnes

(WLCYLS)

Luboil

cylinder
x

(WLSYS)

luboil

system

= 0.37

tonnes

tonnes
Eq.

Weight

(8.16)

Eq.

consumpstion.

engine

auxiliary

(WFMAIN)

oil

Eq.

(8.17)
SHPx
(8.18)
x
(8.19)

Total

weight

Luboil

of

consumed

at

WLCYLS
(ii)

Weight

Weight

fuel

of

of

Weight

of

auxiliary
1.341

(iii)

0*75
0-9

00.95

total

(WDAUXP)

x 24 x DIP

weight

heavy

of

Weight

of

diesel

Weight

of

Luboil

the

and

(WTDESL)

oil

(WTLUB)

total

weight

tonnes

Eq.

= WTLUBS

+ WTLUBP

(TTFUEL)

= WTFUEL

following

the

weight

of

(i)

The

assumptions

main

is

engine

is

continuous
+gm/HP
162
hr

of

the

weight

+ WTDESL

KW.

would

be

diesel

of

refrigeration

higher

and

diesel

90%

fuel

the

of

consumption
fuel

reserve

rating

of

them

these

of

be

10%

of

sea

specific

and

at
fuel

two

as

standby.

the

speed

medium

The
(AUXKW)

installed
the

user

50% of

the

maximum

75% in

port

consumption

is

capacity

by

specified
at

of

generators

machinery

operates
at

The

composed

one

each

can

engine

(102).

is

specific

carries

is

with

For

auxiliary

95%

and

drive

rating

the

machinery

continuous

(8.26)

Eq.

fuel.

capacity

1500

is

(101)
of

drive

installed

(8.25)

calculating

direct

speed

service

rating,

Auxiliary

The

low

continuous

maximum

geared

for

made

Eq. (8.24)

fuel.

installation,

(ii)

are

(8.23)

Eq.

+ WTLUB
The

tonnes

tonnes

(8.22)

(WTFUEL)

= WDAUXS + WDAUXP

fuel

of

Eq.

oil

WFMAIN

Eq. (8.21)

AUXKW

tonnes

fuel

tonnes

= 1.29

10

= SFC

x 10

(WTLUBP)

DIP

(8.20)

Eq.

oil

Luboil

24

port

diesel

engine
x

Therefore

in

engine

AUXKW x 1.341

= WLSYS

tonnes

consumed

auxiliary

(WTLUBS)

sea

input.

as

and

the

efficiency

is

162

gm/HP.

hr

(101).
(iii)
on

The
the

basis

luboil
of

+ Recent improvement

in

consumption
the

following

in specific

port

and

specific

fuel
184

consumption

at

fuel

sea

is

calculated

consumption

has lowered

this

to 135.

Auxiliary

(in

engine

Main

engine

cylinder

Main

engine

system

(iv)

The

is

engine

main

The

fuel

Weight

improve
to

ability

carry

more

therefore

user

of

can

ABALAST,

port
(101).
in

the

of

which

is

cargo

dead

the

if

to
is

taken

per

the

is

control

as

carrying

to

be

capacity
decreases,
Section

by

IBALAS.

giving

a percentage

13.2

carried

parameter
by

specified

However

container
(see

increases
ballast

their

deadweight

cargo

weight

containers

increase

deck.

on

capacity

hence

and

that

specify

ballast

adequate

containers

ballast

of

in

consumption

stability

average

a value

amount

have

means

number

assigning
The

fuel
out
of the
reserve
(TWFUEL)
is
calculated

oil

(101)

Buxton

comes

must

initial

decreases,

The

hr,

gm/HP.

(101)

Buxton

FEULWE.

their

ballast

the

hr,

gm/HP.

fuel

weight

ships

additional

though

0.26

(102)

Femenia

ballast

of

Container

0.37

hr.,

gm/HP.

heavy

subprogram

8.2.4.

sea)
sea)

and

total

subroutine

to

(at

1.29

(at

tonnes/day

24

port)

to

a value
the

of

total

displacement.
The

CDWT = DISPL

(CDWT)
is given
by
weight
(WTCREW + WTFW + WTSTOR + TWFUEL

+ WTLT)
(8.27)
Eq.

tonnes
and

homogeneous

assuming

weight

of

where

DISPL

8.3.

volume

required

= displacement

under

volume
the

deck

design
only
for

of

per

container,

= CDWT/CNT
the

ship

tonnes

Eq.

(8.28)

tonnes

Eq.

(8.29)

ESTIMATES

total

preliminary
design

container

each

CAPACITY
The

loading
(WEC)

the

capacity
and

stage
former

general

volume
while

is

is

above

the

comparing

deck.

plans

At

latter

etc.

is
into
capacity
subdivided
volume
(b)
(a)
hold
the
volume
engine
room
volume
(d)
(e)
bottom
volume
of double
volume
peaks
(f)
tank,
if
any.
volume
of deep

185

into
the
ship

alternative
The

estimated.

arrangement

divided

generally

is

The

(c)
of

usually
deck

under

volume
wing

of

tanks

).

The

estimation

knowledge
offsets

uses

volume

room

and

hull

form

volume
the

the

of

from

of

form,

assuming

bottom,

block

and

are

design

L.

stage

which

are

derived

D,

Cb

tanks

and
form

sectional

to

series

60

(104).

(86),

Cameron

0.80)

to

represent

medium

hull

to

represent

ships

the

estimating

to

the

&

on

series
hull

section
U

with

section

assuming

by

given
design

give

based

volume

have

BSRA

is

(35)

Gilfillan

deck

under

deck

upper

peak,

simple

the

based

approach

of

preliminary

fore

(103)

for

up

the

at

sheer,

coefficients

simpler

dimensions

known

Rengyi

60

series
These

using

and

engine

0.84.
main

introduced

are

Watson

and

the

are

the
from

to

(48)

Kupras
of

camber,

You

curve

area

by

for

volume

0.65

0.70

which

corrections

similar

(Cb

hull

ship,

relationships.

developed

form,

T,

wing

geometrical

hull

B,

and

hatches,

cargo

whole

multiplied

derived

form.

the

of

requires

be

either

hull

coefficient

coefficients
e. g.

can

standard

of

double

however

volume

which
a

coefficients
of

ship

for

hull

or

deck

under

charts

on

main

particulars

be

deduced

only.

The

volume

(41),

Kupras

types

of

can be
(103).

(48),

tank

The

volume

The

hold

of

volume

the

in

containers
However
can

be

deck
Section

spaces

can

or
is

machinery

estimated

container
13.2.1.

in

deduced

from

hold

certain

You

easily
capacity
).
The

estimated.

ship

studies,

statistical

of

existing

length

of

186

the

the

hold

analysis
containerships
the

deduced
(105),.

Lamb

bottom

losses,

be

by

& Rengyi

peaks

the

subtracting

double

peaks,
space

can

container

by

calculated

space,

various

with

(37)"

Chryssostomidis

then

Sen

volume
of the
peaks
(48)
and You & Rengyi

Kupras
be

ships

double
bottom
of the
can be
(103),
(48),
Sen (41),
Kupras

volume

the

for

from

(27),

Taggert

The

(41),

Assuming

tanks.

wing

can

(103)

& Rengyi

(106)

& Leopold

Cameron

Sen

from

& Rengyi

space
(86),

installation.

Wing

You

Mandel

You

machinery

deduced

(103).

machinery

(35),

& Gilfillan

Watson

from

the

of

are

and

number

capacity
of

under
(see

estimated

of

as

function

the

of

This

above

for

equations

8.1

Table
double

bottom

spaces

and

Volume

of

The
by

given

the

VOLDB

=LxBx

The

some

of

settling

the

in

VOLDB

double

to

framing

of

fuel

oil

is

0.95

weight

of

fuel

oil

in
The

centre

of

double

gravity
bottom

= 0.67
of

is

is

oil

given

by

with

(Table

8.1).

All

developed

it

was

by

used

rest

then
(8.31)

stowage

tank

be

fuel

in
is

in
of

is

given

made

double

the

tank

wing

spaces.

fuel
by

oil/and
(37,106)

(8.32)

Eq.

m.

of

is

insufficient,

the
the

the

to

was

oil

A check

carried
space

assumed

was

spaces.

the

DBHM

the

of

carried
(FKGFB)

187

the

settling

can

(37)

is

Eq.

etc.,

bottom

If

(WFDB)

bottom

t/m3.

(FKGFD)

gravity

together

(8.30)

bottom

tonnes

spaces
x

double

equation

0.95

106,37).

fuel

Eq.

of

because

due

the

is

m3

ships
the

lost

tank

tank

(VOLDB)

0.69

actual

space

centre

spaces,

study.

fuel

of

FKGFB
and

tank

wing

miscellaneous

equations

in

ballast

of

evaluation

WFDB

of

the

estimating

spaces

Cb x

comparative

a containership

tonnes

rest

bottom

double

the
double
to be in
assumed
the
that
amount
of oil
with
(Eq.
8.31).
bottom
spaces
the

good

spaces,

peak

estimating

weight

The

of

gave
good results,
(37)
was selected

coefficient

166

the

volume

in

to

compared

capacity

actual

DBHM x

different

previously

be

spaces.

the

of

equations

Assuming

lack

to

bottom

volume
(37)

Chryssostomidis

be

tank

shows

The

the

fore

spaces,

bottom

double

preferred

coefficient.

the

gives

double

by

volume

block

settling

8.2

Table

of

was

has

as

the

only

tank

wing

length

room

therefore

and

approach

lower

machinery

5.4),

bottom

because

approach

the

Section

double

estimated.

LBP,

(see

SHP

of

volume

the

of

percentage

fuel

oil

in

the

+J
r-I

"r-i

ID U

4-)

t)

(a
n.
m
U

I-

CO
t0

17j'

cD

1:1
M

O
ri

in
ri

01
ri

r-I
7
N

CO
M
to

co

U)

O1

N
ao

N
t" 1

01

II)

r-i

r-I

CO

t'7

t0
M
M

ri

r-I
r-I

N
r-I

U)
10

ri

co
ri
m7
`1
U0CM

CO CD a)
C+)

"rI

E:

01
t0

If)

ri

"

_Y+3
Co CJI

"

mCE

C. m

7
d

(D -Y 4-1

N
ri

t0

CO

F4 CLIC
m
CE
a)

IL

"

r- i

"

to

O0
o

CV

CD 0
Lv

r-i

ri

r-I

M
01

in

LI)

m
C.
4-)
4D

-0

A
4-)

"
Fl -Y
CO U
a)

rl

"
ri
N

"
t)
co

r-q

r-i

+
01
01

t')

L-

FI
a)
+1
4.

>.

"rl
`1 0
m CD
(1) CL

01

"

in

Lf)

CL tl

ri

"

C')

CV
N

"

"
O
r-I
N

%I
r-I
N

in
0
N

in
AT

01
Cl
N

ri

in

"
ri

"
ri

In
"

M
M
"
N
O

Ln
I

Ol
N

N
IT

.
03
H

0
N
"
ri

ri

CD

0
N

4
ri

U)
U)
"
r-I

0
N

in

co
Ol
"
O

r'i

rf

in

in

In
t')

"

co

"

"
O
O
N

CV
N
N

t')
r-I

In
N
U)

r-I

10

01

in

to
U

QC

t'')

a7

01
U)
LO

r-1

CO

Cl)

t'')

in

+1
"
L71

CC

-Y

"r1 a)
:3 +)

co
Q.
(a

O
M

01

LO

N
01

P
0

C
"ri

01
01

3 M)

0Y
Z
-I.)

U)

01

tr)

0
N
M

co

7
Lo
N
in

in
U)

N
CD

Cl

It

-4

-4

'D
C
m

N
CD
Q
CD

mE

ri

t0
E

In

If)

r-1

ON
.
CV

in

"

ao
"

0L
i=
4-) 01 2
co
"rl
-L-)

ao

"
N

ri

'0 4-3
r-I Ot
OCE
2 m

CD

01

Ol

r-I

CD E 4-3
ri
,n
7

CL
D
U

ri

in

ri

co
ri

a)

+1
I-

0
m
.r4
+3
.rj
U

M
N

2m

1*

CO

N
co
r-I

co
O

ri
LI)
U3

In

01

Cl)
N

01

C
(a
4-)
D1
C
.
3
E
0
.N

C
"rI
H

-Y

r4
W
J
C13
Q
H

r)
r-I

4-3 CUM
IO mE
-I-) a.,
7 CL

t')

a]
N

in
N
N
M

"I
Ln
ri

N
N

0
01

Cl)
N

U)
01

01

r-4

-4

U)
01

co
U)
N
O
r-I

LO

1*

ri
N

O
Is

FL
m

ID
Cl)

01
>,

FL

LO
CO

N
O

t)

"It

CD E
r-i O
+)
-0
7+)
00
C

-13
m
r-q
13
:3
0
0

>.
4J
"ri

4-3
"rl
UM
mE

.11

1,0

FI
CD

C)
C
E Co
7 r-1

Om

m
CL m
"ri E
I-_ m
NZ

r-I

ON
U

" CD
r-I Z

>"
co
m

"r-I
r-I

>.

>1
-0 ID
C3
LO O
rim r-4

3
La!

`1
0
I-

"

M"

E+

r-I
m to

C7

O
N

F1
m

0
0
FI
i)

0
:>

(D

"

U)

"

lD

co

0
7

U
C
LaJ
N

N
N

"

'O
C

cc
ri
m
U)

"

(Ico

N
N

01
C
"ri

a
CD
a)

I-

01

r-

L")

ID
+1
C D)
mm

ri D)

N. -4
OU
O
r-i

188

(D-DBHM)

FKGFD = DBHM + 0.60

Most
without
is

to

be

for

the

study

parametric

temporary

or

permanent

carried,

to

improve

that

assumed
space

of

fuel

the

space
can

be

ballast.
the

remaining
used

is

for

189

ship's
after
ballast.

m
carried

out
If

some

stability,
providing

Eq.

(8.33)

for

ships

ballast
it
adequate

is

(D

v.r4

.,E4
0

U) N r-1 0
0 +0 t''7
OM
E
U) . -:3 -P

U)

OO
O

0
O
d

Lf)
t'')

t'

lD
01

N
01

t'7

t0

M
N
1-1

d
t0

t")

t0
ri

t0
N
N

d
1D

t'')

t'')

-1

-1

in

t'')

co
ri

01
N

Ln

t0
N

O1

0
t)

t0

in
t')

N
d

ri

CD
N
Ol

0
N

in

r-L
r

L
U

OE

r-1 O
0 4-) tr)

-O aP E

trJ

OO

.
Cn

_0 A
..

t0

tr)
ST
CO

in
N

d'

0
01

-1

ri

r-i
N

Cr)

to

U)
O

f-t

0_
:3

CV
N

C0
0

O
E
O

r-01

CL

O
Ja) --

0
.74. "i-)trl
) E
OO
.13

tr)
.

O.

O
l0

t7

t'7

01

to

t'7

t0

to

tn

i
r

in
N

m
t,

m
E

01
O

N
0
Ln.
O

01
N
d

tM
to
?

r
CD

O.

O.

O.

r-t

in

co

to

in

r-i

CO

-T
to

in

O
Co

-1

r-i
LO

01
CO
N

t'7

tr)
in

in
N
01
%T

CO
1n
co

t')

ri

N
01

N
In

Lo

t7

(V

t7

Co
t0.

01

M)

-4

co

CD

co

01

CO

LO

to

ot3 O
Q]
_0
C
co

O)
"r1
r-f

+)

`1tr)

4.) CE
O (ti
0) 4J

E:

r-1

r-1

0
'O
O
C
O

^
in
O

CDE
0
r-I

-N
7+)
OO
O

r-1

Co
7
rl

-13
E
co
J

m
m
",

Co
H
Co
a
E
O
U

N
C6
W
J
m
Q

to

r-i

N
d
N

N7

tr)

in
tr)

in

in

LO
Co

Lf).

t0.

in

r-1
in

Co

N
CD

in

N
r-i

r-1

.11

to

O
Ln
N

in
ri

N
tr)

d
N

01

In.

in.

in

N
O

Co

t)

Co
.

"
tr)
N

Co

LO

ri

ri

O
tD

in

Co
.

CD

ri
.O^

13 J
J
4Ov
. i

EE

CO
ID .Ea
43 -0
X0
W, n

in
in

r-I
.
rf

01

O
N
.
4

N
LO

LC)

d
N

tM

Igo

N
.

t'')

N
M

01

ri

r-i

r-4

Ln

10

.
N

Cn

01

"

C)

TABLE 8.2.

(Contd.

).

Lamb ,

Double

bottom

and K3 = 1.2
Mandel &
Leopold,

bottom

Double
K6=0.11,

Kupras,

Double

Cb - 0.06,

xBx

Lpp = combined

= LBP xBxDx

volume

DBHII x Cb x K3.. m3,

peak

K6 x

length

K9 x

in

m.

0.69

bottom

Double

volume = LBP xBx

(OTH) 0.5`"'
x
- 1.5004
bottom

Cb

"" m3

Kg = 0.986

CBDB = 2.068
Chryssostomidis,

= (LBp-Lpp)

volume

volume

191

DBHII x CBDB'. 'm3'

x (OTHM) - 1.265

= LBP x8x

x (0.70

DBHPI x Cb x 0.69

- Cb)
.. m3

CHAPTER
SHIPBUILDING

9.0

COSTS

INTRODUCTION
9.1.

9.2.

LABOUR

COSTS
LABOUR

9.1.1.

STEEL

9.1.2.

OUTFIT

9.1.3.

MACHINERY

9.1.4.

TOTAL

MATERIAL

MANHOURS & COSTS

LABOUR

MANHOURS & COSTS

LABOUR

LABOUR

COSTS

COSTS

COSTS

9.2.1.

STEEL

MATERIAL

9.2.2.

OUTFIT

9.2.3"

MACHINERY

MATERIAL

COSTS

MATERIAL

9.3"

MISCELLANEOUS

ITEMS

9.4.

TOTAL

COST

CAPITAL

COSTS

COSTS

9.0.

INTRODUCTION
The

the

cost

following
(a)

Design

(c)

Fully

detailed

The

first

stage

basis

of

that

The
number

of

design

are
In

third

This

type

cost

estimators

stage,

is

in

are

fully

detailed

the

absolute

values

the

right

alternatives.

very

stage

when

to

near

the

smaller

optimum

Steel

(ii)

Outfit-and

(iii)

Machinery
be

type

Overheads

and

in

pounds

ship

built

in

Wherever

in

results

this

professional

thesis

we

feasibility

cost

data

amountsof
are
study.

is

grouping

expenses

the

and

is

costs

are

that
at

the

developed
1980

early
cost

of

container-

shipyard.

data

show

thesis

reflecting

U. K.
the

into

this

and

average

possible
the

other

sterling
an

In

the

design.

engineering

Material

level

considerable

study

of

categorised
(b)
Labour

1978

by

or

and

proposed

to

stage

hull

adopted

the

undertaken

designs.

further

method

and

for

first

carried

technical

recourse

the

is

estimate

sufficient

usually

this

Carreyette(108)

methods

of

concernon

reflect

at

which

have

with

(i)

The

cost

available

similar

or

only

may
(a)

stage

must

undertaken

when
be

will

who

same

(iv)

by

stage

study

of

Usually

These

is

cost

the

in

stage

data

concerned

the

this

is

designs

ship
At

but

It

about.

alternative

design

preliminary

compared.

the

the

or

concerned

criterion.

tendering

at

study
is

alternatives,

economical

on

thesis

differences

second

estimate)

estimate

important

of

magnitude

budget

or

investigation)

feasibility

merit

into

categorised

preliminary

detailed

different

some

not

out

this

ranking

with

(or

study

what

(or

study

be

can

process
(107):
stages

Feasibility

is

are

three

(b)

study
ed

estimation

have

good

192

been

agreement.

checked
Finally

with

other
it

is

that

shown

First

the

model

the

labour

costs

are

regarding

9.1.

LABOUR
The

Steel

(ii)

Outfit

(iii)

Machinery

costs,

and

labour

certain

to

get

the

be

subdivided

the

assumptions

overall

ship

as

cost.

pointed

in

model,

total
then

labour

is

that

of

only

manhours

is

wage

are

rates

associated

direct

all

labour
to

get

approach

validated

with
to

applied

steel,

apply

fairly

the

are

with

costs.

necessary

to

year
This

costs.

the

costs

basis

it

estimated,

labour

and

the

costs
and

manhours

are

prevailing

costs

and

manhours

labour

of

and

manhours

labour

once

estimation

methods

then

established,

overheads,

can

manhours

rates

the

costs

(i)

this

updated.

into,

labour

in

the

profit

labour

Total

wage

are

be

COSTS

earlier

out

then

to

simple

quite
costs

and

material
made

is

good
adopted
other
calculate

outfit

and

machinery

respectively.
9.1.1.

LABOUR

STEEL
the

For

MANHOURS AND COSTS

labour

steel
with

another

validated
(46)
Chapman

in

Steel

manhours:

were

labour
1:

Method
the

labour

steel

SWLMHI

castings
The

= 1072

guide

(GSTWT)0-71

x
steel

in

labour

because

separately,
the

guide

suggested
(SWLMHI)

manhours

scrap

and

developed

method,

was

GSTWT = Gross

where

labour

steel

by

manhours
K. R.

1970.

formula

This

the

costs,

is

Chapman

given

(46),

and

by
Eq.

hours
including

weight

forging

9.1

and

tonnes.
man

it

by

hours

(GWLMH1)

longer

takes

to

is

estimated

fabricate

and

erect

structure

GWLMH1

= 314.96

GWT

193

hours

Eq.

9.2

GWT = weight

where
9.1

Eq.

9.2
and Eq.
(39),
Swift

Erichsen
Method

2:
is

and

This

tonnes.

computer

to

program
labour

steel
to

related

by

suggested

was

The

was

in

structure

in containership
was used
(55)
(61).
and Volker

the

manhours.

sources

guide

formula

in

used

labour
of

of

the

(108)

Carreyette
estimate

the

steel

variety

from

manhours

steel

by

study

by

weight

the

following

relationship

K=
where

Rh

Rh

Cb

= block

(Ws/LBP)1/3

Cb

labour

actual

Carreyette

K=

of

in

loaded

summer
tonnes

but
K=

of

nature

for

of

steel,
draft,

and

of

any

would

between

vary

227,

which

type

of

he

feels

ships,

is

and

building

shipyard

shipyards.
high

gives

a
types

one-or-two

ships.
K=

Using

labour

Steel

227

and

rearranging

(9.3)

equation

SWLMH2 = RhWs = 227

manhours

Ws2/3

Ll/3/Cb
Eq.

For

are

and

ships

labour

steel

labour
in

it

included
the

weight

is
in

Table

the

3.5%

assumed

that

the

total
the

guide

by

For

manhours

(see

K=

227
of

to

Table

as

22% in

the

labour

structure

194

guide

It

not

is

less

than
Compared

to

219,

labour

manhours

in

the

2,
i.

e.

there

manhours.

can
by

net

the

indicated

included.

Method

manhours

9.4

Method

1 the

in

steel

labour

1 and

9.1).

177

hours

weight,

are
be

assumed

K between

guide
steel

Method

Method

found

were

to

guide

separately.
labour

value

of

of

9.1.

manhours
of

and

calculated

manhours

value

a variation

Thus

was

weight

calculated

labour

1 gives

steel

the-guide

labour

constant

Method
is

was

that

Carreyette's
a

in

shown

manhour

Method

known

with
manhours

as

Chapman's

to

9.3

metres

shipyard

mixed
180

in

weight

tonne

per

at

a value

the

of

value

uses

because

of

for

constant

manhours

coefficient

Ws = Net
steel
LBP = Length
bp
K is

Eq.

be

including

steel

weight.

rf
N
N
r-I

M
co
r-I

to
aD

U)
(D

O
N

r-I

M
N
r-I

(IN
r-I
N

tn
O1

O
N

.-i

W
IW-F%

n
tD

ri
ri

O1

O\

E:

Ci:
Q

(D
r-1

t0

Ol

04
(31
U)

M
r-i

r -I
ra

U)
r-I

tD
0
co

04
CO
O

C')

)
%J:
U)

Ol

J
t7

U)

r-

73
L3

O
-1
MN

N
a

xX

.
W=

U)
tD

U)
N

O
d

r-1
U)
CO

I-

lD
O
Ol

+ \
O 1=

OD

tD

L`)
N
7

N
U)

0
01

O1

tD

co

U)

aD
01
r-I

rf

et

co

U)

U)

ri
C')
7

M
to
co

7
d
CT

U)

r-I

N
1D

rN

22

NN

>>
00

H
Z
d
E:
Q

m7
-O 0
",7-I Atb
UJ

0
co
U]

O
N
O1
U)

r -I

O
tD
U)
O
N

tD
tD

0
N
01
CO
-Y
U)

0
0
CO

t0

to

co

tD

CO

0
U)
M
0
M
,""I

0
O
O

U)
r-I
-4
to
U)
N

U)
N
N
U)

U)

tD

O
,-I

0
U)
U)

-4

co
N

N
-4

N
O
M
r-I
U)
ON

0
M
N
CD
H

0
U)
a)
U)

0
CV
C'")

r-I

co
1-1
CD
13
",j
:3
('

co

N
H
r-I D
CD 0
m13

4- W

u) J

co
01
O

U)
N

d
O

N
tD

U)
to
tD
M

to

U)

U)

to

CO
N

N
CO

0
-4

m
(D
+-)
N

M4

co

to

.13

0
H

3
0
r
c
0
E

r-i

mL
O
O)

0.
C..
7 7O

C7 3

r-4
CD
m
+1
0)

C
0
m
",-1

0.
E
0
U

d.)

r-1
CO

"

(D -1-)
3

CO
U)

01
01

O
O

U)

tf)

U)

"

"

"

O1

CO
C')

r-I

U)"

U)
"

tO

CO
r-I
N
m

O
U)
tO
to

O
O
N
U)

O
O
U)

'Zr

1*

N
r -)

CL
J

CO
U)
tf)
"

N
N
Q

tO
"

r-I
M

tn"

t0
"
O

co
U)
0
O
r-,

ri
N

r-I

co
r-I

to
N
CD

Oz
X
M

r-I

"

"

"

"

r-I
N

U)
N

U)
N

N
r-i

"
0
N

.
M
N

C)

C)

C)

C)

co

tD

rf
M
.-I

O
N

N"
ON

M
tr)
H

r-I

O
m
r -I

O
Z

r-I

er)

et

U)

lD

CO

01

ri

II

N
r -I

0"
II
0
.
co
4-) .n
3

'o
"rl
7
C7

C1
C)
+31
(f)
4

14
195

N=

CO

0
H

3N
c.l "
O
II
(.7
Ln
N3
O
X

ri

"

01
N
tO

W
~
CA

m
Q
F-

tO

Li
J

to

r-i

0
L
ca
r-i

40

-4

U)
N

Indeed

his

of

K=

of

value

bulk

building

of

few

the

Steel

labour
To

convert

wage

in
in

0.5768/hr

profit
100%

values

for

various

given
and

by

is

conveniently
(109).
in

to

1969

since

of

A1

K=

180.
is

a value

apply

not

K=

of

227.

is

given

average

by

current
the

1969,
four

2.40/

was

using

shows

-a

wage
overheads

rate

since
1980

steel

trade),

9.1

in

total

an

wage

Fig.

2.4/hr

(CSL)

costs

average
from

fold

the

increase

value

227

OUTFIT

K=

2.0

Fig.

227

hourly

If

(9.4)

Eq.

(9.5)

the

wage

rate,

K=

227,

overheads

1.10

overhead,
are

9.2.

and

The
for

profit

wage

in

expressed

and

A1

wage

margin

rates

of

different
of

+ 62.5 x (o. 4 x

wage

rate

value

(9.6)

Eq.

= 1198.56
this

against

x (437.5

LABOUR

shipyards

equation,

= overheads

outfit

eq.

from

10% then

plotted
in

K.

of

are

x
are

includes

which

the

= WR

(108)

Cb

following
for

by

xw0.667xL0.334

overheads

WR = average

the

to
in

shipyard

unskilled

industry

margins

profit

overheads

The

tugs

to

updated

shipbuilding

and

OV EAD
9.1.2.

to

necessary

shipyard

a constant

Al
where

is

average

A1=2.4.
The

the

man-hours

1980

labour

margin
and

labour

and

A
CSL =1s
Al

small

years.

Steel

where

nature

of

have

skilled

published

rate

eleven

mixed

value

that

will

the

specialising

both

be

can

rates

hourly

have

therefore

it

The

This

hour.

the

shipyard

assumed

steelwork

costs,

profit.

and

will

is

and

(reflecting

rate

in

it

to
includes

which

types

ship

due

that

that

mentions

costs

labour

work

high

and

yard

paper

type,

ship

thesis

specialist

his

rather

carriers,
a

In

is

227

sample

large

in

Carreyette

in

/hr

can

be

rates

10%.

OVHEAD

- 3"o))Eq"(9.7)

/hour.
as

a percentage.

MANHOURS AND COSTS

labour

manhours
vary

in

their

196

was

difficult

accounting

to

validate,

practices,

e. g.

oj
FO

ry
....

r-
G"-t
J
_.

-q

11.

'

6--
f..

Cr,
f-

T
.
Ifrl

It,

1''-

,
--ia

I rt
_i...
...
a

ti
ti

w
Li
f"1
Cr
C!l

ti
I

[.i.!

r1"'-

.i
r-

LO
F'.
-

IM;

LJ
z

J
LL

'1r-

i
w
Lt

5
ti

f'-

tii

C'.J

r-

-I

1.'l
.SJ
ri

r-f

lZ

ti

r"

r-

`!

s
M

6-#
LL-

L5
-`
lZ

-1
I,

I, I+I+I+I+II, I+i+1+I, I, i, l+j, l, l+I+I+1,1+1,1+L

R 43 P tiU Lj? *t

:`', CU "- r, lT 0.f .

4v', fyJ 171:Cti lZi lV i11 OJ CV 0.1 f\J -

G l1? tit co. CU -(

-4 -4 . -, .+4

C-1
w
v
a
V

197

T (>>r-

. -+ . -+ -4 -4 0

-L, Lf.,

ii
1' f''1 C'.1 --+ 19

,y1 ,y, ,$, 1: ' (S' G' l: ' a' 1M)

r.
Si

fn
.p

CL
LJ

Ul
N

-.,
N

-.,

cr

Nm

Q1

m
73

IIIIIIIIIII
Q
r-i

t0
r-I

r1

N
JV-4

ZOT

Ln
.4

ON

XT

ul
N

f+

O
"O
N

0
cr0

cyt

0
23

IrI

I
Q
A

! rf
r. 4

IN

.4

r,

r-4

L
0
r-I

ZOT

xTv

c 198

co

in

shipyard

one
costs

may

and

others

labour

costs

Method

1:

the

The

has

L,

B,

D are

2:

outfit

labour

charge

subcontracting

the

same

where

H=

is

The
labour

and

cost

is

total

by

hours

Eq.

to

analyse

difficult

found

as

that

that

(9.8)

manhours,

to

the

some-

the

labour
i.

costs

is

to

is,

outfit

labour

steel

is

practice

chargeable

size

costs

e.

or

quantity,

n<1.

form

the

of

is

for

equation

therefore

cost

of

estimating

outfit

by

given

COL = Cl>CWO2/3
COL =

1974,1978

given

'materials',
not

He

pattern

(COL)

is

accountancy

therefore

total

general

early

1974.

it

to

accounts.

a constant

the

(61)

D/106)0.60

that

since

and

followed

validating

in

in

(OLMH1)

labour

in'

for

used

metres.

manhours

labour

axn

in

as

labour

outfit

uses

xBx

found

shipyard

H=

outfit

developed

subsequent
(55)
1973,
manhours

Carreyette

'bought

Though

= 3493324X(L

Method

thing

found

labour

outfit

source

same

(53)

OLMH1
where

the

the

calculates

manhours.

studies

The

labour

as

Therefore,

costs.

method

from

it

other

and

material

first
is

(46)

1970's

as

items

subcontracted

validated.

labour

steel

the

were

and

manhours

put

labour,

outfit

(9.9)

Eq.

assuming

no

sub-

contracting
Cl

=
rates,

wage

The
wage
The

factor

overheads

for

C1
where
can

wage
be

Table
Method

rate

9.2

1 and

be

can

= WR x

updated

and

a profit
Cl

of

and

Cl

of

value

rates
value

includes

which

(30.0

(WR)
from
gives

Method

is

levels

2.

productivity,

profit.
its

variation

margin

of

10% is

OVHEAD
to

assumed

199

the

overhead

shown

+ 2937.5)
be

in

following

and
Fig.

9.3"

equation,

(9.10)

Eq.

+ 50

2.4/hour

(1980)

and

(109).

Gazette

comparitive
Chapman's

with

by

expressed

Employment
the

of

outfit
outfit

labour
labour

costs
costs

by

N
O
O

r-i

2
tl)

a)
N

C3
O

co

LO

O
to

ri

ri
co
-I
to

(10
N

ri

I17

ri

co
N

co

CO
N
CO

co

tr)

0
O
04

0
O
C3

0
O
C3

0
0
C3
to

1-1
O

to
It
O1
T

co

(1)
?

l! )
4
LI)

O
S.
LO

to

r4

ri

r)

p.. I
4,,,
"ri r-1
Q

-;r
M

(D trJ

r-I

N
d

N
d

"
O

ri

t'7
"

"

01
-:a
N
ri
N
O
ri

to

-4
N
ri
ri
O

N
ri
U CO
X>
4od

Li
N
4-)
0)
0'--.
UN

ri

ri
N
ri

-1

01
tr)
co

A
>
0
ca
-13
tp .
J

to

N
N

co

M7

CD
co
r)
"
O

to
d
"
O

to

01

co
ri

11
0

O
N

ri
ri

tn
t0

t.0

co
O
%I
m
N

to
01

U)

H
CC)
L)
to
Ch

ri

ri

to

r-!

ri
01
d
H

N
U)
-1
H

ri

ri

r-I
to)

O1

tO

U)
01

-1

to
EO
M
N

II
r-1
U

U)
r-1
tr)
Lr)

to
r i
N)

.,
w
0
N
0.

to
ON

ri

ri

U)
O

lk
0

-4

U:)

N
n
N
u')

II

O
rf
ON

ri

ri

CT
tO
1
o
C

CD

d'

CT
-1
d
"
O

U7

-1
O

0
d
O
ri

co
N

0
d
k.0

-4

N
CD
t r7
N

to

Llri

CJ
ON
t7

O
U)

01

O
r-I

O
N
N
N
N

tO

01

"

ri

to

L'7
173"
O

r-I

V)
t0
N
Lr7

ri

d
tO
0

co

to

to

r-1

CO

7L

to

01
to
-;;r

U)

CO Co
17

O
O
C3
to

O
U)

O
O
04
to

M)

Lr)
m

ri
t4)

r-I

"w

0
II
0

0)
0)
0
U
]

O
0
- vrd
J

N
L

N
re)
00

co

CO

-4

to

CD

ri

tr)

to

co
LO

O
to

tr)
O

01
01

to
CD

to

CO

U)
O
O
CD

ri

N
tr)
to
tr')

Lf)

to

It)

0) vo
C

WN
Eta
CL \

0)
G)
4-)
Go
0
0

NN

7L

rf
U7

C
-13
III ((7

ri
U7
01

JE:

e-I
4-)
"rl
44-)
7
0
40
C
0
O1
. {
H
l0
0.
E
0
U
N
01

ri

to
Lr7
01

O1
to
r'i
01

co

r1

ON
r-I
tf)
%1

N
C3

11
O
ri

O
U7
r-I

1*

to
'V'
to
N
r-4

r-I

to
01

N
CO

CD
CD

to

co

tr)
r-I
t0
co

01
CO

d
if
-N O
U3
Q
-41

L")
N
N

tr1

C.

"

M
t0
"
O

tr)

W
I-

O1
0
tO
N

%I

O
U)
r-i
N

to
"

t0

O
N

"

CD

O
O
co
N

O
O
Lr7
M

O
N

U)

"

CD

"

01

to
LO
U)
N)

01
N

CO

O1
LO
Iq
r-I

O
0

"

tD

01
U)
O
N

O
U)

O
LI7
O
N

O
N

"

tD

t0

Nx
CD
tm
N
mm"
>DN
DM

O
3O

"
O
tr)

"
N
tr)

to

N
r j

U)
r-i

to

ri
N

CO

O
N

N
j
t

ri

ri

r-i

:D

O
I!)
+
cr:B

01

lfl

..

IbR,

N
-i-

U)
r-1

to

CD

01

"
Lr7

"
co

tO
O
N

14
r)

['7

01

to

LI7

r-1

ri

O
0
t0
r-I

CD
N
01

"

to

i
L
ri

N
tw

Li

._
N

:>O

CV

tr)

-4

200

to

to

CD
)

.,.

Wo"

13

01

W
:>

`"a co

II

co
JUU
z

(D
4-)

F-

wQ

W
-j
m
Q
F-

mo".
L
Y
U""
NO
4a
.

II
oft

r-I
tp

0
L]
. co

"

..

.-

"w
00

Mo
q

trl

II

II

--I

ri

CV

C'7

excluding

overheads
labour

outfit
the

are

labour

is

profit

including

costs

overheads

outfit

and

overheads
in

neglected

costs

are

half

reason

for

the

to

equal

Carreyette's

and

Carreyette's

the

method,

Chapman's

of

If

profit.

labour

outfit

costs.

Another
and

Chapman's

not

consider
of

account

labour

outfit
the

as

miscellaneous

is

calculated

labour

labour

The

Chapman

than

does

but

separately

other

costs.

Carreyette's

because,

costs

costs

labour

between
is

costs

machinery
the

all

difference

steel

takes

and

outfit
(46)
cost

miscellaneous

as
labour

Miscellaneous

(steel

= 16%

costs

labour
labour

outfit

costs

costs)

(9.11)

Eq.
9.1.3.

The

recorded

from

the

same

i.

since

e.

LABOUR

MACHINERY

COSTS

drawbacks

most

for

manhours

the

of

as

that

work

is

of

the

directly

labour

outfit

from

equation

CML = F1X SHPO'82

SHP =

where

The
below

The
rate

value

and

value
in

of

shown
F1

of

F1

shipyards

Chapman

as

calculates

the

and

labour

outfit

installed

total

Fl

in

Fig.

(OVHEAD
can

be

from
pointed
machinery

in
from

calculated

recorded
costs
below

given

horsepower

was

is

labour

machinery
the

suffers
manhours

it

subcontracted,

Therefore

costs'.
as 'material
(CML)
is
calculated
(108)

installation

machinery

(9.12)

Eq.

PS.
the

given

equation

9.4
x

1.125

+ 117.92)
by

updated
Employment
out

the

Gazette

(109).

in

costs.

201

costs

Section
as

Eq.

WR

inputting

earlier

labour

16% of

current

9.1.2
the

steel

9.13
wage

1
C)
u
N

v
c
. a
c
c
m~O
+,, + .
m..
09
U

.
mc
) ..
rn4
+.(D

40 F4
0
- E
0

C
C

0
43
\
- 0N 'Si
0

43
m +1

70 4-4 ti
0 0.
>v

43
m

0
U

0 Co
Ju
00

. -

m
m

43
N

NO
Q! m
>3

b
k

0
U)
0-4

I_-_-I

IIIIIIIIIII

C3
t4

0
N

In
N

N
'-I

Q
N

Lc+

Ok
Nm

III

IIIIIIIIIIII U,

tOT X

202

"

IS

OA
m
3

1.4.

TOTAL
The

total

LABOUR

COSTS

labour

costs

total

from

to

1974

Burness

&

both

for

method

in

updated

by

in

Table

9.3

one

ship

for

Chapman's

the

i.

total

labour

labour
is

can

and

be

As

three

into

(a)

reported

updated

the

cost

material

labour
overestimates

to

Chapman's

ships

in

the

program

the

on

actual
shipyard

between
5%.
As

difference

between
is

for

Chapman's

within

5% in

certain

material

is

cost

also

subdivided

machinery
were

Carreyette

to

reflect

and

cost

material

of steel
cost
(112,113).

material

total

the

is

Carreyette's

and

cost

cost.

material
two

methods
available
(108)
1978
and the

Carreyette's

1970.

the

others,

of

based

except

groups:

There
by

9.3,

is

shown

COSTS

outfit

(c)

from

accuracy

steel

(b)

for

the

labour

for

adopted
It

Table

the

method

rest

updating.

costs

MATERIAL

9.2.

the

was

the

14% compared

about

of

in

seen
labour

total
cases.

one

method

18%

was

as

that

than

Carreyette's

but
for
12%.

within

simplicity

estimates

by

costs

indicates

smaller
by

ship

costs

Carreyette's
its

TEU

costs,

difference

is

which

cost

costs.

labour

methods

underestimates

1200

two

1980

method

1980

total

to

labour

and

early

of

was

Chapman's

of

Carreyette's

reflect

the
No-7

e.

outline

9.4.

which

updated

estimation

evaluation

method

total

to

between

For

costs.

Table

program

A comparative

The

the

comparing

method,
further

and

cost

in

shown

the

Chapman's

(57).

Corlett

by

validated

(61)

Volker

material

is

estimation

by

calculated

manhours

updated

was

1980
plates
The

equipment

in

used

method

by

costs
and

was

cost
hard

203

cost

other

by

Chapman

(46)

computer

model
(110,111)

was

the

to

referring

angles

material

for

to

and

other

indices
find

but

estimation,

materials
for
it

shipbuilding
was

ascertained

TABLE 9.4.

cost model (46,61,57).

K. R. Chapman's capital

K. R. Chapman
46
1969

Formula

Item
Steel
Weight
1)F l us h S t eel
Wt.
2)Deck House
Wt .
3) Container
guide wt.
g
Gross Steel
Weight
Total
Steel
Weight

F SW= 0 . 0007L

XD

1.76

0.71

0.37

OW = 129 . 6 3x LXBXD/10

GW = 0.713xN0.92
NS = FSW + DW + GW
GS = 1.10 X NS
WS = 1.17 X

Avg.
cost

1. Steel
Matcost
erial

+CSM = WS X steel

1)Steel
2)Guide

work

0.71
SM = 1060 x (GS)
GM = 310 x GW

2. Steel

labour

3. Outfit
material
1cBroughtoin
outfit
mat.
factor

1980

%236/ton

100.48/ton

205/tonne

04.10/hr

0.5
(2)/(1)

1.745/hr

(1.0055)

= 1.022
4=1.022

(3)/(2)
(1.137)6

= 2.16
= 2.16

2.50/hr

i. e. @ 0.55%/annum

0.425
WOB = (LXBXD)

2)Shipyard
outfit
material
factor
3)Hatch
cover
factor

C 13.7%/annum

WOF = WOB + WOS + WHC

tor
1)Brought
2)Shipyard

in

cover
mat.

cost
Outfit
hours

65

fac-

4)Total

3)Hatch
4)Outfit

60
WOS = (LXBXD/10 )
WHC = (LXB)0.57

lab4. Outfit
our cost

COMB = Cl x WOB
COMS = C2 x WOS

650
149600

COMH= C3 x WHC

189

1560
644
359040 152879

1435
330230

193

417

454

COM = COMB + COMS + COMH

man
OL = 411600(LXBXD/1069
COL = WR X OL

60

0.5/hr.

204

& Cor.

57

steel

45.5/ton

CSL = WR X(SM + GM)

cost

Burness

1974(61

10 = 0.4258
1974 exchange rate
(3) updated from (1) by multiplying
by General
Index of Retail
Prices
= 2.2076
Mild steel
44.4/ton
High tenEile
55-57/ton

GS

Volker

04.10/hr
1.745/hr.

2.50/hr

TABLE 9.4

(Contd.

K. R. Chapman

Item

Formula

1969

( 46)

Volker

Burness

19740; 1)

1980 (57)

& Cor.

5. Miscellaneous

labour
costs

+CML = 16% (CSL + COL)

6. Overheads &
charges

+OVHEAD = 50%
(CSL + COL + CML)

Machinery
weight
1. Single
screw

gear-

ed two cycle
steam turb.
2. Geared
medium
speed
diesel
7. Machinery
cost
l. Steam
plant
(A)Chapman
SS ship, SHP
50,000

WM = 200(SHP/1000)0.57

WM= 180(SHP/1000)

0 . 57

0.535
+ CMM= C4 x (SHP)

253600

S ship
3O00 < SHP<
00p00

CMM =. C5 x

SHP

(B)Volker
50#900

CMM= C6 x

SHP

(C)Burness
Corrlett

CMM = C7 x (CSL + CSM +

COM + COL + OVHEAO + CML

2. Medium
speed dies.

0 622
CMM + C8 x (SHP) .

8. Automatic
ogging

+ CAL

9.

Profit

0'527

315600

0'S

15755

llOOOO/SHP

1+2+3+4+5+6+
8+9

cost

Note:

L, B, 0 in
Dimensions
in sterling.

0.32
%9550
4066

+ PROFIT = C9 x (CSL +
COM + COL + CML + OUHEAD
+ CMM + CAL

Total

x' 37000

0.05

264000
112,41
0.05

0.05

7+

feet,

SHP in

205

British

horsepower

and costs

4- C

., .(

co

Q1

N 1

4-- O
tF.

"rl

0 .

=1 co
04-3
r.

ri
(0

4-) . L]

m wa

I-

O(0

4-)
"ri
4-0

0...

ri

N
r-I 7 f!)
(p O+ 1-%
0 (J) W
-P
0(0
0
I- r-i U

ri

O
.

r-i
+

ri

CD
co

CO

N
O

O
N

t)
01
tD
ON

N
01

r-I

-Z

0)

L
N
CQ
>
O

O
1-1
Ch

U)
O
01)

r-4
N

N
O

CD

M
N

01
CO
01
in

co

O
U)
O
O

CT

M
-1
M

CO
to
01
N

r-I
01
to
N

0
tO
0

ON
N

to
O
ON

N
t0
Q
O

"

to

0
O
(31

01
O
0
01

+
ri
CD
N
i
r
0

1`
0%

"
C14

M
U)

to

01
N

CO
-1

U)
to
)
tr)

co
I:T
M
N
N

d
01

M
M
N
tO
N

to
O
to
01
7j*
O1

01

I
to
M
to

01
01
01

ri

14

to

to

to
M
01

to

01

to
O
ST
01

CD
co
T
01
01

co

r-I

M
-1
01

LI)
ON

01

t0

to
to
to
T
I;t

d
M
U)

LO
C)

01

CO

to
0

to

F(

(0

N
r-4
+

ri

O1

to

M
-1

O O

F+

01
N

CN
70
L
O+t
U 0
(0 E: r -I

(0

(!) r. a
0
U

to
r-I

CD
N
r-i
r-I

r-I
-7t
N
C'7

C3

CD
Lr)

to

N
to
M

co
O
N

N
r-I

to

01

-1
n

-;;t

to
r-1
to

t) )

to
r-I

N
M
to
U)
N

01
01
to

tO

er)

Lr)

r-I
t0
--I
C')

-1

01
N

to
C14
r-I

r-I

t')
N

to
C3

01

01
01
N
co

rn

,bP,

t
.`

m
4.3
1J

a..) (a
., 1 7 d)
4-

O+1

+) O
7(0
O

0)

e---

0) 4,a
0%-.
U

ri

to

NI

O
ri

--t
N

co
N
, -i

CA

tn

-4

t1r)

N
CD
N
01
N

r"'I
to
N
r4
! ')

I
t0
N

ri

r-I

ri

tf)

01

7
to

V-1
ri

N
X
O

cao
N
N
c0

L+
3
0

Co
4. ) -%

tD 0

Q) rJ

(D

co
U7 r-I

0v
U

r-i
l0

N
r-I

N
(0 O0
+J
"`i

-P

0O

F-

(S.-

O+)

N0v
,IU

0) 4a
'-(

H
0_
CO O

m
>

.,
O

0
C1

0)

OL

M
01
M
d
Q

-.

(0 W

L
U

. -i

Cl)

te)

01

-it

U)
N

ri

CO

U
0) 0) 0C. a

CD
01

M
N

CD

r-

CT
t0

U)
CD
N

t1

to

to

Cr)

01

M
C71

t1)
01

04

N
M

01
M

co

C0v

F-- t0

to

N
co

U)
C')
r-I

N
r-1
U)

to

Lf)

t0

tO

co

IT

N
e')

co
7

O
U)

"r1 7m

tr)
M

co

4-

4-3 .O 0) 4,a
>
co Ov
O r-I U

+3

4-

tO

04J

CD

CD

co

-r

co

co
01
CO
ri
t0

co

co

U)

tO

tD

(a
a
E
0
Lt
M

-4

L+

0) :1 CO
0) 0+J
e-'D 0) (ra
4.3
,
Cf) Co O v
C)

01
W
J
C3
Q
F-

tO

t0
M
N
tO
N
N

co

to

0
! r)
11
N

N
ON
N
co
U)
N
LI)

tr)

N
01
0

O
U7

ON

U)
co
to

r-I

01

CM

to

tO

CD

ri

01
to
N

N
O

U)

CO

CO

N
M
U')

C)

co

t0

m
N

co
"CT

N
r

to

01
01

LI)

to

r-I

co

rCV
N
N
N

r-I

N)

;T

> .l1]-.
0

'fl
mX
m
.
E
0 O
7Hn
mv
m

U)

Wx
m

co

r4

co
N
m

-{-

'O
-1
l0
"
mN

N
WU

O
O

U)

CO

L'')
O

O
O
N

II

N
[`)

N
O

to

O0

Q1

to

01

II

to

tO

Cr)

N
,-I

ri

r-I

CD

CT

(tl

CO
un
"4

l0
m3O
41
m
-0
fa
m

(D
rn

Co

E
Z)
m
0

3Qu
0

U)

to

4M

ri

206

r-

C3
r-i

fa
LC

N
O
O

r-I

to
M

HO
0.
"
" O
O
O

to
to

dJ
"rl

C14

to

01

11
A2
bO
ra

N
co

r-I
U)
er)
0

t0

14T

r-I

N
N

t0
r-I

ri

ri

! ')

r
r

to
1'
0
[' 7

to
U)

-1
to

O
O

N
ri

co

U)
r'I
tO
to
N

t0
r-I
tO
N
CD

O
O
to
r-I

O
O
N
r -1

N
to

01
N

0
co.
L

c
0
0
.,

O
M
N
to
co
0
l0

Ol

CA
N

4-)

U)

01

N
to

M
N

1'

N
co
N

N
tO

01

N
LI)

4J

co

N
N

C
W
E

.co
-1

N
to

O
N

to
N

01
O
N

r-I

N
CD
Q1

"t;

"ri

.0
co
r-1

Co

m
0)

O
0

13

N
.-I
O
N

O
O

O
r
0
r-I

II
r-4

that
a

structural

steel

guideline

good

built

the

The

to

breakdown

are

also

in

shown
the

validate

the

found

Carreyette

form

general

the

Material
is

where

a constant,

variable

and

material

cost
of

economy

is

has

0.667

to

labour

machinery

STEEL

9.2.1.

The

the

MATERIAL

(108)
steel
B1

where
the

and

is

shown

as

the

STLCOS,
The

of

in

Fig.

value

of

(CSN)

value

is

B1

degree

of

the

as

labour

steel

weight

steel

material

has

index

an

the

of

And

costs.

by

given

for

installed

the

equation

(9.14)

Eq.

values

value

of

increases.

scrap
can

cost
of

(STLCOS)

The

STLCOS

of

for

the

steel/tonne

in

same

the

0.82.

of

The

9.6.

increase

Further

costs,

reflecting

percentage.

cost

1.

tonnes.

constant

scrap
of

values

B1.

is

quantity

material

material

cost

in

weight

by,

the

weight

CSM = B1xWS

WS =

costs.

COST

material

steel

<

1.0,

outfit

index

same

similar

costs,

outfit

and

to

used
method.

increases

to

for

costs

has

power

0.95,

is

labour

costs,

costs

was

labour

show-the

compared

labour

compared

horse

0.667

of

material

given

or

quantity

Steel

9.4.

xn
size

not

or

(108).

Outfit

costs.

size

the
is

which

did

in

scale

index

an

index,

functions

functions

cost

the

the

the

showed
for

=a

is

Table

method

equation

Cost

were

Carreyette's

costs

obtained
of

in

of

by

given

as

(46)

shown

Chapman's

material

those

as

characteristics
the

9.4.

ships

material

Chapman

is

were

guideline.

elements

costs

that

by
and

various

material

good

given

For

for

costs

Table

9.5.

published

as

1980

of

Fig.

provide

costs

reflect

The

Thus

(113)

material

updated

in

shown

(112)

indices

price

indices

in

labour

as

is

and

elsewhere

well

wholesale

percentage
be

estimated

equation

207

B1

and
B1

For

steel/tonne

of
for

various
percentage

scrap

increases
a

fixed

increases
from

linearly
value
the

the

of
value

following

of

CV
lV

ti

-1

ti1
1
,,
1

tiIIiI
r_

II

.,

ti

C,:.
!1.1

,.
,-,

ti

11.1

Cr
-

ti

J
-.

r_ r-

N.t
tL

Sy

ti

,f

cl
u

cl)
`

llON to

Fr=

vN

e--M

'U

Z
Li

cd

Q
Cr

rnto
H

cd

cz;

._

W
N
S
Ci

r-

L.
W
CL

C'J
P-

r
V
`

LT
kLI

X
Li
r-4
F-i

, t, I, I, I, 1I:
T

GM
0@G,
.............

Gti
tji m. -+ c,
" tt *t Ci

I, l,

C1a C1i

al W
ID Cl)

U7
n7

(L)

. d

II I_
P
S

. -

2,

I, I, 1Il,

C"a1 iM

G,

R}

iS

6 V @ S
Cl) . -4 Cn h. U? m. -4 47, r.
(1) Cl? CV (LJ C11 Ctil (U -+ -r

!@@Ta:,
ifl

IIt,

Cr'"a
l

208

i.,

l"I,

I:

G,

Gi

Gti

a, l9
U? (n
- -'

r9
r4

an r-

IM

F", rS

Co
L.C.

B1

= STLCOS

1.18x((SCRAP

7.5)/100.0

+ 1.0)

+ 0.20
(9.15)

Eq.
STLCOS

= Cost

of

(110,111).
and

The

the

scrap

SCRAP

S(i)

is

and

= block
Depth

Design

= Cb

(l

is

ship

draft

Fig.

in

is

given

by

D1

1975

Index

is

(108)

are

shown

in

other

at

design

at

side
vessel

and

polynomial

+ S(4)

of

Cbi+

s(5)
(9.16)

the

of

depth

the

of

ship

(COM)

is

T)/3T

(9.17)

Eq.

draft
in

m.
in

m.

COST
cost

from

calculated

was
taken

9.7.

the

as

as

100.

compared
Table

9.5.

formula

material

the

base
The

with

Since

indices

year

may be preferred.

209

D1

calculating

and
of

D1

value

shows

by

indices

steel
it

Carreyette

(9.19)

Eq.
cost

structural

Material

of

given

material

9.5

(9.19)

Eq.

by

calculated

1975

mid

index/100.0

outfit

available,
shipbuilding
not
(112)
As Table
was used.

from

costs

Dlsince

of
for

values

those

equipment

value

(9.18)

Eq.

f,
the

The
The

= 1500.0
taken

0.95

reflects

quotations.

shown

index

0.80

the

of

which

constant

is

were

x Cbi

material,

equation

manufacturer's

Mid

of

order

Cb) (O. 8D

COM = DINO
Dl

(plates

(9.17)

the

of

material

following

at

Eq.

MATERIAL

OUTFIT
Outfit

S(3)

coefficient

D=

9.2.2.

from

Eq.

from

estimated

Cb

wastage

4th

coefficient

Cbl
where

taken

material

the

following

steel

is

214/tonne.

or

Cbl

/tonne

= block

Cbl

where

be

percentage

+ S(2)

Cbi

to

out

the

calculated
(35)
Cbl

of

value

from

is

in

material

average

works

sections)

SCRAP

steel

gives

price
fairly

and

O
co

CA
N

C
0
U

mV
c

0
U"
"-.1 91

41
0

rq
M

mC
0
E

cm
tJ

N
c

AE
H

rn
c

-A
vC

C1

i1

a
LO
U il
40 a
Ev

tD
N

>-

v
rn
LL.

1IIIIIII1II1
NO
r-I

C!

0000

r1

r-4

v
N

...

01

lOT

T!

co

)
0
co

0 ri

43
c
0
43
c
O
U

ON
N

i
"
111-1
0
V9F-4

N
42
O
i
cm
N

13
C

0
ti

>-

0
fl-

C;
..4
U6

IIIIII

LiI

I_

IIII

in
r-

U,

C3

IlY

04

.4

OT x

To

TABLE 9.5.

Comparative
Fig.

values

of

D1& Gland

updated

values

9.5.

D1

G1

Year

Given

Calc.

Given

Calc.

6/75

1500

1500

735

735

6/76

1725

1724

845

845

6/77

2011

1989

980

975

1/78

2111

1034

1/79

2369

1161

1/80

2531

1240

211

as per

good

for

results

9.2.3.

the

to

enough

show

are
is

engine

The

value

G1

of
for

formula

of

G1 calculated

by

to

in

found

that

was

9.3.

MISCELLANEOUS

be

B,

(2)

Where

cost

may

(3)

If

of

engine

types

the

program,

in

Fig.

9.8.

(9.20)
The

by

Indices/100.0
in

as
are

cost

Eq.

shown

Eq.
in

shown

agreement

higher

(9.21)

Eq.

(9.19).

The

values

Table

9.5

and

the

with

twin
be

DH

limited

kind,

the

cost

screw

difference

EH

as

to

by

this

assumed

in

85%

by

is

item

the

data

to

the

is

fixed

212

the
A.

calculation
remainder
(108).

material
10% (108).

triple

e. g.

propeller

controllable

be

The

machinery
(9.20)
by

included

and

may

(9.14).

fitted,

line

be

used

Carreyette

Eq.

centre
must

Grade

assumed

propeller

between

of

multiplying

have

where
Eq.

given

propulsion

pitch

of

added

in

B1

of
are

75%

or

increased

containerships

be

may

steel,

value

grades

cost;

AH,

E,

which

tensile

the

steel

of

controllable

cost

other

equation

Material

items

upgrading

screw

The

sensitive

material

Grades

good

of

mix

steel

given

9.21

other
are;

by

following

Eq.

not

ITEMS

various

Application

adjusted

is

indices

is

is

ships

available.

equation

(1)

of

735.0

material

the

following

1975
G1

for

from

types

SHP0.82

mid

are

the

G1 x

since

of

cost

in

calculating

values

The

considered
by

G1
The

other

be

equation

difference

Since

calculated

available.

to

assumed

cost

the

not

CMM

are
The

(108).

installation
of

costs

accurately

installation

were

COST

installation.

diesel

with

of

material

that

points

MATERIAL

MACHINERY
Machinery

limited

of

separately.
pitch

this

(sCp)

propeller

is

by

given

S Cp = 38200
Q0 = overall

where
In

the
twin

powers
no

for

adjustment

(4)

The

it

screw

cost

= 0.728

controllable

pitch

T=

thrust

in

Containerships
this

forms
(5)

item

cost

is

fin

of

CST

Containerships
or
in

are

containerships
Cost

the

the

of
type

A
= 4oo
in

total

Buxton
Slow

diesels

speed
(107)
speed

at

1977

(CST)

is

given

by

Eq.

(9.24)

fitted

with
This

system.
is

It

fitted

with
diesel

steam

cost

it

since

program,

(108)

tonnes.

program.

and

the

any

levels

is

the

stabilisers.

installation,

as

separately
for

item

cost
that

assumed

fin

either

and

slow

turbines,

speed

assumed
added

to

diesels,

developed

by

are:

diesel

machinery

(material

+ labour)

2708
Geared

(9.23)

cost.

can be calculated
program,
(9.20).
Some equations
given

medium

following

thrusters.

with

3/4

tank

from

differences

in

sometimes

flume

not

fitted

the

Eq.

the

Eq.

stabilisers

of

are

stabilisers
included

in

included.

Tk

included

not

displacement

where

(6)

by

estimated

sometimes

fraction

small

The

not

is

tonnes.

are

cost

type

therefore

sufficient,

propeller

+ 42000

CT = 58000

But

higher

at

(108)

equation

where

is

metres

even

be

will

(CT)

tonne

that

installation

(9.22)

Eq.

RS'iP
PM

assumed

was

thruster

of

Q01/2

torque

program

(108)

medium

speed

costs,

x SHPO.

CMM + CML =

75

Eq.

(9.25)

Eq.

(9.26)

diesel

CMM + CML = 3752

213

x SHPO-70

N
ri

.
4(F

"ri
O

V7
to

N
N

N
t0

?
H
.

U)
tr1

co

LO

U)

1:1

Ln

m
N)
ri
Ql

t0

tD
N)

01

co
LO

r-i

-1

O
0

N)
Q

LO
.

ta

co

-;r

N
N

N
d

N
N

r-i
.O
4U
I
4"r1

C)

i=
O

--4*

L)

ri

E:
O

rn

CD
N
tD
w
co
M)

Ca

N)

N)
N)
CO
co

r-L

N)
t0

U)
01

4-3

O
3

QI
.CD
r.i

co
to

CO

N
Lf)
to

(30

N
tr)
N

in
Ol

tD
N

N
N)

tD
to

O
ri

N
ri

0
r-1

In

Y
N)

N
N
to
w
In

N)
N
N)

N)

co

Ol

t0
O

N)

CO

r-i
H

w
O

N)
w

Q
w
Ca

t0
N

N
LO

CO
O\

N
CD
r-i
0
QD
w
d

co

r-I

(3t
17

N
r-1

r-{
Ln

N
N
L'))

t0
N

w
N

O
N

N)

4.)
C
"ri

%T

N)
co

tD

aD

(a
ri

r-I

r-i

O
O

U)

LO
t0
In

In

N)

O
N
N

t0
N)
N

d
r-i
O
rl

O
O
to
N)

0
U)
U)
N)

Lf)

to
O
N

In
Lf)

w
N)
-t
Ln

N)

N)

tD

ri

O
O
%1
rf

01
In
O
N

O
In
O
N

01
co
r-1
w

Lf)

0
14

3
r-i

ca
CO 7
4-3 O
O
U: a
O

1-1

E:

r-d

O
U

CD

ri
O
co
F-

O
U)
.,. {
L1
ca
O_
E
0
U

E:
O

"ri

O
(D
C
.1-1
Cl-

i=

CD

0
-0
E
En

0
U
r-I
O
.,..
CD
4-)
co
E
4-
.
w
4-)
:3
0

In
C)

>.

-0
0)

O
N)
N
N

O1

C)

t0
N

r-4

co

(71

01

co

N)
U)

to

O1
U)

N
Lf)

(31
N
co

rn
CD

N)
r-I

ri

Lf)

N)
w
N

ON

O1

In

rnw

S.

C)

arn
w

co

ri

r-I

r-I

N
Ot

N)
N)

ri

ON

tD
tD

d
m

t0

m
Y
N

ri
N

N
, -It

co

LO

N
%73*

O
d

N)

U)
N

"Ct

C)

In

N
N

O
O

ri
N
O1

Ol

LO

N)

1.0
t0

m
(30
U)

N
N
r-f

co

01

r-i
N
01

co

r-4

(71
1-1

co

N
N

-1

r-I
t0
r-i

Ot
N

Ot

ri

N
d
0
N

ri

O
t)
In

w
r-i
N

N)

(33
w
r-i

In
N)

co

ON

m
In
N)

ON

co

r-i

N
N

tD
N)

%1

Lf)

N
U)

Ch
N

01

-1

ICT
)

Ln

N
N

d
01

to
t0

N
co

%*

co

0
co

LO

Cl)
co
w
r-i

N)

to

O1
N)
Lf)
m

LO
O
r-I

N)
O
ri

N)

r-1
U)
d

In

In
N)
N)
"
N

co

L)

S
3

t0

rn

In

LO

O,
Ln

In

Ln

LO

to

tD
trl

d'

O1
t0

N
01

U)

"
N)

r-i

%1
N
"
N

t0

N
to

m
0

N
t0

m
t r)
N

(N
N

N
In

O
t0

r"I
t0

ri

N)

In

co

O1

co

N)

lr
01

tb

r-f
w
N

m
O
L>

Ln

En
C)

tD

U3

co

In

El-

oi
w
J

214

Geared

turbine

steam

CMM + CML = 36865

These

when

compared

comparable

give

to

updated
the

results

by

program

Buxton

The

BLDGCO

in

106(1977)

x
costs

Carreye
x 10
Materia

6.1718

5.1075

6.3852

4.282

CAPITAL

to

Labour

Total

1.946

6.228

COST

total

Capital

steel

labour

BLDGCO

Cost

the

of

cost

(BLDGCO)

ship

steel

+ outfit

cost

+ machinery
2C/3L /3
cost

A CS

+81)4JS
82

is

therefore

F1

profit
then

margin

profit
G1.

and
margin

given

such

money

in

the

program

the

in

the

factors

user

can

percentage)

derived
a

shipyard

(9.29)

Eq.

as

and

year

and

from

x(
(as

overhead
/tonne

cost

shipyard

Cost

cost
95

Eq.

Al,

(9.29)

C1,

B19

specify

the

(9.28)

+Ff SHP0.82
Eq.

included

= BLDGCO

steel

particular

+ machinery

+D1xWOC'

-+C1xWC2/3

+ outfit

any
is

cost

capital

by

factors

rate/hr.,

cost

material

is

(PROFIT

BLDGCO

Other

In

cost

-tGZLSHPO.
10%

material

material

much

introduced

and

steam
turbine

labour

D1,

be

can

speed
medium
diesel

labour

levels

cost

thus

and

by

given

.'.

below,

figure

slow
speed
diesel

30,000

TOTAL

CMM+CML

shown

(9.27)

Eq.

user.

H. P.
(metric)

9.4.

as

present
the

Carreyette's

with

reflect

x SHP-50

the
will

110PROFIT)

material

indices

may

be

by

pay

for

input

is

meant

shipyard

Eq.

labour

percentage),

and

program

215

100

for

the

to

(9"30)

wage
a

user.

indicate

labour

and

how

and

materials
Price

overheads

however

market

numerous
by

program,

published
This

indication.
a

ship

TEU

fairplay

the

without

Table

figure
the

that

the

TEU

except

was

ship
for

other

from

and

speeds

made in
(57)
in

and

are

gives

TEU

as

those

ships

of

the

9.7

and

the

The
in

same

calculated

which

(shown
3.8%,

Carreyette

there
the

after

has

escalation

216

Table

(108)

for

dramatic

been

brought

with
to

price
less

ships

of

the

the

program.

the
the

this

the

with

with
by

within

for

figures

check
106

TEU

3000

were

with

9.8)
is

oil

depressed

various

cost

which

was

the

by

by

the

25.64
in

cost

shipowners

cost

A cross

costs

after

the

to

together

of

order.

price/TEU,

costs

the

those

right

the

assumptions

deriving

magnitude

oil

validated
600 TEU

of

and

that

costs

ships

9.8

of

shows

for

the

to

any

thus

was

year

orders.

Table

knots

by

596 quoted

at

in

and

ship
23

of

shipbuilding
110`

knots.

difference

cost

27

trend
be

ship

Table

about

the

general
to

(57)

indicated

of

1200
TEU

to

program

F airplay

the

18

ship

that

the

national

shipbuilding

the

of

from

due

terms

open

for

in

than

decision

as

shipyards

source

the

seems

1250

the

less

credit
such

in

in

the

plotted

shown

than

mainly

of

calculated

Until

by

liberal

cost

of

is

subsidies

competition

cost

the

heavy

another

The

This

cost

journals.

as

less

good

the

ous

rate

been

always

ships.

and

was

converted

was

be

TEU

was

TEU.

cost/TEU
has

keep

capital

data

of

ship

vari.

exchange

factors,

fierce

The

were

given

where

cost

TEU

into

shipyards,

to

1980

average

political

governments

actual

the

some

to

government

about

prices

market,

shipbuilding

ship

price/TEU

in

order

and

cannot

1200

of

ship

on

results

9.9

published

converted

the

1973.

of

Fig.

containersas

with

price

crises

and

of

ships

ship

as

vessels

the

of

container

such

subsidies

validate

from

evident

of

loan,

prices

prices

Actual

9.7.

quoted
and

set

to

container

actual
1200

The

is

Fairplay

standard

against

So

profit.

factors

various

rates,

fixed

some

number

interest
factors.

other

the

by

make

competition,

type,

same

also

influenced

conditions,

the

of

is

and

program
accuracy

method.

in

increase
rise
than

of

1973-74,

5% per

of

annum

0"1
cc$

L.d

CL

cCI
,
cl-I

w+

Cl

++

LL,.

c.
r.

++

+'14'+

CD
r,
r -

+
LE
IT

C"J
[i .
l1

'n
T.

5y
`

++

CL
w

c-;
J
W

Lf)

++ ++ ++
++

+ ++ + ++

-;r
fl-

; i+

4-

L1.
_

r
-1

Li..

f1le) LL!
CL

r-

J
W

r-

LX

1
z

_Y.

Cr,'ti

G
CDP
I: L

T
! -1

r
rn
rn
rn
.,

L: 1

Cs

1,:

! -i

W
1=

..,`

O..

!T
E-

5_

CL

I1

r_

ti

-W
CI

L=1

++

T_

..

,r
r -

+
ti
ti
5
5

Efj

rr--

++

. --i

W
L)
-.

.a
+i-

--r

s
LL , 1. I. I, I. I, 1,1,1,1,1.1,1,1.I, I. L
V VV
i11''lil_T,, fyf, is
Ui ViV ;i lfilylyl('ylYiyll
C.

Vl4it'-l
an

i';, 1rY`y1tiYlylFli'i1
kyfitislyfi1f31ii
jnilli,

=4?
c'1 WJ

a
r,
_>4-, a

J-+
a CL,
J LL
IU

Ja
WCr:
h- -+
in a
al L
i'J

.-.
217

r..
%Ll

t
l$119191J1;
ll9lJl:
Wr 1: 71: 1.
ITJl. 9l19kD191:

".llT
Jl'sl
1191J

U^ l:! {TC('' LLi! t4it, 1,rrr{tipLJ tf ''J-+r {nt13f`-, 17U)`1 t' t11*-
`rl
(VV(VZIUCUCICUN1)ra. -. r. r, -, -r. -a-r. -. r
(+ritY}CrJC7r'"!

cl
a

oQ
..t,

CL
S
W

TABLE 9.7.

Fairplay
25,000

standard

container

ship

DWT, 1200 TEU, 22 Knots,

15% service

prices.
9 Cylinder

85% 11CR, Aux.

margin,

4x

Sulzer,

30,100

1000 KW Diesel

BHP,

Engine

Alternators.

x
Year

10

Price
of
+1
ship
set containers

Price of
one dry
containor

Price
of
one reefer container

106

Price
of
800 dry

Price
of
400 reef-

containers

er containers

Price
1200
TEU
ship

10
of

%
price
escalation

1968

4.0

450

890

0.36

0.356

3.284

1969

4.4

600

1100

0.48

0.440

3.480

+5.968

1970

5.0

675

1200

0.54

0.480

3.980

+14.368

1971

6.8

700

1300

0.56

0.520

5.720

+43.719

1972

8.2

750

1400

0.60

0.560

7.040

+23.077

1973

10.0

820

1650

0.656

0.660

8.684

+23.352

19743

20.0

1200

1800

0.96

0.720

18.320

110.963

1974D

22.0

1200

1800

0.96

0.720

20.320

+10.917

1975J

23.0

1400

1900

1.12

0.760

21.120

+3.937

1975D

25.0

1400

1900

1.12

0.760

23.120

+9.469

1976J

25.0

1500

2000

1.20

0.800

23.00

-0.519

1976D

26.0

1500

2000

1.20

0.800

24.00

+4.348

1977J

27.0

1600

2250

1.28

0.900

24.82

+3.417

1977D

27.5

1600

2250

1.28

0.900

25.32

+2.014

19783

28.0

2000

2850

1.60

1.140

25.26

-0.237

1978D

28.2

2000

2850

1.60

1.140

25.46

+0.792

1979J

28.5

2100

2900

1.68

1.160

25.66

+0.779

1979D

28.7

2200

3100

1.76

1.240

25.70

+0.156

19803

29.0

2500

3400

2.00

1.360

25.64

-0.233

1980D

29.2

2600

3600

2.08

1.440

25.68

+0.156

19813

29.8

2700

3800

2.16

1.520

26.12

+1.713

218

TABLE 9.8.

Comparative
Capital

Speed

evaluation

Costs

in

of

shipbuilding

millions

cost.

(1980).

18
knots

19
knots

21
knots

23
knots

12.21

13.05

15.17

17.07

11.0

12.60

15.61

17.79

20.29

13.0

14.70

15.50

16.87

18.67

21.71

26.49

16.1

17.80

19.0

21.10

19.74

21.63

24.66

28.66

32.59

25.50

29.48

34.04

25
knots

27
knots

600 TEU

Program
Results
S. Gilman's
(94,57)
750 TEU
Program
Results

14.70

S. Gilman's

(94,57)
1000 TEU

Program
Results

16.26

S. Gilman's
(94,57)

1250 TEU
Program
Results
S. Gilman's
(94,57)
1500 TEU
Program
Results
S. Gilman's
(94,57)

20.4

22.6

23.50

26.5

29.50

29.34

31.71

36.26

41.10

25.00

27.00

30.10

33.20

37.48

41.20

47.01

30.10

33.40

36.80

39.18

42.68

47.81

30.0

33.00

36.1

40.00

2000 TEU
Program
Results
S. Gilman's
(94,57)

23.2

2500 TEU
Program
results
S. Gilman's
(94,57)

25.6

27.7

3000 TEU
Program
Results
S. Gilman's
(94,57)

Assumptions:

27.9

15% Profit
100% overhead

215/tonnes steel price

2.40/hr
wage rate

shipbuilding

average

since

1976.

early

factors
of

ships,

in

comparison

to

of

to

the

contract

that

the
gives

ship

when

in

prices
are
the

of

Also

fluctuations
thesis

year

(114)

escalation.

quoting

9.10

shows

and

Swift
cost

the

versus

Fig.

type

at

costs
two
the

different

container

dealt
ship

1980

construction

container

the

also

represents

cost

of

ship

other

are

levels

220

various

fixed

and

are

Swift
assumed

in

fallen
1977"

after
the

estimating
but

U. K.

subject

involved

complexities

by

types

have

types

not

currencies

costs

for
costs

for

economic

with

escalation

ship

formulae
prices

the

to

subject
(114).
to
pounds

in

be

In

this

of

fixed

sterling.

0
0

n\.
0
CA

\\'

...

L-

Yli

id

r,

'o
N

4------

0*

lV

r-

"a
4J
4J

C3
Na

CD
F-4
:1

+2

1-4
!7

1'

U
m
Cl

0
0
0

C
LI
I- "
m N

.-1

co
t0

ft...
in
0-1

C
CC
m0
ri
.0J

-0
i1

o
W

aa
4J ..i a
94
aE
o f+ a
UaC

11
:

a4.1
F1
CL
.H>, o
Lmd
(n
v

0
'i
oi

rn

LL.

0
a

0
1D

0
in

0
Q

MN0
r-4

uoTIeTeaae W83-78d

221

14o

Q1
H

OI
C

'13
C

c+
4
0

>-

CHAPTER
SHIPS

10

OPERATING

COSTS

10.0

INTRODUCTION

10.1

MANNING

10.2

CREW COSTS

10.3

INSURANCE

10.4

MAINTENANCE

10.5

STORES

10.6

MISCELLANEOUS

10.7

PORT

CHARGES AND DUES

10.8

FUEL

OIL

10.9

CONTAINER

HANDLING

10.10

OPERATING

COSTS

AND REPAIR

COSTS

COSTS
COSTS

COSTS
COSTS

INTRODUCTION

10.0

The

estimation

difficult

of
items

cost
for

vary

type,

ship

trade

belonging

to

costs.

equations

developed

and

validated
1980

average

operating

in

developing

correct

costs

of

as

much

be

can

Section

to

Differing

as

the

shipowner

and

the

the

conference

fixed

costs,

costs

and
The

cargo
daily

social

Victualling

Insurance,

daily
and

costs,

study,

and

the

indemnity

variable
handling

running
comprising

subdivision
compare

costs

are

are

associated

with

to

share

which

the

forms

the

was

a part

comprises

ship
amongst

of
it

costs,

which

where

subdivided

their

of

usually

costs

and

cargo.
subof

voyage

costs.
costs
the

were

estimated

crew

wages,

travel

the

hull

and

war

222

from
overtime,

and

training.

and

machinery,

risk

the

of

system

costs

security,

comprising
(P & I)

year.

conference

costs

in

Containerships

operating

running

operating

given

liner

according
annual

The

costs

together

pooled

member

estimate
into

Crew

are

operating

the

reflect

a particular

to

the

may pay all

in

cost

between

values.

difficult

the

capital

must

factors

10.1.

reflect

as

costs

and

Fig.

to

shipowner.

such

procedures
it

data

therefore

in

costs

from

up

studies

model

escalation

The
in

built

models

absolute

the

under

profits

divided

the

makes

shown

operated

To

as

companies.

subdivided

also

shipping

usually

differences

reflect

were

cost

cost

the

accounting

elements

two

cost

by

identical

different

a U. K.

operating

escalated

10.10

cost

the

magnitude

alternatives

for

other

ship,

have

costs

most
costs

containership

operating

figures

of

even

operating

actual

cost

cost

costs

previous

The

costs.

container

and

operating

some

age

can

the

of

operating

and

owner

same

from

with

reflect

As

the

vessel,
etc.,

route

The

operating

the

of

one

The

rationalise.

flag

pattern,

operating
ships

to

is

costs

operating

leave,

protection

the

U)

ri

,.a

.i-
ri
cd
$

U)

PA
o

pq

rj E
a)
p

4H

a)
LI)
-
cd 4-)
F+

4D

a)

----

x
O U)
U

:5 r-i
U)

',

"ri
Ul
+)

a)

U)
O

a)+-)
ri

td

IrN

..
U)
4-1

ri)
0
U

W Ei

cd P
OU

+)
cd
U

a4-)

Q)P
"I (d

r-i

---

--

En
U

--

C)
U

cd

pg

---

"ri

..

cd
4-3
4-"

+)

+>

rl

cd

U)
"

(!)

-4-)
CH
0
5
0
b

',

c6
0

a)
U 0

a)

rq

cd

CH U)
CH"
U >
F-i
't7 W
cd a

:1

H
v)

",

'

(d

a)

ri
"

ri

-N

0)
p

U)

"
-P
a)

(0 0) -rq
>r
O

cd
U

cd >, cd

b.D

()

-3

cd
0 0) w

4-) -H

SaH

'

U)

cr1

-7j,

3 a)

a)

i-)

U)

cd "ri

0 ad
:p
"ri a)
U) 08 O CD Ua
ri P,
z P 00
cd a)0 9+
F:a UiHf 1+U) UU) E)

()

"D 11-00 O\ O
r-i N
r-l r-I r-I

u1

o
tm
8 $1 0
E-
H
a)

O0
()

-H U)
U) `"

: 1
H fy

a)

00U

a)

lr U) U
b 4-) g

4-)

, td

4D

$
+
+

p -rl
4-) a) 4-t
M 4- O

(iD

Q0 +"ri

h0

Cd
i-)
0
a)
E

(L)

U>

$D

"ri
r-i
H

4H U)

oq
UH

1-11H

td
H 4") cd `i
+)
a)i -I

aU
cr'1 t n 10

HH _:

r-i rl

fiD

U) "
EH
rd

"ri

cd

14

c.) x
OO
fiD E30
i-1 p

cd cd

UU

)~" 00

HH

b.D
a)

.,
W "
cd

a
+))

cd

Cd m

+) +
"rl

U)

aO

CdU

a)

>,

U)

4 +

D-

to

r-{ "ri +

+
U)

cd U)
0

U)

0
aio
A U

"ri

0o

s! soo

0.

}0U

2uzq--e, z adp

.,

U cd
U

"rl

a)
ri

O U)
U a)

r- i

C) U)

Cd i,
"ri U)

'd u)

a) -+
ri
"(7, O

ai U

2,'.3

O
OU )
Q0

Cda
U
w

Maintenance

accommodation

and
-

Deck

and

Fuel

oil

costs,

fuel

oil

and

Port

costs,

daily

port
operating

to

get

the

machinery.

the

lub

oil

heavy

fuel

oil,

diesel

exit

costs

costs.
the

cost

was

entry

port

cost

pounds

in

this

chapter.

of

and

and

of

some

ships

against

from

the

for

estimating

and

1980

10.1

the

confidential

costs

ship.
each

the

of

figures

cost

the

outlines

which

handling

container

operating

sterling
Table

the

added

description

validated

from

estimated

comprising

annual

A brief

above

are

outlined

operating

operating

cost

costs

model

was

sources.

MANNING

10.1.

One
the

the

of

The

American

the

ships

rest

of

paid

ITF

way

one

have

from

that

from

rates

the

the

total

costs

to

in

Table

highest

developing

but

union

in
and
to

to

costs

are

This

to

not
on

ships

is
is

there

countries

employed

the

seamen's

shipowners.

many

be

Usually

who

the

government,

countries

10.2,

and

world,

the

in

shipowner

world

between

and

operating

costs.

developed

negotiated

costs,

other

the

the

country

the

18% of

costs

allow
registered

country.

The

way

only

manning.

reduce

tanker

cutting
between

agreement

ranking

or

operating

illustrated

well

from

are

crew

the

crew

paying

a particular
of

seamen

is

officers

rates

of

union

in

shipowners

the

about

difference

country

of

components
forms

and

vast

a particular
with

principal

cost

crew

cost.

to

and

costs.

the

in

were

comprising

To

is

engineering

costs.

costs

in

hull

hull/outfit

stores

engine

voyage

costs

the

comprising

and

Miscellaneous

The

repairs,

and

9th
with

w. r. t.
32

crew

reduce
A typical

to
in

in

such
is

example

costs
(117).
1978

crew

224

for

is

circumstances
that

typical

of

Japan

bulk

A comprehensive

carrier/
experiment

xL =r;

L. Q
14
m+"
m
OO
F-

co to ta MN
(I1 .y
! '7 M 11 0) nnON
NnN
1f) to Mtn
NO

0)

N
n

r-

C-4 O

t`

r-

MO

-4

"4 4
U) n

4MN

Om1

co

0) On
U] U) 10 U]

ID 0) n
NM0
Ul U1 U) U] U) U]

Ln

z4
-4

U) 0M0T
U) O! '7
n M. -4 0)

m
m
m

.o

u7

14

1I1InM

I1I

U7

.1

C')

r)

'C

in

14 U)
C"'1 171

000NV
M)

!'7
N
v
4

VM0

-4

.,
a

M4

U) UI 4 O) U'l n
CO 4 fV nnVN

t0

01

4N

U) Ln

CO 10

In

E
(a
ID

rn

4
.

I-

U7 0

U7 O

U]

U)

N
ID

OOOCD
nNnNnn
V4Q444N4

>

U)

U7 NW

U7 U7

LA

OOto

.4

my

41 C
O C11

I-

U
\c

d.)
co

+)
.4
.4C

to

m
m
N
O
Y

Ln
. -4
m"
+) m
OC
-H
"U
CL

"D ONN

01 co co W
4-4

.-4

. -1 --1

U7MN')M
1-1 01 11 .--I "4
in Ln U1

10

IIIII.

III

01 0) 0) MNMNOn
O) .4
U) CD N
CD O) co VMNNn
0)mO)N
Lo U)U1nnNco
N
V.
in
. -4 1'4 14 n 1-4 NV
-4
0)0)co
01mn
. -4. -1.1.4CA

NN
ID CO 0 0% 00000N
U)NIntDNto
NN
NN
NU7
r- r- nnnn
nn.
1Dn4
-I
N0)co
0000000Ch
CD
0)CD mmMMMMMMI")V

NN

NM

im O
-IM
nM
V4

Q4

VV

NN
NNNNN
V
1 . -1.4.
N NNN
-I. 4r1N
m00000
m mmta0)
.4 .-1 . -L . -1 . -1
MMMMMM
nLnU,

0)

0)

Ot^U)

! +)
co
-4
V
M

nNQ
0) MO

0
Oi
N

10

NV
C)

10 0)
co 'tf

O
M

N
n
. '1

co
LT

co t)
OLo
14

IVIn

01IM1.

0! "1
On
Ov
InO
U) M

I(

Oa)
OM
OU, )
ON
.1 ! ")

-4tD

0.

NmtON.
CA . 4Vin
M1ovCA
nU)n00)Q'Qn0)
0)0
tOCD

11

J
U

1111111

iU)
t3 V.
Nn0MtD
MU)'aOtD

-4

MNL")N-4

000)00)
V
tDU)MnMnU)1DN
0)O)V
mV
V
mco
OmtDmnNCh
nnnMOGO
N
-1 . -1

tD0'V
Q.

-1 O

V a)N
.1
.4

Na)
V) in
mn
co co
1V
0)
IIVVI1I1III
C,4 %D
.-411
NN
00
.4

m
CID -Y
:: q ,I

CIN

0)
N-

in

e=

U')

n
eeQe_ee1

. -4 "
-4 m
_
C:

. i

7
4J

+i +4

d
01

Mt0

co m

11

0
0 .1 .1
M 10 V
Ul
1D

I)

MV

CA
0)
1n
14.

M U)
I

.-4
m3
L
1D
OG
FU

m
at

.4

11111II

n rco CID
Ilnn111I111

. 4m

Vn
.-4 .-1

11

VO
O) O) Nnnn
Nin
tOOMco
0Mto
0O0It
N) CD N0N0NNNNN
MNNNNMNNNNN

.i.

l- nn
I. i. i.
VVVVI

V
O

ln1co

U) O
.1 .'4 mV0
co VNV
. 4. iCO

11111

U)in

mntD
1Dto
in 0n1-4
tDm
t0V
VVVV
nmOO)m
Onnnnnntoco
t0AD
ma)rnOf
Of0)M.
40MtD
0)CD n
. -4CD 00000Ch
to MMMin
MMNNNN

V
1-4
N
IMI
in
N

rnndU)vO.

L- N
t0 U7

O) CA t%- 0% 4 m .4V
Min
to in
.-4.4tDin

W
C

F-

nnn0'aMVNO

co al NlDco
in M. ItON.
O)0).
-4OOmV
000)U)1DOit
U)in
. 414Min

IIIII

0%
V

co tDCO N
4O.
'4.4
m. -4
O10
I")MN

O
U

I-

m.

. -1

.-I

Uc

.4
M
__t
)===

E
C
m

V
C]
M_

r- %D
00%

a
0

0
Q
I
c
0

.4

F4

fa
m
C
+i

01n

OUl
On
1 0CD
00)
V 0)

t0 tD tD

1O M

U) N co N 0)
4 ti
M ti
0)
N .-1 N , ""I

U). 4 111IIII

NO
14l"')
NM
I N. 4 II
t- 1-4
.4N

m
.. I
O

.4 0)
MN

IIIII

O)

U11nU)00000

LnU7in
U)U)
Ln00000
U) U) U) U) U) U) 1D 0

VII111

N4
nCD
. 4MON
-4 n ED N
-1 .--1 .nNMnn0MOM
.0)O
U)
(3)
co M
'Q '1
0) MO
U) Q LM
.--1 ri

NNNN

40)O)O)0)0)N

I.

MtC)M)M

1DnnnnnQ
NNN

co

Q4NN

Q
-4NNNOnCA
. 4Q
CD OOV
U)
1 U') O) 4 0) r- OV
OU)V
O
Ul40)Ln
1Din
n(7).
-4
NN
m
U)
O
U7
0)
4II
1D
U)
t")
11 . -1
01
OONNN
CV
0N
0
'Q
N
4
-4
-4
.-1
N. -4 N N. -4 ri 1-1 .4 .4 -4 . -1 N 0) U) 1D MNNN

nN

co

4. -40
'O 4NN

n. 1U).
m. 4V.
NM0
OV
ri

MMCh
nINtDU)11)to
M. fNriH
NOtDn.
n. -4 01. -I14
0 M. 'I0)
.-400000inInQ
MMMMMMNNNNN

U)

Lm

+j

OU

O)
11) V. -1 V. 4. iNtOtOco
M tD tD tD t0 10 co 000m
N tD tD 40 )O tD V Ln U7 tD mI
nNNNNNn
V Vco
! ")
mmmmmmmNnlD1D

M
U)

11431
V

-. I

VV
Vd

1111I.

-4.1
VV
%0 M3

.4
.4

c+
t+

IIIIIII

CL
m

3m

m O)
W LO

U3

CL
0

.4
C;
.,
W
-j
co
1-

.4
0
U)

I co i
M
. -4

11

11

MM
VV
NN

m
I

I U) U) II11111
VV

VV

ii

0
U
01
C
+i
41
0
F1
ID

U) NNN
U) U) t0 nQ
O) N
M co m co to m0)in
O)Co 0)
dNOn
mO0000N
0nnnnntDn4OU)N
MNNNNN.
-4 1-4 .4 .4 .4
NNNNNNNNNNN

m
m
Y

\G

co C- m 0) 0)
m
co m co co mm co co co co co m
nnn
nnnnnnnnnnnn
nnnnnnn

000

000000000000

1- 000

co m O) OO

co co co co co

co co nnnnn

1- 00

U UUUUUUUUUUC.
L, C.70
U0
L3 0

0C7UC7

) UUU
C7mm

++4;
+iL1Z
cccccccccc
00000000000
I-UUUUUUUUUUD:

o0

4'1+1y1+1ytQ

OJ
LLU

CL

+4 "
LO
U) 2

-4

r,4 MV

LntpnmO)O1-iN
-4

MV
U) tDnnmO)O.
-1NMV
.4 .4 . '4 1'4 . -4 .-4 .-1 i .-4 14 NNNNNNNNN

225

4J

.i
0
m
U
H
CD a
C
. -1
ID +i
C7

4- 000000

EE r
aO
.4a
L>.
U)1-

rn
W
m
U

NtOnm

11
.i
V

W
N
O
2

TABLE 10.2.

Representative

Annual Crew
Costs to
Owner in

costs

of

ships

Basic Annual
Crew Wages
Able Seaman
in that
Country

under

different

Number
of
Crew

flags.

Factor
to
basic
convert
annual crew
wages to annual
crew costs

U. K.

524332

3538

26

5.7

Norway

668382

5330

22

5.7

Japan

571895

4973

23

5.0

U. S. A.

933274

5952

32

4.9

Greece

265188

3080

21

4.1

Philippines

198573

1633

32

3.8

ITF

(FE)

229779

3122

32

2.3

ITF

(WW)

293613

4402

29

2.3

226

1981.

(116)

concerning

ship

vessel

general

purpose

1584

TEU

crew

to

18

and

high

degree

of

automation

been

(118).

Maru'
to

able

Some

typical

An

10.3.

container

analysis

carried

of

out

categorised

into

East,

Middle

Taiwan,

ship

in

East,

139

of

Fig.

10.2.

highest

in

manning

all

was

for

1576-1588

for

1800

Europe

and

The

observed

in
ship

and

Far

some

lowest,

flag.

and

flag

flag

Liberian

of

manning

Eastern

flag

between

34

to

38

convenience,

T.eu into
(2000-2499)

40

and

Reduced
18

about

ship

crew
16

about

30-38

about

the

were
about

ships

was

U. S.,

in

26.

flag

were
Japan,

levels

about

Japanese

U. K.

ship.

of

the

ships

ships

categories

crew

crew

and

ships.
in

of ship
range
size
considered
to 2500
Teu,
the
manning
of

Teu

this

a U. K.

thesis

is

ship

will

flag

crew.

CREW COSTS

10.2.

As
the

Crew

costs

crew

Detailed
general
detailed
manning
American

cargo

Fig.

costs

are

under

ships

in

shown

ship

wages

had

Table

container

the

manning

capacity

ships

Teu

U. S.

above).

container

TeU

that

above

and

flag

Japanese

be

and

in

shown

The
to

according

U. K.

is

manning

level

manning

as shown
6 groups

(2500-3000

500

the

Norway

to container
subdivided
according
capacity
(500-999),
(1000-1499),
(1500-1999),
groups,

and

e. g.

manning

and
5

adopting

Amongst

their

reduce

Japan,

Germany,

by

container

(116).

Sweden

Far

for

reduced

'Hakuba

West

are

that

be

ship
have

showed

could

manning

which

successfully

systems

24

of

container

countries

was

manning

flag.
(readily

are

different
crew
ships

cost

can

a bulk

and

the

by

carrier.
company

from

press

the
and

knots

container-

running
crew

of
for

available
Also

available

with

general

once

journals)

for

8.
35
were
purpose

under

manning
same

costs.

costs

a factor

conventional
is

227

though

were

methodology

available

23

daily

differ

shipping

flag

Teu,
the

of

estimates

and

British

1288

a
49%

calculate

flags

of

The

for

about
to

easier

estimates
under

10.3,

the
and

basic
the

TABLE 10.3.

No.

Typical

Ship's

Name

of

TEU

Lundrigan

Ida

Fiery

Remuera

Schaunberg

Euroliner

66

manning

Cross

Gross
Tonnage

SHP

ships.

No.

No.

No.

of
officers

of
PO

of
crew

Total

Isle

436

7289

17500

25

38

42006

48600

17

17

41

14

19

33

15

25

5859
1088
Jamaican

Ro-Ro

21838

Flag

35

7200

1703

Atlantic

some container

59420

999

10

U. K.

W. Ger.

17

18

15

38

W. Ger.
Japan

Colombus
New Zealand

1187

19145

25000

Kashu Maru

728

16500

27600

31

Japanese

723

16500

28000

31

11

10

Japanese

716

16100

27500

32

rr

11

Japanese

752

16900

27800

31

12

Hakone

708

16500

27800

32

13

Oriental

1278

18937

29000

15

19

40

14

Oriental
Chevalier

Deck
Engine
General

1278

29000

8
6
1

2
3
1

7
5
7

40

15

New Jersey

Maru

1887

37799

69600

31+4

16

Elbe

1842

51623

84600

32

17

Selandia

2200

49961

78600

33

18

Atlantic
709

13332

18000

1223

24820

30000

34

U. K.

1556

33400

29000

31

U. K.

16+
38
2cads.
16GP 37
+4 cad.

U. K.

Maru
Leader

Maru

Marseille

17

10

19

Act 1

20

Dart

21

Liverpool

Bay

2500

15

22

Encounter

Bay

1572

13

America

=1 refrig

228

Lib.

Japan
if

27

U. K.

Z
,LL-I

w
J

">.

!: 1
J
.

:.
i..
. mi+, ",.
. 'si, .b, n-.. Ji84:;.

c.,itia[:

-+''i*
-+-=
= +-? -f--+:
-i:
-=+{'--*'

}-,:

- ;: `..

-,.

l+r

'{w',

""l'.R-,
-.. `? -:

':, ti 'l.
.

LL

'RK--

Y. :v

t"7:

l.!

- ."r

CL
T'

'--t
_

-
1.

'"

"

`r

".

`.,

(, )

ir -4
Z
.

`J

"""

Cr,

IT

cc l

Cl
,

:T'

''x''7'"r+

'

."..

_. .

_,, _9i" 9
d-I1F"..

9..,,,,

-'
W'?

"A::

i'"
'? '.. '

di
'31F..

fi:

_l

'_"
, "Y --. ..

";

w
"\4

"

ii

'.

__

Li

"' T

"1

1`t

. _y_-_L.

h-

HZ

S
li

"

'""

..i
Lj

,
".:{ 'K

1:rj

EL iut

.`

r.,'_.YC -*r--.
_

;{i;

"i

;`".,

^` "`

., ` `.

s
;,=

r, -r-r-? -T?}. " -'s--rr-.

x

F l)

`r
Li

LL

~,
_

414'I"}

.--

tz
i.:

w
o

LA-

Nc
O
ri

.,

OL
Li
s

1,.. -"
Y,
.\'

}:

J
'_
FO
f-

`C

"\

-'
i

v,

III1

cn
cm

II

(It

al
lkt

.
U?

1:0

m
Cm

f-"

Qh
I
S

LT.

.\\

In
-I

p.
LT.

.
, \.
.

CT.
ch
It
tti

\'
.`

(Yj

Ui

. -,

kr

229

l: W
l: 1

l: r

lSr
U)
CV

Cr
CL
Cr

uI
i=
J

iJ

-.

Cl

F-

.zS,
l_

II

.
W
tf

".'trr
..
I'I

'1`
-W
C',
N

-+
I

_i

k,
'
.. r-

1
Ll-

IT

h-4

ly _f

Ir ".

ly

_ T

[Al
i-

Cl

..

LL..

._

I0J(:

ti

Co

1=

it

t"i
i_

M4f

.
1,.' .'" '
1

"4 w
-W

t
,

Lt

Ivi

'

rr

1r.

C ICE

rrrr
r

I, --

}}
.

Il

I.

Vir
L?,

Ij

y
'Q
t~

'"

r
rr

>1

l7
T'

lal

..
iWQ

W
rti
z

1=

W
I-

CL

-J
F

."

-",

-r

Ct

..

111

`_\

.\.
LG
"I

r'
,

. '.

1..D

!-

Ii

r"

t ff, t `
CD
_I

rti

Lt
n

".
_

il!

;'
I.

r."l.. J

J
J

ri
0

rn
.,

230

u
a

number

of
total

The

Basic

Overtime

Security

Travel

Cost

Leave

to

with

the

figures

crew

costs

and

ratings

from

the

basic

wages

trade

(116,117)

flags
basic

wages

were

averaged

and

can

procedure

the

of

to

compared

wages
as

officers
man
20

crew

ratings

and

calculatio

be

repeated

for

each

data
of

requires

officers
values

officers

5400/annum
comprising

of

say

is

taken

of

officers

as

ratings

petty

12

officers,

to

petty

The

officers
the

alternatively

average
(3

36

The

member.
wages

data
men

values)
The

crew).

8400/annum,
as

other

values.

the

ratings
36 (for

flag

For

individual
only

and

and

petty

representative

the

petty

officers,

methodology.

companies.

simplify

therefore

the

British

under

to

input

program

officers,

of

officers,

ships

and shipping
(118)
give

press

trade.

representative.

the

for

collected

exceed

their

of

description
of

countries

instances

many

for

used

Most

considered

each

be

can

requirements

a brief

of

and

in

owners

elements

ship.

additions.

are

is

were

rates

certain

shown

different

container

base

but

the

of

operational

following

The

wage

Other

actual

are

rates

meet

cost

an

shown

minimum

(1)

and
(3)

wages

contribution

for

types

The

and
(2)

the

costs

costs

have

these

38

insurance

shows

crew

basic

crew

allowances

vessel

of

Basic

training

of

The

The

known.

are

allowances

the

do

ratings
into:

subdivided

and

10.4.

all

were

and

allowance

to

costs

wages

Study

Fig.

officers

petty

crew

officers,

petty
for

5300/annum
6 petty

officers

ratings.

Overtime

is

available

was

taken

as

30% of

The

leave

for

officers

and

30%

of

the

basic

the

basic

officers

the

ratings

wages.

is

taken

as

wage

for

petty

231

and

50% of
officers

the

basic
and

ratings.

!.,l..

11
H
1! 1

W
LL

-11

%j

C
3

-0
m

m
3.
ze CD

crJ

"
L.L

w
,,"

J1=

11
Cl

LJr_

l! I

1,

_,
w
"kl=

J.

rIjj

LI

I~
-

Li

I ,w

.1
.".
n)
1.

r._

r-i. h

,' '

f-

r"_

_Ci

`r

, I,

I6ii

U
CL
w1

55

LL

J
~

l!
!U

ti

r-I

'U
{

1.."1

V7
W
C-rl

I_

(XI
.....

r l
rr

W
ct
r

rn
.,

232

(4)

Study

selected
(5)

of

allowances
officers,

Social

security

of

insurance

is

half

as

payments

health

and

pensions

taken

and

6 months

to

up

the

up to
(company

for

allowed
number

25%

the

of

and

of

officers.
to

salary

was

government)

assumed.

(6)

Travel

and

2 for

allowances

petty
officers
relieving
trip.

an average
(7)
Training

is

Table

10.4
is

for

evaluation
basic

average
petty

officers

higher

than

thus

American

wages

of

higher

that

also

gives

crew

costs

for

officers
based

on

programmes

ship

have

the

is

American

of

ship

ships

the

different

times
level,

manning
requirements

by

out

Table

10.2

have

will
flag.

for

method

under

1.37

manning

ship

the
higher,

same

British

estimating

quick

for

flag

under

that

times

ratings

borne

above

comparative

showed

and

higher

This

1.62

were

ship

the

crew

costs

Table

10.2

derivation

total

of

flags.

INSURANCE

10.3.

Insurance

There

are

the

fleet,
Some

no

fleet,

previous

extent

of
do

owners

risks,

when

the

do

vary

as

not

free

to
the

buy
thesis
in

insurance
of

the

formulae

precise
of

factors

cover

profits
much

the

the

their

ships

crew

cheapest

in

the
world

insurances

age

are

against

costs

as

is
and

considered

233

he

insurance

composition

the

types

all

is

shipowner
It

covers
briefly

buy

of

however

costs

to

the

etc.

cover

market.
able

in

vessels
to

Insurance

shipowner
market

the

of

willing

world

insurance.

risk

e. g.

low.

the

insurance,

calculate

considered

is

are

war

methodsto

owner

as

that

and

or
are

an

Machinery

and

history,

risk

not

Hull

insurance

indemnity

lots

and

costs,

of

consists
and

protection

Each

owned

owned
will

that

program.

higher

costs.

times

in

cadet

of

the

officers

times

former

1.78

of

is

cost

cover

calculation

in

an

British

shows

which

to

cost

the

adopted

1.17

the

although

The

ratings.

estimated

outlines

and

procedure

and

an

and

for

changes/annum

facilities.

in-house

and

represents

is
the

most
here.

of

often
assumed
cheapest
the

risks.

cover

TABLE 10.4.

Calculation

procedure

crew costs

Computer
Symbol

Item

Basic

of

Wages

for

38 men crew.

% of
Total

Calculation

Total
costs
in

WCREW*CREW
+ WPO*

CWAGES

PO + WOFF*OFF=

UM
"N mN

5300*20
8400*12

M 14 0

ciU
COMM

Overtime

study

CSTUOY

Cost of leave

CLEAVE

Cost

of

+ 6*5400
=

+
39.95

239200

O. 30*WCREW*CREW+
0.30*WPO*PO =
0.30 x 5300*20 +
0.30 x 5400*6 =

6.93

41520

0.25*OFF*WOFF =
0.25*12
x 8400 =

4.21

25200

16.43

98400

0.30*WCREW*CREW
+ O. 50*WPO*PO

+ 0.50*WOFF*
OFF =
0.30*5300*20
+0.50*5400*6
+0.50*8400*12

404320

SALARY
Cost of security
and insurance

CSECUR

0.25(CWAGES +
COVTI1E + CSTUDY
+CLEAVE) _
0.25 x SALARY

E+
U

c+
m

Cost of travel,
U. K. - Persian
Gulf

costs

101080

= 1500 x 12 +
1000 x (20 + 6)

7.35

44000

1300.0

8.25

49400

100.00

598800

1500 x OFF +
1000*(CREW + PO)
CTRAVL

Training

16.88

CTRAIN

x ThAN
TOTAL

WCREW, WPO, WOFF - Wages of ratings,

CREW, P0,

OFF

- Number of

ratings,

petty
petty

234

officers
officers

and officers/annum.
and officers.

Fig.

10.5
the

of

HULL

insurance

dependent
and

machinery

price

of

(See

the

the

owner's

past

expressed

as

check

was

or

Teu

the

hull
of

(39),

or

(102,61).

insurance

cost

the

of

actual

the

(55)

cost

function

mainly

fraction

as

machinery

with

made

is
Usually

acquisition
and

shipowner

and

record.

expressed

hull

The

vessel

safety

machinery

was

ship.

covers

the

of

is

the

10.5).
thesis

elements

containership.

(54,119,120,46)

ship
of

Table
this

loss

insurance

function

total

the

actual

insurance

machinery

or

on

an

different

INSURANCE

and

damage

the

of

for

costs

hull

against

in

contribution

AND MACHINERY
The

as

the

shows

price
data

ship

of
as

below.

shown

Ref.
No.

Type

Gen. Cargo

Capital
Cost
in
x
106

Actual
HMINS
in

Actual
as a%
of CAPCOS

DWT

TEU

1978

16845

3.93

23134

0.588

2-6

1978

3.93

23134

0.588

7-11

1978

16896
19506

7.37

35331

0.479

13

1978

15022

5.43

30000

0.552

1978

69889

20.27

65861

0.325

1977

3000

7.072
43.2448.0

41976

0.593

160615197680

0.3710.457

1288
1684

25.8
30.0

14

Bulk

Year

Car.

15
17

Container

1980

26468
48544

20

it
it

1979
1979

23016
28295

21
A further

check

developed

in

the

other

and
in

Table

the

1978,
by

made
by

one

two

with

equations
(119)
for

Alderton
(120).

Validakis

The

which
all

formulae

0.26
0.24

were
types

ship
are

given

10.5.

Actual
machinery

was

67244
67244

shipping

company

insurance

previous

value

of

the

1978

cost

of

is

records

0.63%

year

plus

v.

ship

for

the

hull

and

machinery

of

283/",

of

the

of

increase

year,
is

235

value

the

present

that

showed

e. g.

calculated

the

hull

and

ship

in

ship

1,

in
for
as

follows

the

Q.

LL

w
rti
S

rr :Ec
3
0
CL
.

(.
n
T

Cl)

.
f,t

.,
,`'

C:
Oz

.,

1_
I.
UK

'ti`

r'

r ti
`2

LFJ
r

rn
co 1 rD
, ,E

``
15

r;

crt,,.,

titi

_71

ti5

1r.

1I
r

\.

P4
f1 r

H-__

4:

_
_

r
_

"1'_

n
f

w
-Co

_
4---

tt
--wJ

LL=

tZ

II
.
-J
It)
T
i
F-:!
u-
0
i
rn
",i

L-

236

L1
VN0
-

ON

p.' . -.
$ ' N ' G
v
'E
1l1 f'1
,

OC

O` N
V'

u"%

JNNN
It

II

II

II

C1

NN

C'1

UUUU

u^
Iz

\C
O
(

`p

I
0.

"Ic

>

O
U

ONU
O/ U

dU
m

+
+K

CC-

.. i

co

b
U)
dQ

in

L.
O

IO
U)

N. -+U
v
Z

0
.i
(n

O
U

O
ESOn.

C .^
U

""i
'O

. -i
.i

"
"-1

Q)

SU

w
Z

L. c
d
fQC
a
~
wI 0
.. O

.),.r V

<

~
a
G

_
. -1

C1

U)

Y.

rl

.. r
.

1"'

Q)

_
U
I".
IC

C
a
V)

O cG
_-

U,

N
T

,.,

II

OV

Ll1

v1

C\

r'

. -I

F
d

Y
O

C
O
...
`-'

..

c^

P.

Ql
1D

+
C
-

KU

OZ

00
UU

U
M
T
C
M

ti

TI

O.
Q

y
T,
0
U
4^

i.
O7

L'1

+i

O
U

4''
6'

\D

O'

f"1
N
C,

'-'

V1

ir1

u1
N

N
P1

co

F
M

=
V)

7
+
W
O
U

O
a,
Q1

C'1

d
G

f1

C,
c-1

r' E

ti

Q
-H

Z
U

O\
-

V
N

\D
"

-1
N

c
m

U
z
U
K

tr

..
.
y
N

O
7
E

41
P,
0
Q

i:

UO

Gy

c
0

E
N

.1

. I
7

C.

En

(,

v4G yv

yp

-. i

to

0U

s>

G. p
EE
7E

7i

0.

ii)

0.

:d

4., +I
.4 Cd.es
cto
o
TTT1H

ET
mC

pp
F

10

237

Io

m
d
M

U
C
S

tr
y

.. 1
C

{+

0)

pule epueualnFely

tL

AsenrqOey\T

s.iFedeg

+a

i D
I)

3y

tV an
FO
UU

p
E

.C

t)

a)

wd

G
d
ti
L

LrI

0
.. +
C

01

G)

K
N

UO

K
C

41
ti

C^ ^.

zG

,rK

a
u

1/)

to
C

it

a
m
T1
O
diW

ya U
omd

n
u

0o

o.
. "

'

N
M

ri

c
01

07

tO,

O
C
0

.. r

GO
N

C
C1

C"'1

CN

o,

"

rl

c-

C.

0'.

" C1 C

L^

11

: 19 L)

.+

.,

co

UaCp
z

E
I.
p

K
%:

^
O

.a

E-

C
C

V]

N
O'.

Iz

E"C CD
CLCO
UCC

E.

Go

1-1
\E

DL

"

....

Uv
v
O

C1

K
K^

Cu

cC

E'"

E"

O
"D

.i

(n

W
In

C1

C'1

GG

oD

.-i

L'\

OF
+ 0

KK
.,

vI

a
aC
d cD

aCi

0C
C
-I

In

""

W
.a

.i

C
GC

d"

IPl

K
U

=
C4
c

in
z
c'1

C
CI^

\r,
m

F
lu

c\C

.!

..

r.

C^

xC `
Lr) C

""
OK

U-

+
EsC

c a
1. c
c"1E. 11
In
K

E"
C
U0

r-

Kx
a0

.... ECC
-o
000o:

a>
C
^

cc

UUK

n La
a
. ti 'C
U

>

n
KK
E-E-

E-

1:

um
aGC.

II

:
+ C1 t
UUU

""
C C'', O

A
E- E-
CC

++

C:

ac

x
GO
U

cc

ul

C
0

c Eo
?O
A

:r

. "1

N
1-I

N
C

fO
J

C
0"'

C1
01

i-.

. -I

F
C

C
U
O

i'
O

t9

IC
zU 0
.i

O
la.,

L)
Z

a
L)
Z

K.

+i

ao
+

4)

ho

r1

II
=
4)

CF
Wu

.1 +n
O+

O
GC

?L 1Z
Ut

""

OF.

cn .-+

NU

1-+W
II

Ic
Zc

lE

c`nIo
-En
.i

a U .cti
+

O0
+1Z

OW

G W+1

4D Xa
a1 0
i0U..

.. 1

>

Iu Fd

j'+

EV

C
Z

P1

C1

-,

r
C
..

G4

vo
V-i

-1

+
ttl

-e O

-4 4D
?C
.r "-

.1

a
d
".i

pus

V1

+fs
N

OC

c
.+

IZ

aouena;

C
0

t
+
c

.i

CC

a
Ctl

cC

Cn

10

". +

1-i .C
. -I L)

C
a

C
_E

.
C

c;
a
x
%;

uTeyZ

aJUe.

Insui

UU

23 8

C
C

O
0)
y
In

STeCIB

zU

-'
CU C
_

d
C

.CseuzgoaH

7U

C
1.1

CE
00C

+
f

G1

O
C

z
u

\C

TTnH

C.

fi

C1

1
F
a

Ca
F
In
,.'. O

,Z

+>
.+I

F r<

l1

+
L" '

C7

_
LLC

aFa

4D

-i

\D
"

1-4
N

"-1

. -I

1-a

tit

in

pp

. -

. "I

In 0

G+
LIS

O
ov,

v,

P1

cd
a

"i
>

+,

lz

UO

KK

Of

C\f
0

-: T

V1
P1

ON

Cl)

N
\^

. -1

C\

N V1
NN

CN

CC)

C
O

+
O

Al

co

_
C;

. -I N

\L'
N

V1
N

V1
CX
OD

.";

C'1

. -1

O
C-

t'1

CO

C
Gc,
'

(T4

a -H
b, 41

z
0

>
O L)

. -. c,

loO

ko (p 4>
ap lo
, -I
Q
0 C. O

K
U

-i4

<

t_'

<

. 14 14 -4

o o

U
z

jy .
G+
CO0O

. -.

K
U

In

z m
-,
NCnq

UU

I
,Z O
UO
., j

( o
GL -r

rl

Iz
U

.7
U

C70

-4

a
ap
=tv

an

a+CA

x+
OV

7
U

,,
>

yO
-, 4 E

I
C

0V

O c: p

it i
-i
",
.i 'a .0

a
S.

4C
p

a 4p
G

, ti
Ii
'1
Sm

-i

a
m

9
E
Cd
yEn

91.
m
C'

E x

q
fz

,y

Q.

0.

d. sauTuoeyy

T TnH

co

a
F+

C
m

sze dag

pus

aoueuaauFek

a
t
o
N

239

.0

a
u
C

a
C
C) ttl

td

s~

:
a

Ce

a ".
^d

ti o
am
Oz

The

value

the

of

in

ship

previous

(1976)

year

0.63%

Increased

x 106 @

19818

=
786432 @ 0.283%

(1977)

value

3.145

= 2229

22047
Add

10%

increase

for

1978

1087

23134

Alderton

Ref.
No.

fn

DWT

'78

fn

PRICE

(1)
Total

(2)

Validakis
in

(1)/(2)

(1)

(2)

actual

actua-

25268

31890

57158

53150

1.075

2.221

2.065

2-6

25344

1.076

2.224

2.065

28799

57234
62698

53150

7-11

31890
33900

56500

1.109

1.488

1.340

13
14

22533
104834

16250
60810

38823
165643

27150
101350

1.429
1.634

1.294
2.515

0.905
1.538

15

21216

60216

35360

1.703

17

39000
72816

129720

02536

216200

0.937

20
21

34892
34604

77400
90000

112292
124604

129000
150000

0.870
0.830

1.435
1.2611.024
1.669
1.853

0.842
1.346
1.094
1.918
2.231

Alderton's

While

they

equal,

Hull

and

twice

are

was

equation

and

Validakis'

the
in

adopted

figures.

actual
the

are

comparatively

The

following

thesis

insurance

machinery

figures

0000

CAPITAL

COST OF

SHIP

Eq. (10.1)
AND INDEMNITY

PROTECTION
Protection
shipowner
varies
size
or

of
not

ship's

and

special

considerably

from

ship

cargo

is

(GRT),

P&I
as
expressed
(61)or
GRT (120,119)

& I)

ship

to

The
ship

loss

(102

, 54).
a function
number

240

Past
of

of

crew

insurance

P&I

on

record,

cost
(54,51)

the

whether

and

container

building

the

protects

depends

and

deductable

amount

or

insurance

liabilities.

shipowner's

included,

complement

(P

indemnity

against

the

INSURANCE

size

studies
of

the
or

of

the

have
ship
capital

(46).

charge
in

terms

Table
(51)

of

GRT

function

of

GRT.

and

the

with

10.5.

P&I
the

so

method

rates
P&I

check

was

given

by

are

usually

insurance
made

was

with

actual

made

a
data

ship

(119)

Alderton

quoted

Validakis

and

(120).

Ref.
No.

Actual
P&I
Insurance

P&I
GRT

GRT

Validakis
GRT
Year
= 78

Alderton
GRT
Year
= as
given

55734

12057

4.623

1.1

1.825

2-6
7-11

55539
60092

12015
14434

4.622
4.163

1.1
1.1

1.825
1.825

13

10000

9112

1.097

1.1

1.825

14

20938

40689

0.515

1.1

1.850

17
20
21

24710
89935
89935

58889
25993
24433

0.419

1.1

3.46
3.46

1.1
1.1

1.850
1.850

Validakis

whereas
figure
of
GRT

general
to

of
an

was

for

WAR RISK

INSURANCE

in
the

until
war-risk
expresses
whereas
the

capital

percentage

case

reached

scheme
war

(54)

cost,
made

for

and

cover

of

actual

241

ship

by

given

(10.2

damage
a

shipowner

a government
(51)
Benford

where

the

for
data.

cost

capital

percentage

A check

world.

Eq.

refuge
(121).

0.1%

a higher

some

is

against

of

record

past

shipowner

10.5.

at

would

2.8/

of

developing

as

takes

Table

the

GRT

introduced

insurance

risk

from

costs

basis

arrive

a port
be

could

Hancock

is

2.0

hostilities

vessel

to

premiums

Alderton's
1978

the

on

satisfactory
(P & I)
insurance

covers

of

1/GRT,

with

insurance

l.

Actual

shipowner

indemnity

Insurance

This

of

calculated

further

added

P&I

value

reasonable.

was

shipowner

and

protection

ship

4.6/GRT

average

low

seems

cargo

which

figure
For

1.850/GRT

of

gives

1.850

of
the

0.2%

actual

of

Ref.
No.

Actual
war
risk

Capital
cost
x
106

ins.

(1)/(2)

as
10-3

1-6

2599

3.93

63

7-11

4873

7.37

63

14
17

1475
3597 - 4496

20.27
48 (upper)

7.27
8.24 - 10.29
9.14 - 11.43

43.24(lower)
20

1417

25.8

5.47

21

1417

30.0

4.72

These

values
is

what

records

0.063%

of

by

Benford

the

War

risk

value

Hancock.

that

it

the

is

taken

. 01
= 100

insurance

A shipping

In

this

as

than

company's
the

on
thesis

basis
a value

COST

of
figure.

representative

CAPITAL

less

are

calculated

ship.
is

cost

insurances

risk

(10.3)

Eq.

INSURANCE

total

of

insurance

(39,55)

of

1.3idata
actual
between

calculating
cost

the

or

of

the

capital

be

(101).

cost
the

of

the

expressed
(101,41).

cost

capital

to

each

can

shows'that

1.5%

total

insurance
a function

as

Buxton
A check

2% of

the

price

of

gives

the

total

insurance

the

costs
ship,

as

Teu

of
a

gives

made

insurance

the

costs,

figure

against
varied
in

shown

10.6.

Table

Table
the

10.7

program

which

are

about

0.6%

that

there

are

large

variations

and

shows

data

and

those

The

program

insurance

higher

war
or

of

capital

Instead

The

the

showed

the

of

TOTAL

by

that

given

actual

. 01%

show

as

capital
than

by

calculated

the

calculates

a percentage
cost

of

the

price

the

of

the

container
(see
Fig.

242

of

calculated

costs
the

capital

costs,

between

the

actual

and

hull

and

machinery

cost

of

the

about

20

to

program.
war

risk

capital
ship

is

9.9,1978),

therefore

ship.
40%
the

TABLE

10.6.

Insurance
of

the

as

costs

a percentage

of

the

price

ship.

Actual
Insurance

Price

Total

thg
10

Percentage
Capital

Ref.
No.

Ship
Type

1
2-6
7-11

G. C.
G. C.

81467
81272

G. C.

102243

3.93
3.93
7.37

24

Cont.

206438

13.76

25

Cont.

88474

5.90

1.499

ship

of
x

2.07
2.067
1.387
1.50

26

Ro-Ro

147456

9.83

1.50

27

Ro-Ro

52160

6.14

1.50

129024

8.60

1.50

28

Car.

liner

243

of
Cost

Cd
. U
CH
Cd
CH

A 0
p
3 4-r

(YINj-

\D rn Cr C\f t-- N f\t

000_:
Irl -t Cl) Q\ r- D 0 CO
H""111
......
. -
rn rn 00 C\f rn -t
- >n H C\t H
C\t
C\t
Cl H r- HH
U'1 HH
111111

4-i

O -P
tn
0) 0

QDO

Cd

D \D \10 C1 -D C\f l0 H u1 r- -f O\
N. H -4 _:t H 00 ON-t C\f C1 O\ 0
r- \D 110\D r- \1D Ir\ \10 Ir1 \D Irl \D III

+) H
(d
+3

a)"r"t
U

........

00000000000

P a
a)

Cd

a 0

Cd

0
Ei

./
KJ

C\t C\t C\t t`

\,D CT H

III

rn Ir1rn rn r- C\t00
Ir1\D
if)
"o "o E- CnC\tHHH
H

ra,
HU
H\ H

r-

Ir\ H
\D 00 H r- O\ \0 \0 u1 z0
C1 Ir1 Ir110 00 0 00 01 C\t 00 0-: t
r- In Ir1 C\f 00 Ir1 C1 C\f r- C\f 00

to

00
000000000
0000C\t\10
ooc\t
u1 C\t r- o\ (\t
ur1 C\t0C\t10
0 0.: 1-t` 01
0
H C\f C\t Ir1 H C\f C1 0 00 00 O\ \D
\.D ul
0
C\t
00
.-t 00
t .j' C\fr_-:
H
HHHH

III

-t

O O
C'r1 . c\1 00

H
C\t
C\t

px
(d a)

tl-
(
OOO

08

t - t C\t 0\ t- r- 0\, D 00 00 t- 0 r- -
Ir1 0 N-: j- C1i r- CO rl \D --t 00 u1 C\t r- ul

I1

,r\ OI
CO

P.

U
G)

y
C6

cd p

:j U2
+
H

H
rn 0 00
u1 r- C11m0c \t 00
\D r- -0` 0 I\0 \D C1 r- C"1 rr00 -:t c1t C\f 0 C\f 01 01-t 00 -:t -t
ONH r"t c\t 0H
00 00 \'D \,O o 00

a)
U)

a)
V)

\O 0--f.
u\\D CM
jo
-tr- cm
O\

$4 PPPPPp
.....
O a) a) a) a) a)
a)
Cd Cd Cd Cd Cd ly 0 t~ 0. I~ 0 I~

az

a)

OO
cH .
C4 0

Ft

OUOOO"g"g 'g 'g O OH

x...
+'-t-) -P +) +3
4-)"
(
H
1~ iI
oa) a) a) a) o0000000o
OOOOOaaO

CO
H

c\f r- r- r- m0C\t 00 -:HH

1- (0'\C\t
o\ 00 00 0--t
H
C\t HH

N-

C\t

Cn

cdwa
(-i

n0
C1
lr1 O\

0
C1

C1I 0 O\ C1 \0 r- 0 C1 in r- 0 --t
o H CO O\ C\t r- CO
H\,
.: C\f
r- CV C\f CVH H- D _:t C\f r-

cd

H
c\t C1 --r lr1 \D r- CO
1, H \D H C`1r- 0H
-:HI1HH
C\t CM C\t CM C11N CM (\t C\t
cq t. -

244

total

insurance

costs

0.6%

as

the

of

capital

costs

seems

reasonable.
10.4.

MAINTENANCE

AND REPAIR

Maintenance
cost

and
to

related
the

engines,

to

related

hull

and

outfit

engine

are

of

an

luboil

of

hull

drydocking
ship

cost
(39).

maintenance
(41),
(55),

Formula

thesis.

by

the

the

ship

One

figures.

developed

for

on world

wide

figures

hull

and

ship

repairing

cost

indices

by

are
repair

machinery

published
(123).

the

was

has

costs

however,

given
for

indices

245

hull

in

the

ships

by

Benford

ship

to

cost

1980
the

updating
Association

is

for

major

together

with

the

cost

typical

ship

at

different

by
given

the

other

was

Norwegian
by

the

latter

study

cost

indices,

The

(46),

taken

container

updated
for

Past

outfit
(54),

and

number

been

mainly

10.6.

Fig.

cargo

Salvage

cost

in

cubic

for

the

annually
The

repair

comprises

the

general

(122).

facilities

and

shown

available

and

facilities

repairing

Association

were

published

repair

percentage

program,

expressed

as a function
of
A similar
approach

indices

the

turbine.

gas

or
and

costs

as

incorporated
subsequently
(54)
(46)
& Chapman
Hancock
Two

to

AND REPAIRS

and

levels.

into

according

shows

In

have

studies

subdivided

turbine

maintenance

of

inventory

separately.

outfit

costs

container

(51)

and

of

maintenance

ship.

MAINTENANCE

AND OUTFIT
The

the

calculated

are

cost

maintenance

10.6

of

container

actual
costs

HULL

engine

elements

other

maintenance.

steam

Figure

estimated.

contribution
for

diesel

only

program

with

subdivided

diesel,

e. g.

were

machinery

usually

of

tools.

costs

and

the

of

maintenance

damages,

and

repair

is

ship,

to

equipment
and

consist

associated

repair

maintenance

the

costs

cost

maintenance

of

usually
the

of

systems,

and

maintenance

costs

docking

main

The

type

In

dry

spares

Machinery

the

repair

maintenance,

preventive

COSTS

based

ship

the

of

operating

Shipowners
was

:;

LL
i-4
r

rp

iJ
F

F+
i. tl . m

Li

3
0

a. .
dL

N
1 f m

%j
I_1

J
i
IJ

lJ
F-1

fN
CL

!-1

0
"u

14

Ld
f_w
_0 J
j
f=,

HH
1

F-

1_I

C-1

f--

w
cl

Cr
,
_LL
'17-

-
r.

y.

Li

I. I

,!

r't. J

IT

2
F0
H

CL

S
a

a:
CL
i":

r" F-. .
i--i

W
Ix

-4

rr
r..

rr
iQ
ff

-+

E:

EL
W
CE

LI!

rn
., i
LL-

246

because

adopted

the

available,

costs

were

also

other

cost

items.

is

cost

for

indices

various

and

- The

hull

were

and

other
for

used

outfit

CHMANT

(CN)0.67

450

MAINTENANCE

Machinery

for

diesel

total

But

due

its

lower

The

in

plant

of

diesel
with
(55)
BHP (39),

and

in

the

thesis,

and
updated

The

fuel

machinery

Eq.

(10.4b)

substantial
particularly
have

plants

Table

costs,

diesel

plant

10.1.

with

preferred.

repair

usually

(41).

a
cost

the

and

is

expressed

by

given

by

the

container

a function

as

Erichsen's
indices

for

costs

similar
expression
(39),
(55),
Swift

was adopted
Sen (41)
figures

Norwegian

(123).
maintenance

and

repair

(CMMANT)

cost

is

CMMANT = 3.27

BHP

(1980)

Eq.

(10.5a)

2.57

BHP

(1978)

Eq.

(1O. 5b)

=
maintenance

machinery

e. g.
annum
1980

1976

for

costs

(124)
costs

TOTAL

actual

diesel

AND REPAIR

maintenance

data.

The

Association
wide

and

repair

the

right

2.47

was

the

magnitude,
3.46/bhp/

to

average

cost

and

COSTS
costs

costs

maintenance

of

as
(66).

percentage

and repair
(122),
with

maintenance

are

plant

2.5/bhp/annum

were

total

costs

2.72/bhp/annum

with

MAINTENANCE
The

to

(1978)

by

given

The

repair

costs,
is

Association

Shipowner's

(1O. 4a)

turbine
and

maintenance

ships

were

Steam

consumption

machinery

Eq.

repair

maintenance

increases
fuel

(1980)

forms

repair
and

plant.

lesser
to

and

maintenance

machinery

substantially

AND REPAIR

maintenance

the

of

(CIIMANT)

maintenance

= 440 (cN)'67

part

updating

by

given

MACHINERY

operating

variation
as

U. K.

difficult

are

given

costs
costs

z47

to
of

by

the

total

correlate
ship

Salvage

as

100,

showed

that

can

vary

between

57

world
to

225.

It

and

outfit

is

difficult

is

total

and

repair

costs

maintenance

and

maintenance
Actual

values

calculated
A further

ships

cargo

general
all

available

types.

ship

was

made

for

1978,

These

Eq.

same magnitude,
(10. /a and 10.5a).

the

program

to

STORE
Store
the

and

total

Stores

spares

the

equations
(120)

Validakis

(119)

Alderton
values

those

as

for
for

which

calculated

equations

forms
shown

of
in

etc.

were

and

repair

deck

and

in

the

and

of

equations

Table
cost

number

were
by
in

adopted
costs.

and

supplies

cost

= C0

or

Stores

and

supplies

cost

= C0 x

only

9.4%

store

costs

(Fig.

10.3)

Hancock's

form

C0 determined

linear

in

+ C1 x

248

the

are
(54),

past

Benford

(51)

Chapman

(46)

NCREW,

Validakis
Hancock

NCREW,

of

actual

costs
(120),

all

are:

the

daily

relationship
from

ropes,

includes

(46),

used

= C0(NCREW10)4 ,

and

dock),

dry

Store

crew

stores

engine

stores

etc.

were

engine

and

in

cabin

of

10.5

deck

cost

Stores

Since

the

laundry

of

supplies

and

cost

or

coefficient

twice

other

gave

paint

furnishings,

function

as

studies

also

Included

engine

Three

the

(excluding

paints

soft

usually
(51).

by

maintenance

stores.

and

supplies,

by

one

these

include

costs

are

packing

represent

were

magnitude.

COSTS

cabin

stores

So

hull/outfit

costs

two

10.9,

Table

the

of

10.8.

with

other

the

on

costs

correct

Table

methods

the

10.5.

the

and

check

the

of

repair
in

shown

check

were

which

as

are

hull

machinery

costs
maintenance
and repair
with
(Table
10.1)
ships
would
show if

actual

of

Since

magnitude,

correct

for

equations

separately.

the

of

the

validate

machinery

and

maintenance

to

running

was
ship

adopted
(Table
data

and

(120)
(54)
costs
and
10.1).

00 O

ri

C\t 0

N Cl OO

cd
.

00 "0 N C\t

Cd

Q,'

"".

...

ri

OO

C`i rn N C\t

In ON
In OH

r-I ri

"0

00 N
'

"

".

C\t N

r"{

r-i 1.0 1%o tn

Cn N CO N 0l\ O r- 00 \lo \lo kn

C1 O\ (D c> N 00 Nn
-2 r-i N
"

t- C%

"

".

"..

...

C1 c"1 M c'1 ct r-1

c\I

C1 C`'1Cr1C''1c*1 C1 000OO
OOOOOOC\tC\tNC\!
N
Crl n C''1Cr1Cl Cr1 n l.[1 in In 111

ri

U)

" cd

CT Irl

00

In .

:t

C\t in ri

C1O\Io0\rnOC'"1N\.

-.

cd -P.
0 Grd
U E-{-H

o C100 00 HN
C31C\t In
CM H CT C\t CM C\t 00 CT C\t
00 C1 C1 C\t NN
-2
"2 O
r-1
r-1

HH

r-i r-1 HH

Irl

In

Cd

l11 ln in

\,o 1-0 1,0 \,o \,o \o -o \,o \,o .O ,o

cd
+

r-1 ri

a)

4d

U o3v

Z"p

00

-P'. -rl
W
"
r1 -r1

cd cd G)

0O

tn

r-1 0O

CT CJ\CT 0\ 0\ CT CT CT O\ CT CT O

O In
00 00 00 .t -t t-- C"
1-:t 01
CMo0 ri
00 01 -2
0 rn CT O O, O O\

00000000000

tn

C\! c1t CM cm CMN c\I cm CMcm NN

u-\ kn ln In u1 in tn u'\ tn u1 u1 -t
C'rl cl') C1 Cr1C1 cl) C1 C1 Cr1C1 C1 \o

C\t 0\ N In N u100 00 0M N 01 N
O 00 NH-;
f NNN
C\t -t H ri
r-t
CM u1 CO 00 r-1

00

rn

_e

***

"I

ri

4-1 ri

4-
U)

a0 -

r-I NNOOO
In 00 01 000O

ri
r-1 08 CT
H

-i.

zt r-I c1t

-zt
0\ -
0\ -d0\
CT -t

Cr1N
CM O C1 N 01 \Z in
C\iIn-2 cvr"{Cr-2

O In
0
r"i\.
CVin Cr%
.2 .-:t \o cr1n N

- wa
r-1 -ri `i
cd cd

000OOO

0
U

r-{ r-i r-I r-t

-e
0\ -e
CT ri r-I H r-i r-I

C1 cr1c'l C1 c"1

0 \D
0 C\t
\,cm
0 \M
cm,
cm\,
c\I \o000OO
N cn n C1 cr1 n

Cd

9 c`1

a)
C) 0

.
C+d

Uw

C)

.P

M
0
U

r-t ) "ri
cd -F cd

aD

pl
a)
."
9
C) Cd

(d
t
--:

C\t _-:
t

00 NO

NH
In
o H r-1 O \Z -t NH o C100 c\I 00 0'r1O Co r-1 -e
c\I
C1
O
O CT OO
In -o NNN0
CY'1
N c''1 0 cr1

r-4 o
-e -2
0\ C""1C)
-2'
C'rl CM CV 00

CM r-1 C'r1N

CM-2

HN
C\t cm ON
CT -I -'3'
O": t 00
r-I In O\-: t c\ N
>r1-e O\ ln ,0 1r\ N O\ r-I

ri

G)
U

-P

NZ C\ (3'%kt'\ W Cm00 n 00 N 00 0

c\I r-1 O c\t

t c\t I11 O
N"
C'1 C"1N 0\
CT 00
0\t CV N
-:
0
\o \,
1 c\I CV ri r"i
c\I r-I
C\t r-1 C\t C\t r-1 ri r-t r-1 ri r-1 r-i CM

"rl

(d rlE
.

Cd

a)
x
C
\

a
x

(7a

a)
U
a)
4-
0

OOOOOOOOOOOO

OOO

O
OO

c\t c\t Inc`11n0

O v1 ln 00 N CM-2 -t N Co ON
C1 C1
H CMcr1 C1-e r-t In

O'O

0000000

NNNNNNNNNNNo
cY1C1 C1 cr1 C"1Cr1C1 C1 cY1cr1 c'-1 In
r

r-t r-I r-t r-I ri

r-4 ri

VIA

U0

A AAAAiEAAAA

(g(A
"""

;4 Cd cd
CdUU

i1

p., 0

a
"ri
4 p

"

r'",

a) " .U".. xx4.

y -P
y
-P

000

y r-I

ri

"""o
iJ
4-)

) -P
i -4-)
+ i

1`i

;J ;J0OoO000O

Cd d Cd

rl Cd Cd Cd Cd cd Cd Cd

Or-I 0U0000UU0000
"........
-Na
r
a"

11
0 0
cd

HU O m wUrJUOOaa

"H Z
AU
p

--"--

--.....

:3
4-)
E
cd

...

Iv
000

U C c cs:cs:

a)

az

\0 00 0\ C'r1-2 In 0H
-2 In C\t C"1\o N 00 ri
r-1 r-1 r-1 r-1 r-1 r1 CM (\i CV CM N CM nt C\i c\I

CMCl .: t In \o N 00 0\ 0

r-{

p
0
w

r-1 C\t
r"i

ri

249

II

G)
0.

AAAAAAAAAAAA

L[

oul

r-1 r-t C\t

G)

"rl
cd
z

cz

a.z
., ..

000000000000

000000000000

TABLE

10.9.

Comparative
repair

(1)
Maint.
&
Repair
Cost
1978
Ref. (120)

1
2
3
4
5

128422
128448
128448
128448
128448

evaluation

of

maintenance

and

costs.

Actual
TJ

1.637
1.513
1.607
0.953
0.957

(2)
Stores
+ Sup.
and
Maint.
Repair
Cost
197819
Ref.

130703
130248
130248
130248
130248

Actual

Gross
Steel

Wt.
-

maintenance
repairs
+
Stores

(
1.849
1.723
1.781
1.817
1.171

6
7
8

128448
129753
129599

0.977
0.899
0.900

130248
156471
156471

9
10
11

129599
129599
129599

0.953
0.893
0.786

156471
156471
156471

12

123000

1.798

13
14
15

127511
154944
133234

0.627
0.417
0.472

98778
167767
77542

15476
7153

1.367
0.567
0.812

16
17
18

310000
136500

1.109
2.160

131508
134147

1.564
1.191

79691
136416

23579
-

19
20
21

9173
12584

3.80
1.945

230779
150401

12211

0.935

13181

22

23

130000

0.259

24

135000

1.820

142888

25
26
27

125000
130000
125000

1.376
1.834
1.376

169035
-

28

127500

0.771

250

3754
_
-

1.182
0.964
0.906

0.949
0.897
0.807
-

1.995

TABLE

10.10.

Actual

Actual

stores

supplies

costs

Validakis
(120)ncl.

lub

vs.

estimated.

of
crew

Actual
Stores
Crew

31737

43

738

61075

45638

2
3

30115
30926

41
41

734
754

60025
60025

44588
44588

30115

41

734

60025

44588

30115

41

734

60025

44588

30926

41

60025

25303

37

754
683

57925

44588
42226

25163

37

692

57925

42226

24979

37

675

57925

42226

10

24719

37

668

57925

42226

37

657

57925
55300

42226
42226

Ref.
No.

stores
()

No.

and

24330

11
13

55000
30473

14
20

Validakis
excl.
oil

Program
Values
(1978)

lub.
costs

32
27

1486
1128

52675

23075

38

2562

58450

14775

51034

38
40

2779

58450

51034

1686

59500

Negative
46011

53720

1974

60025

15061

55063

983
614

59500

53720

53720

59092

21
22

97392
105618
67446

23

80935

24
25

39321
24576

41
40*
40*

26

34406

44*

782

59500
61600

27

27034

44*

614

61600

59092

28

19661

35*

561

56875

A linear

regression

the

on

data

above

the

gave

following

equation
Stores
with

and

supplies

correlation

of

data.

Validakis

luboil

costs,

once

gives

reasonable

to

the

results

for

were
(123)

updated

from

*Estimated

and

was

(-.

the

actual
for

container
Hancock

adopted

number

of

0033)
(120)

values

poor

= 41279

costs

in

showing

and

luboil

costs

ships
(54)
by

crew.
251

an

stores

general

the

20.95

extremely

poor

operating
Table

fit

includes

supplies

subtracted

are

cargo
vessels
(Table
10.10).

program.

NCREW

but
Store

cost
10.10

gives
costs

indices
shows

the

calculated

values
For

reasonable.

1980

Stores
10.6.

MISCELLANEOUS

the

which

store

seem

costs

are

This

METHOD

include

The

1:
by

taken

cubic

as

number
equations

following

equation

(46),

fixed
the

were
was

Benford

was

updated

by

Shipowner's

Norwegian
CADMIN1

2:
for

12800

+ 141(1000

= 32906

+ 363

(CN/1000

= 36419

+ 402

(CN/1000)

= 43444

+ 479

(CN/1000

The

following

all

ship

equation

types

and

)E

)E

was

was

and

short

and administration.
(119)
or is
(51)

(see

available.
for

from

indices

a container
an

cargo

cost
(123).

Association

crew

cost
(46),
ship

used

by

operating

cover

sundries
a

of

to

medical

and was updated

(51)
for
a general

suggested

(10.6)

Eq.

cost

crewing,

Following

Chapman

equation

the

standby,

with

either

of

10.5.

Table

METHOD

is

function

study

linked

cost

COSTS
costs

directly

backup

NCREW

communications,

recruitment,

ship

equation
The

ship.
given

by

(1969

cost

level),

CN in

(1978

cost

level)

(1979

cost

level)

(1980

cost

level)
by

suggested
by

updated

Alderton

operating

cost

(123).

indices
CADMIN2

= 7942

(1969

= 31390

(1978

= 34310

= 40880

These

equations

Table

10.1).

levels

cost

= 1666

costs

Miscellaneous

(119)

levels

cost

by

given

made

1978

at

indicates

were

updated

compared

with

equation.

252

cost

level)

cost

level)

(1979

cost

level)

(1980

cost

level)

some

actual

data

(see

m3

Ref.
No.

Actual
Costs

47055

33066

31390

46612

2-6

47055

33066

31390

44444

33107
33107
36821

31390
31390
34310

40108
40108

20

51318
49549
44166

21

44166

36812

34310

45600

22

22482

44172

40880

57240

23

22482

43638

40880

58671

799,11
8

1 and

Method

Method

for

although
the

twice

companies

Method

figure.

showed

that

the

gives

acceptable

given

by
CMISC

such

as

of

daily

hook

utility
Port
of

the

weight
fixed
Swift
per

cost
(55)
day

and

types

per

this
in

(1980

shipping

cost

in

of

the

fleet

relationship

the

program

is

and

level)

cost

water

(Table

round

others

when

in

(10.7)

Eq.

and

exiting

etc.

The

the

at
the

at

is

consists
fees,

watchman

electricity

port,

second

which

port

a port.

the

etc.

pier

are usually
made a function
(119),
(107),
dead
cargo

tonnage
cubic

(125)

trip

(40).
port

which

calling

and

privileges,

10.11)

the

costs

dues

ship'stays

for

subdivided
the

Since

entering
canal

berthing

bale

of

with

for

registered
or

vessel

or

were

of

cost

each

above,

costs

estimates

used

shown

AND DUES

time

ups

costs

net
(41)

NCREW

towage,

charges

was

as

calculated

cost

crew.
it

associated

the

to

related

of

two

pilotage,

results

the

for

Program

45600

miscellaneous

results,

incurs

is

cost

22,

and

the

comparable

Actual

number

CHARGES

ship

Method

apportioned

= 1300.0

PORT

One

21

actual

to

No.

is

according

10.7.

2 gave

Ship

administration

per

253

of

call,

Container

ship

into

those

costs
are

port

incurred

per

or
study
incurred

call

for

as
by

TABLE

10.11.

Method

Cost
level

978

Summary

978

TCPORT

978

GRT + C2 x

C1 x

TCPORT
DWT x

port

cost

in

/call

= C3 x
DIP

TCPORT

DWT + C4 x
/call

in

= C5 x

NRT

= C6 x

NRT

in

Ref.

C1

0.512

120

C2

0.01

C3

0.306

C4

0.009

C5

3.32
2.40

call

1979

TCPORT

in

estimation.

Constants

Formulae

GRT X DIP

for

formulae

of

lzo
to

C6

2.50

x NRT in /

C7

0.3 to
3.0

C8

0.147

119

call

978

TCPORT

= C7

call

1973

TCPORT
deadwt.

= C8 x
in

Cargo

1968

TCPORT = C9 x bale
cubic
3)
(m
in /call
capacity

C9

14.75

1973

Cost/call

= C10 + C11 x

C10

222

C11

638

C12

18.94

274

Cost/day

0
8

1974

in

in

= C12

port

CN(m3)
in
13 1000

Cost/round

41

/call

10003

107

trip

125
55

13
= C14

254

C14

40

every

port

of

call.

There

is

however

(107)

tonnage

registered

developed

by

wide

costs.

port
by

used

is

of

accounts
Entry
The

port

two

ships

L=
K.

where

labour

in

3.0

per

a factor

of

ships

and

published

by

ten.
method

reflect

and

world

subsequently

ship

The

study.

validated

with

actual

disbursement

with
(126).

BIMCO

net

the

to

a container

container

Buxton

program

updated

and

exit

entry

costs/port

of

in

the
exit

is

call

i=1,2,3,4,5

and

Ki

daily

= Port

K.

given
low

is

+ Ki L0"5

trade

area,

costs

constant

by

given

/call

by

given

GRT0.67

Eq.

10.8)

0<L<1
(see
Col.

cost

K.

constant
tonnage

terms

five

values.

and

average

the

shown
These

and

following

J=1.2.3.4r5

registered

and

Table
2)

10.12

in
in

the

each

of

to

three

equations
values,

high-average

between

values

Col.

tons.

correspond

two

10.12

Table

(10.9)

Eq.

C/daY

(see

above

equation

low-average.
Frankel

correlation

while
of

port

arriving

about
large

extremely

institutional,
each

to

adopted

here,

port/day

34

The

was

costs.

the

briefly

ratio

GRT = Gross

and

was

in

GRT0.585

= port

cost
PD

high,

was

port

costs:

The

were

call,
in

method
1972

and

KieL

of

in

costs:

entry

PE

Daily

(54)

exit

and

where

This

of

0.3

variations,
(53)
1973

Frankel

described

costs

port

wide

Hancock

method

port

per

these

of

variation

between

a variation

gives

Because

wide

0.90,
(53)

geographical
and

the

different

at
but
which
and

these
the

magnitude

of

was

primarily

due

political

methods

255

got

equations

used

variation

factors
by

various

to
surrounding
ports.

3)

TABLE

10.12.

Port

cost

Foreign
countries
the
trade
area

constants.

in

Labour
Ratio

I/J

Const.
entry
& exit

Const.
daily
cost

cost

Iceland,
England,

0.42

11.6

0.92

0.89

0.33

Poland,
U. S. S. R.,
Hungary,
Bulgaria,
E.
Czechoslovakia,
German

Lebanon,
Syria,
Turkey,
Iran,
Israel,
Iraq,
& Peninsula
S. Arabia

Greenland,
Ireland,
Scotland

Norway,
Finland

Denmark,
Sweden,

France,

W. Germany,
Holland
Portugal,
Switzerland,
Yugoslavia,
Albania

Spain,
Italy,
Austria,
Greece,

&

West
Coast
Africa

Africa
Central

Algeria,
Libya,

Morrocco,
Tunisia,
Angola,

Pakistan,
Ceylon

Afghanistan,
Nepal,
India,

MalayBurma,
Thailand,
S.
Vietnam
Cambodia,
sia,
Indonesia
Philippines,
New

Australia,
Japan,
Korea,

China,
Hong

Ryukyus,
Taiwan

N.
Kong,

2.7

London,
Dublin

3.6

2.10

Gothenberg,
Oslo

7.6

2.7

Bremen,
Havre,
Rotterdam

11.6

1.50

Genoa,
Bilbao

0.39

11.6

3.3

Gdynia,
Wismar

0.26

5.6

0.70

Kurramshahr,
Beirut

0.029

7.6

0.70

Lagos,
Matadi,
Monrovia

0.27

7.6

0.70

Tripoli,
Casablanca

0.27

9.6

2.10

Zealand
S.

Korea,

Vietnam

Le

Capetown,
Beira

Zimbabwe

Repub.
Sudan,
Ethopia,
Tanzania,
Kenya,
of
Malawi,
Uganda,
Rwanda,
Zambia

examin
trade

area

UAR

Africa,

S.

Mozambique,

Port
ined
the

10

0.029

11.6

0.70

Djibouti,
Mombasa

11

0.018

7.6

3.3

Calcutta,
Karachi

12

0.039

5.6

2.1

Tandjong,
Priok,
Manila

13

0.68

7.6

3.3

Auckland,
Sydney

14

0.39

5.6

0.70

Keelung,
Yokohama

15

0.05

5.6

1.5

Hong

Kong,

Singapore

Singapore

256

TABLE

10.12Contd.

Foreign
countries
the
trade
area

in

Labour
Ratio

I/J

Const.
entry
& exit

Const.
daily
cost

cost
Guatemala,

Honduras,

Costa
Rica,
Nicaragua,

Panama,
San Salvador

Antilles,
Venezuala,
Caracao,

16

Colombia,
Surinam,
Guyana

0.09

11.6

area
2.1

Balboa,

17

0.17

9.6

2.1

La Guarira,
Cartagena

9.6

3.3

de
Rio
Janeiro,
Montevideo

1.5

Callao
Valparaiso

Uruguay,

18

0.14

Ecuador,
Bolivia,

Peru,
Chile

19

0.095

11.

_6

East

Area
Coast

20

0.51

11.6

2.7

West

Coast

21

0.51

11.6

2.7

States
East

Coast

22

1.00

11.6

2.1

Gulf

Coast

1.00

11.6

2.1

Houston,
Mobile,
New Orleans

1.00

5.6

1.5

Los Angeles
Longview,
San
Francisco,

Coastal

United

examin
trade

Kingston

Brazil,
Paraguay

U. K.

Port
ined
the

Pacific

Coast

Baltimore,
Boston,
New York

Seattle

L
(1)
*

1.

See

note

1 for

updating

these

257

*1

*1

K.

K.

(2)
factors.

(3)

(127)

Heggie
compared
in

based

various

nine

between

factors,

there

reduced

are

neglected

dependent
The

per

Table

per

Table

10.13.
and

10.12,
3,

col.

and

labour

program

uses

material

costs

income

of

U. S. A.

and

2,

col.

the

all

daily

the

cost

indices

in

are
ship.
by

trade

is

area
in

shown
and

exit

constants

given

of

updated

each

entry

basis

the

was

ships

factors

the

of

10.12

various

cost

were

Table

updated
(see

10.14

1).

note

The
PORTD
PCFD

the

PORTF,

and

PCFF,

and

the

input

as

number
daily

and

PECFF,

the

port

RLABD

and

RLABF,

the

labour

ports

respectively.
The

daily

the

domestic

the

daily

costs

the

foreign
Daily

at

the

Daily

costs

at

the

where

daily
RTPA

by

Eq.

foreign
PCFF

Annual

exit

port
= no.

costs,
of

round

costs

the

by

costs
(10.8).

trips

258

=
per

exit

annum.

the

costs
ports

= DIPx(34.0

and

GRT0.67)

(PCOSTD

of

is

domestic

_PCOSTF =
5
x GRT0.67)

RLABFO.
PDCOST

at

for

average

ports
and

PCOSTD

RLABDO.

(10.9)

Eq.

foreign

foreign

and

The

entry

ports,

ports;

constants;

domestic

ports.

ports,
x

exit
at

total

and

domestic
PCFD

and

foreign

and

calculated

The

calculated

ports

and

foreign

values:

constants;

ratio;

the

entry

costs

are

costs.

the

of

of

domestic

of

port

sum

costs

and

following

domestic

entry

costs

ports

daily

total

port

the

port

PECFD

is

the

of

the

and

tonnage

capita

income

capita

constants
by

average

varies

Such

that

1 Table

vessels

flag

etc.

assuming

col.

cargo

national

model

registered

ratio

the

for

this

has

Amongst

services

by

gross

labour

dividing

liner

(128)

dues

of

ports.

constructing

the

general

structure

subsidies

rationalised
on

four

nine

also
for

in

is

costing

the

the

were
tariff

and

the

that

in

published

for

costs

found

ports

dues

port

port

substantially

by

on

DIP

(34.0

+ PCOSTF)
2

RTPA

TABLE

10.13.

Labour

(1)
Average
capita
per
US$
income

Area

3655

7997

3
4

7725

5
6

3391

11

250
2305
2320
247
160

12

333

13
14

5855
3410
L.63

o. 42
0.92
0.89
0.33

10

15
16

0.68
0.39
0.05

850

17

1464

18

1200

19

828

20

4430

21

4430

22

8640
CAP ITA

INCOME

1977

(Population,
and

259

Ref.
(53)
I-11
the

1.
Frankel
& Marcus
Table
exhibit
in
was updated
following
way.
Costs

17 x Material
Index
Matl.
Index
x
Exchange
Rate

growth

(1967-70)(1970-79)1979
17x1.048
x3.885x0.4915
34.
o
=
Constant
Costs

Port
Daily

Col.

Col.
3 exhibit
1-11 x
Index
Matl. Index
x Matl.
(67-70)
(70-79)
*Exchange

0.09
0.17
0.14
0.095
0-51
0.51
1.00

World
Bank Atlas
Ref.
products
per capita,
1978.
rates)

Note:

Daily

0.39
0.26
0.029
0.27
0.27
0.029
0.018
0-039

2270

(1)

Labour
ratio
US = 1.00

2830

PER

ratio.

rate

Col. 3x1.048
x 3.885
0.4915 = 2.0
Constant
& Exit

Port
Entry

Col.
Costs

I-11
Col.
2 exhibit
(67-70)
Matl.
Index
(70-79)
Index
x Matl.
Rate
x Exchange
Col.

2 x

o. 4915

1.048
=

2.0

x 3.885

TABLE

10.14.

Material

and

labour

indices.

Labour

Material
Year
Indices

Indices

Av.

Weekly
Wk.

68

97.04

76.77

29.16

69

82.78

70

98.47
100.00

100.00

31.44
37.98

71

113.00

94.63

35.94

72

117.40

106.21

40.34

73

129.10

139.42

52.95

74

183.20

160.32

60.89

75

245.90

188.05

71.42

76

282.6

218.25

82.89

77
78

326.2
363.0

240.76

91.44

273.22

103.77

79

388.5
415.0

289.63

110.00

315.95

120.00

80

260

Pay

Exit

and

Exit

entry

entry

and

Annual

entry
Then
The

is

for

ship

was

overestimated

cost

differences

costs

at

PECFF

exit

total

FUEL

was

adopted

OIL

COSTS
oil

oil,

diesel

oil

from

the

weights

of

diesel

oil,
at
first
to

last

the

be

and

port.

used

at

the

fuel

oil

(see

also

carried

for

plant

at

sea/day:

(1)

Heavy

fuel

oil

the

power,
reserve

(2)

Diesel

to

normal

the
to

therefore

and

were

estimated

and

port
of

was

heavy

fuel
to

assumed

1500

heavy

and

bunkering
of

KW was

assumed

electricity,
heavy

for

requirements.
assumptions).

= 162

24106

the

continuous

rating,

BHP x

1.10

tonnes

fuel

specific
convert

0.90

oil

consumption
horse

installed
is

1.10

the

10%

fuel.

oil

consumed/day

bunker
the

at

A 10% reserve

x
is

B
stage

costs

generating

consumed/day

162 gm/hp-hr
where
(1)
is
0.90
a factor

design

of

sea

ship

etc.

for

ship

cost

after

and

8.2.3.

consumed

call,
generator

section

Oil

The

oil.

above

into

cost/tonne

A diesel

ventilation

was

at

the

with

port

the

and

acceptable

The

oil.

of

+ PECOST
data

ship

preliminary

are

consumed

port

sea

the

calculated

costs,

subdivided

lub

lub

PDCOST

RTPA

program.

were

oil

oil
foreign

the

and

weights

home

running

in

the

multiplying

12%. At

+ PCENTF)

container
costs

actual

CPORT =

port

magnitude

costs

fuel

The

= PORTF

(PCENTD

two

with

about

585

costs,

port

the

this

of

fuel

The

PECOST

from

by

PCENTF

GRTO.

PORTD

ports,

eRLABF

10.15.

5.50%

GRT0.585

foreign

validated

Table

was

costs,

PCENTD

ports,

eRLABD

annual

was
in

shown

method

10.8.

PECFD

method

and

the

at

and
the

domestic

costs

= 162

261

x AUXKW x

1
KW

hp x

TABLE

10.15.

Distance

Validation

between

Ports

of

= 14000

ports

Domestic

call:

of

Regular

3
(Australia)

Irregular

(iii)

Annual

Costs

costs.
nautical

miles.
ForeiM!

ii)PORTIME

in

(Japan)

Australia

8.0

(Korea)

Japan

5.3

Korea

= 1.0

80-81

A (1288

Ship

port

TEU)

Ship B (1684 TE)

246909

272410

130278
8003

Round

No.

in

days

trip

of

x 24.0
= 1400023
in days
= 39.66

time

round

trips/annum

= 350/39.66
Ship

=k

405877

25.36

= 8.825
A

Ship

PCOSTF

2714

3409

PCOSTD

20033

25527

PDCOST

11373

14468

PCENTD

17216

21329

PCENTF

12656

15679

PECOST

29872
41245

37008

PDCOST

+ PECOST
CPORT

difference

385191

96138
37328

Seatime

=C

Actual

port

from

actual

costs
costs

262

C 363991

51476
E 454275

385191

405877

5-50

-11.92

days

load
eff.

0.50
0.95
The

24+

diesel

tonnes.

106

is

generator

to

assumed

be

a medium

diesel

speed

engine.
(3)

Cylinder

luboil

0.90
(4)

System

luboil

the

taken

from

Oil
(5)

Heavy

(6)

Diesel

Buxton
in

fuel

oil

fuel

heavy

system

oil

is

fuel

oil,

g/HP-hr

BHP x

tonnes
luboil

consumption

hp

was

fed

in

as

0.75

load

0.95

eff.

oil,

hr

gm/BHP
24

and

x AUXKW x

tonnes

106

luboil

cylinder

input

an

tonnes

= 162

diesel

oil,

24.0

consumed/day

fuel

luboil

24/106

consumed/day

KW
of

BHP x

port/day:

1.341
Cost

= 0.26

and cylinder
(101).

system

consumed

g/IIP-hr

tonnes

24106

consumption/day
0.90

where

= 0.37

consumption/day

the

and
for

values

1980

were
Heavy

80/tonne;

luboil,

cylinder

560/tonne;

Cost

of

fuel/annum

Cost

of

fuel/annum

fuel/annum

Cost

of

fuel/annum

RTPA

x((5)

Total

fuel

fuel/annum

at

The

heavy

were

470/tonne.

sea

(SEATIM)
x
per round
voyage
(2)
(3)
x 560
x 80 +
x 145 +

= Days at
(RTPA) x((l)

in

80

sea

port

in
= Days
(6)
x 145)

+
costs

sea
fuel

published

regularly

average

oil

luboil,

of

145/tonne;

oil,

system

x 470)

Cost

costs

at

trips/annum

round
+ (4)

Diesel

ascertained

per

and
oil
in

port

round

the

sum

(PORTIM)

voyage

is

annum

cost

per

of

fuel/annum

marine

from

suppliers

costs.

263

in

diesel

and
(131)

for

of

some

major
and

the

cost

of

port.
costs

oil

ports.
reflect

are
Luboil
higher

than

10.9.

CONTAINER

HANDLING

Container

handling

cost

of

40

20

to

60

the

ship

in

60

quoted

no

charges

of

the

or

versa

the

be

is

authority

These

not

the

for
There

move.
container

1982
were
the

or

contents

depended

cases

to

are

by

paid

contacted

many

50

and

extra.

it

in

as

stuffing

cost
so

charges

to

container

will

A port

however

ports

1980

at

do

typical

containers,

on

differentiate

between

from

values

port

loaded
Israel

of

and

are,

costs

20'

container,

full

053.21

20'

container,

empty

25.88

40'

container,

full

079.77

40'

container,

empty

38.83

full

the

with
however

no
Based

The
the

the

total

round

OPERATING
The

in

the

be

escalated

Such

handling

cost/move

over

escalation

= number

factor

2 is

and a further

cost

elements

factor

of

the

level.

maximum

for

factor

loading

and

2 for

of

containers
load

max.

rates

last

are

15

calculated
these

of

in

the

years

is

costs

reflect
the

are

Some

sections.
to

as

cost

20'

the

round

voyage.

COSTS

operating

previous

escalation

cost

The

1980

at

factor.

handling

trips/annum.

handle

to

cost

calculated

load

was

containers.

move

was

There

much.

exported
the

outbound

a container

unloading
10.10.

factor

the

container

as

50/container

as

load
or.

or

figure,

port

taken

inbound

carried

imported

a U. K.

on

twice

costing

on

rebate

maximum

Then

4x

containers

was

container

of

quay,

include

not

handling

customer.

Some

129),

the

vice

to

port

levels,

ft.

freight,

sea

and

a particular

empty

do

from

much

cost

container
- 90 per
for
the
size
of the

either

container

40

which

(107).

operator

costs,

the

to

costs

vary

1978

for

containers

included

not

not

ship

similarly

handling

stripping

for

gives
container,

and

These

80.

ft.

do

costs

(107)

Buxton

port.

COSTS

given

264

in

cost

elements

future.

The

a good

Table

discussed

as

average

guideline.

10.16

(123.

can

Section
rates
(142),

can

rates

for

10.16

also

can

12.6

ship

containers
leasing

equipment
of

with

cost

However
therefore
two

is
from

limited

data

to

disclose

two
the

shipowners'

shipping
costs

to

as

ships

rolling
and

updated

reluctant

such

container
and

the

all

operation
for

depreciation

be

certain

operating
be

even

costs
for

charges

positioning

to

Thus

etc.

these

vessels,

costs,

elements

costs

were

shipowners

past

years

operating

265

with

feeder

most

costs.

slot

allocated

including

the

if
of

the

average

inland

costs

validated
were
costs.

favourably

responded
reflect

which

different
per

since

developed

Table

associated

costs

companies

operating

costs

Operating

base,

escalation

costs.

increases

considered

(130).

average

valid

stock,

Cameron

program.

operating

update
cost
equations
(130)
Gardner
cost
gives
includes

escalation

operating

to

used

container

can

the

of
of

the

computer
(101)
give

Buxton

indices

gives

which

sector

the

elements

various

periods.
(1971-76)

and

in

(143)-and

Laing

be

introduced

be

on how

details

gives

and
of

these

f b,

"UC

CCC
Q i-i "i
Cl

co

l0

N
Cr)
"

N
"
O

r-1

i-.
co
I

"
M
r.
N
r-i

ON

01

.
Ch

co
H

Cl)
N

0\

N
Cl)

t0

O"

i -.
M (r)
OM
N

(~)

CD
CO
01 "
r-I

"

"

tD

U)

r -1 d

i-.
to

U)

U)

Ol

CO

ri

r-qLr3

^
CO
N

^
N
U) l0

U)

N
ri

NI
N

t0

C7
N
r--I
v

r-I

. --1 U)
r-4

N0
r-I
"
ri ri
r-i

OM
ON
ri

11
...i
O\

N r-1
M"

U)

r-I

tD
01
7
"
O
ri

^r
N

O"

HO
.

v
O

U)
0
C)

N
N"
r-I

l0
N

N
v

CD
01
Co
N
m

0
N

(0

r-1
r-1

M.
r-1 U7
v

0t
l0

m
O
U

O
x
m
v
HC

co

O
"

t0
r-I

"
N
H

M
NN
p.
(N t0
N
v

co

CO
N

;:

"

U)
"

ri

N U)
N

co

.-i

v
i-.

t0

"

ri

r-1

Ol
ri
v

01

N"

U) 01
ST CO
ri"

U) ^
0 U)
H `/

r. 1
`-

. -
N
co ri
Q1
tD
v

O^

00
ri

LC) U)

ri

N
%-.0

01 N
01 0
"
N

ri

I
. ..
. -.
Ot
01

ri

0"

i.
N

CO CD

CO

U) O

CO
N0O
-

CO r-1
1
v
01

t0

U)

I
.
p
l.()

cri

0
(M
.

U)
O
H
v

"

*.
""

CD

10

Od
M L!]

^
LlM
"
CO

01
r-1

`/

. -.

CO Cr)
N r-I

"

r.

N
10
ri
r-I

U)
v

..

t0

MN
"

.
M

.
tr)
. "'1
v

.-.

-.

CO

N
ri

.-I

ri

ri

U3 te)
N N
"
r--I

O
v

r.

-.

O
"
7

N
r-1

CO

ri
ri

Ol
U) O
-i
.
r-1 t0

^
ON

r-i

ri
r-1

CO

tM0
01

tD

LO
"
t0

tD

t0
t0

O"
ri U)
v

M"

.--I O
^
CD
U:
`

v
Go
H 11
N"

0
co

r-1 r-f

r-I

^
Ol *
0 N)
r-

,. .
. -.
rn
CO

01

... i
^
0
04

N r-1

M
`-

...

r1O

0"

ri

^
U) r1

N
"
"-4 ri
N
v

CD
t0

["O')r 1

r-1 O
N

r-"I

"

r-I

"

co
O
ri

N
I

N U
1
r-1 i '

NN
r-i

v
i-.
01
(V

CO

MO
r-I N

M
v

L^,
)
O CO
N
r-I U)

^
0
r-I
r-I

01
"
O
I

C') N
"-1
r-i

..
M

r-i

01

O"
r-i N
v

.tD-.

N
r-i
rf

. -.
r-I
0)

"

U)

r-1

r-4
r-I 01
v

-.

..

ri
ri

ri

0'

co

Cl

W
CD
a-i
fj)
0

p..

O
.-i

F-

^
t0

II

W
J

tD

CO
O
r1

re)

r-i
M
ri

0
HM

^
M
04
CO
r- r-i

O^
OM
`
r-I

"
01
v

01
Cr) CO

Ol

N0
ON

u)

^
U)

r-1

N"
ri Cfi

r-1

dM

co

i.
U) ri
rn N

ri

d
.i

i.

Nd

^
U) t0

t0

to

N
N
r -1

N
mO

M
co CO

*
O
v

"

r-1
v

r-1 CD

U) co

H
sY "
ri m

t0 U)

CO
vM

Lf)
CA
-/

^
N
01

O
U)
ri
v
i.

U)

...

ri.

t0
H

I
v
^
CD

M
ri

r:

CQ

MMN

-4

N
1- 1

,..

01 N

ri

t0

. -.
ri
M C)1
O"
CV
1-0

i.

O
N U:)

CO "
N

LI) m

co

ri

ri

co

N0
CO
"
ri

"

...

N
I
v

HO

r-i

N) 0
-4 U)"

r-4

N"
OM

i.

v
^

01 U)

co
u
^
to

"
CO

rn

"
U)

N
r4
H

r-i

m
El -O

J-
CO N

O
v
^
U)
CO

01 tD

ri
ri

U)

.
ko CO

..
M
O\

.. i

M
M

U)
N"

Cr)
H

r-i

.N

U) r-4
r)
.
N lO

r.

C
Co

CL
0

.1

`
^
U)

m
L
41

01
C
.,..{

Co
p
m

O
tr)

r- IN

rf

01

tD

ri

^
U)

U
C
",

^
CO
M

t0

^
t0

m
U)
Co
m

ri

Crl

U)

"

U7
'i

ri

^
t0

C
Co

O"
ri Ql
N

01

% tD

r-4
v

01
.

-1 co

N
U)

U)

U)

r-1

r-1 rf

u
U3

O
"

. -1 t0

t0

r-j

CD

t0

O
U)

-4

i.
N
CD

^
N

.N"
-i N
N

^
N

t0
t0
rj

r .
OM

i.

N
N

01

U)

N"
1-1 CD

1-1

O
01

+N

+t0

u
aD

N
0

co

01

i.
M

01

LrJ
~

1"-1

0)
m

01
ca

NU
m
L3
4.3 CD
(4
U

0
"r1

co

"rl

>

0)
m
t4
0
-N
U)

266

I
4J
Cc -1
U "rl
"ri 0

1-1

r7 01
.OC

"

1=1

J"r1

CL

G)
m
E3
c
co

fi

FI

mO
(-- co

4J
0

C
"r1

I
WC
O
"ri
C"r"i
-H +)
E

CO

-O N
Q +1

t$

.
C

i-+ +)m
(G C

-4
0

m co
ME

F-

"rl

CL "ri

4-)

ri

N
'

TABLE 10.16
NOTES:

(Contd.

).

(1)

+ calculated

(2)

(3)

from

1971-1980

)% increase/annum,
)* index

for

that

year.

267

only,

CHAPTER
CONTAINER

11

COST MODEL

11.0

INTRODUCTION

11.1

NUMBER OF SETS

11.2

CAPITAL

11.3

MAINTENANCE

11.4

INSURANCE

11.5

LIFE

11.6

FINANCIAL

OF CONTAINERS

COST
AND REPAIR
COST

OF CONTAINER
MODEL

COST

11.0

INTRODUCTION
(132)

Fairplay
dwt,

1200

26.12
to

TeU,
106

capital

cost,

in

the

of

2.75
between

at

mainly:

least

(b)

Terminal

(c)

Ocean

(d)

Terminal

(e)

Inland

but

all

initial

ship

the

importance
the

and

the

the

these

depending
or

world

1979

of

to

be

leasing
the

on
through

of

overall

container
between

or

2.25

companies

survey

one

transport

sections

transportation

own
(133)"

selects
there

concept

operating

to

cost

centres,

exporting

operations

area

exporting

area

importing

area

transit
operations

importing

functions

are

transportation

of

the

above
the

throughout

area

subordinate

to

the

common

and

cost

system.

Containers.
The

containers

of
(a)

Systems

(b)

Storage

(c)

Maintenance

(d)

Insurance

(e)

Owning

control

and
and

or

play

this

thesis

operating

and

their

and

coordination

costs

associated

services

repair
(Cargo

claim

leasing

equipment
In
the

the

of

cost.
estimate

major

cost

Inland

(f)

six

the

shows

assumed

27 of

are

ship

the

Thus

costs
This

beginning

54%,

10

a container

Of

be

are

then

9.72

container

intermodal

any

(a)

link

to

38
In

are

the
Teu.

million

is

sources

at

population

ships

containers,

container

Independent

the

25000

to

ship

If

third.

one

ratio

importance

dry

73% and

nearly

box/slot

20'

for

price

container

containers.

of

is

cost

total

diesel

@ 2700/Teu

sets

container

the

sets

1981

early

an

knots

excluding

require

22

gives

of

such

container)
handling

containers/associated

a major
we

and

role.

will

neglect
as

268

storage,

the

inland

sector

stuffing/unstuffing,

of

inland

stripping,
is

justified

costs

transportation

in

the

from

vary

have

to

the

the

comparing

sector
(Inland

alternatives
faster

Container

sets

2)

Container

Acquisition

cost

3)

Container

Maintenance

cost

(a)

Container

Refurbishing

(b)

Container

Repair

4)

Container

Insurance

5)

Container

Life

takes
of

ratio

of

vary

from

it

was

less

of

the
the

of

of

costs

are

unloaded

etc.

containers

be

virtually

to

10

The

sets.

dwell

time
time,

more

in

and

independent

of

number
of

number

found

They

model

inland,

required/ship
or

of

a method

container

turnaround

2 up

that

the

slot

can

most
the

cases,

number

of

service.
and

number
Sealeg

of

FREQ

(53)

Marcus
sets

of

gives

the

containers

following
(SETCNT)

equation
on

each

end

as

SETCNT = 0.465
where

with

(SETCNT)

ships

than
to

Frankel
for

and

number

found
in

ships

the

ship

associated

published

container

fleet,

the

have

number
the

loaded

containers

all

cost

(134)

account
in

ships

for

same

container

OF CONTAINERS

total

the
into

assumed

cost

& Wright

estimating

is

when

costs

NUMBER OF SETS
Edmond

service,
it

not

containers

l)

11.1.

the
are

the

of

aspects

below:

discussed

costs

times).

following

The

door
if

remain
costs

shipping
Though

to

This

transportation
the

design,

will

sector

transit

sea

door

ship

costs

inland

nature.

of

concept

insurance.

cargo

but

in

alternative

inland

in

country

international

introduced

that

that

sense

country

relatively

are

and

is

the

+ 13.66/FREQ

frequency

of

269

Teu
service

in

days.

Eq.

11.1

Therefore
CNTINV
CNT

container

ALFMAX

is

These

generation

valid

for

the

calculating

the

against
On

the

deep

sea

container

is

Fig.

11.1

the

ratio

is

to

For

numbers

to

Far

East

from

route

to

3.2.

Since

route

to
t,

of

containers

was

most

likely

but

later

sets/ship
out

to

and

Therefore

the

on
as

in

an

input

container

time
(136).

al.

Europe-

ratio

from

varies
from

time

varies

ratio

is

very

of

number

sensitive
sets

of

profitability

SETCNT

taken

is

a sensitivity
estimate

estimate
inventory

270

the

of

the

data.

thesis

optimistic

from

(137)

influence

overall

for

the

a pessimistic
the

the

the

of

dwell

14

box/slot
around

observe

et

of

box/slot

estimate

the

with

the

the

and

left

annum

turn

(SETCNT)

SETCNT
The

(134),

therefore

the

11.1

container

route

to

per

time

Dally

(134).

box/slot

berth

by

ship

evident
or

around

given

voyages

is

used.

year

time

container

for

per

per

sets/ship

on
is

Fig.

ship

As

turn

of
the

be

cannot

turnaround

the

data

round

per

sets

expressions

sets

(134,135).

terminals
of

container

container

sensitive

container

container

of

of

besides

simple

of

be

Moreover

factors,

containers

of

not

number

of

inland

days

Realistic

carried

23

the

such

voyages

may

ships.

other

many

sets

the

Eq. (11.3)

thus

and

that

shown

round

number

very

for

ship,

of

(53)

as

analysis

container

number

route

20

container.

the

shows

number

estimated

ships
of

of

Teu.

percentage

statistical

Therefore

number

11.1

Fig.

on

on

time.

in

ship

(11.2)

Eq.

Teu

days.

container

dependent

turnaround

is

SETCNT)

(53)

is

ship

days

in

generations
(134)
have

are

containers

in

it

based

are
of

& Wright

ships

time

voyage

newer

factor

then

the

of

one

RVYTIM0.85

formulae

first

Edmond

known

= 0.565

= Round

RVYTIM

load

for
2.0

capacity

ship's
not

(1.0

carrying

FREQ

FREQ

ALFMAX

maximum

if

and

CNT

(CNTINV)

inventory

container

3
is

2.5
is

analysis

of
of

as

1.8

sets
given

sets
of

of

containers.
by (CNTINV)

13
12

11

10

9
08

.,
)
4.

'

4-)

0
pq
5

i16
0

II
10

20

Round
Fig.

11.1.

30

II

40

50

60

voyages/annum

Box/slot
ratios
and number of round
Year, Load Factor
= 0.8 (134)

271

voyages/

CNTINV
11.2.

CAPITAL

dry

(132)

containers

and
are

At

1980

of

containers.

not

taken

and

number

into
of

as

mix

other

types

11.3.

MAINTENANCE

of

Major

FRP

and

In
the

and
of

this

can

only
are

Annual
the

containers

of

the

total

in

past

is

capital
is

studies

Butcher
and

(139)
repair

costs

(138)

other
taken

are

for

to

undertaken
that

recommends
years

and

steel

aluminium

years.

their

or

maintenance

usually

considered
by

replaced

and
as

repair
a

costs

values

below.
absolute
1976

272

values
cost

levels,

of

sets

percentage

Some

containers.

new
life.

expected

calculated
of

is

refurbishing

of

for

type

developed.

is

expiry

gives

the

(CMCOST)

COST

be

indicated

are

equations

be

to

cost

container

Since

similar

assumed

refurbishing

of

maintenance

easily

minor

the

after

and

(11.5)

20'

with

once

containers

of

known.

every

every

out

are

cost

refurbished

containers

capital

Eq.

carried

feasible,

Pentimonti

thesis

containers

costs

first

of

containers

adopted

types

insurance

AND REPAIR

be

can

containers

is

are

containers

life.

their

extend

thesis

refurbishing

total

COSCNT

containers

the

of

percentage

are

is

but

like

costs

will

= 2500/unit

the

and

specialised

of

of

mix

containers

(COSCNT)

(132)

this

account,

figures

Container

= CNTINV

in

20'

mix

following

the

for
If

of

this

of

20'

Other

associated

price

total

containers

analysis

dry

the

prices

CNCOST
The

containers.

= 3400/unit

(CNCOST)

cost

(11.4)

Eq.

prices

insulated

ratio

Dry

20'

Teu

representative

20'

the

thesis.

Reefer

and

in

early

this

gives

carried

be

accordingly

SETCNT

(CNCOST)

COST

Fairplay

containers

in

= CNT x

maintenance
average

used

Type

COST

er

or

out

maintenance

Repair

10

GP

1.5

6.5

GP

1.5

4.7

6.2

Insulated

3.75

4.75

Insulated

2.70

3.7

of

number

repairs/unit/annum
for

service/repair
20'

steel

and

taking

average

container
the

price

repair

average

2.06%

of
can

be

maintenance
annual
(COSREF)
is
assumed
repair

annual
the

of

Maguire(134)

out

of

For

a
is

(132)

1.23,
gives

maintenance

Similar
types

other

of

refurbishing

containers.

costs/annum

be

1.59% of the
capital
(COSREP)
is assumed

costs

And

cost.

6.5%

be

to

= 1.5

CNCOST/100.0

Eq.

(11.6)

COSREP

6.5

CNCOST/100.0

Eq.

(11.7

annual

maintenance

and

repair

(CMCOST)

cost

is

by
CMCOST = COSREF

11.4.

INSURANCE

merely

a high

COST

and

The

model

The

assumed

to

(11.8)

Eq.

(COSINS)

often

cost.

expressed

+ COSREP

. Operators
insure
against

deductable.

insurance
cost

minor

days

and

cost.
for

out

Abbott

COSREF

given

or

capital

and
to

5.78%

of

(134)

1500

as

Abbott

Magj-uire(134)

repairs/annum

container

&
(134)

containers.

of

Edmond
Wright

Cost.

Capital

the

and

of

carried

The

the

numbers

a 20'

of

5-7

average
of

cost/unit/annum

cost/unit/annum
calculations

the

types

different

and

of

service
/annum

Total

GP

an

Days

Refurbishing

contain-

is

OF CAPITAL

PERCENTAGE

of

loss

catastrophic
includes

insurance
be

cost

2% of

their

self-insure

the

a
is

capital

by

containers
maintaining

container

an

average
(54)
cost

annual

Eq.

and

as
COSINS

=2x

CNCOST/l00.0

273

(11.9)

(134)

11.5.

The
the

OF

LIFE

There

is

types

from

the

following

table.

Container
in Years

(134)

GP

12-16

Maguire

(134)

Steel

15

Sherwood

(140)

8-12

Brokaw

(141)

Butcher

(139)

10-12

controversy

In

for

the

in

Later

11.6.

container

thesis

sensitivity

of

profitability

FINANCIAL

MODEL

last

cost

the

costs,

common
ship

container

is

adequate

permit

unconstrained

substantial

investment

avoid

this

capital

and

ship

faced
the

maintaining

furnishing

all

than

determine

the

in

operation

the

numbers

of

the

sets

movement
on

the

expenditure

of

part
and

274

old,

assumed.

carried

the

out

influence

of

the

cost
the

containers

the

associated
operating
of

operator

pointed

cargo
of

the

cost

was

model

overall

to

addition

It

is

its

was

additional

containers.

years

ship.

operations,
with

is

analysis

in

12

8 years

of

to

containers

available.

life

Therefore

to

less

considered

design

container.

of

not

of

element

ship

are

the

many

are

life

container

overall

container

with

data
a

the

The

ships

program

variation
the

container
definitive

therefore

because

arises

built

is

Life

Abbott

and

to

This

containers.

12-16

GP

to

the

about

(134)

8-10

purpose

and

of

data

Edmonds

GP

This

of

input

an

controversy

different

Steel

on

of

of

Container
Type

on

a lot

forms

life

probable
evident

(LIFEC)

life

container

model.

(LIFEC)

CONTAINER

of
out

providing
that

required

involves

a rather

operator.

To

subsequent

maintenance

containers

costs,
leased,

the
Fig.

the

of
the

shipowner
11.2

the

he

annual

incurs

of

CPAY
CRF

the

to

be

CONDCF

evaluation
with

is

the
the

of

every

LIFEC
end

the

The

principal

procedure

of

CINT(I)
future

the

annual

loan,

cost
into

the
insurance.

of
an

equal

the

governing

the

the

the

present

sum

of

value
is

principal
by

details
leasing.

and

ECONT(I),

which

the

containers

the

container

to

zero.

CINT(I)

= CNCOST X CPINT/100.0
Eq.

is

CINT(I)

accumulated
charged

i.

on

the

be

at

into

is

assumed

annum

divided

paid

sum

of

the

6% per

purchase

replacing

principal

.....
in
the

(11.10)

CRF

that

gives

assumed,

salvage

repayments

money

of

= CPAY

CPINT/100.0

and

is

life

the

been

also

container

cost

The

has

(141)

factor

borrowed

CINT(I)

CPINT

Brokaw

interest

annual

Eq.

calculating
(141)
quotes

and

rates

CP(I)

the
=

the

the

annum.

already
and

thus

of
and

buys

shipowner

and

transformed

(135),

is
payment
(CINT),
where

Principal

CPAID(I)

loan

cost

is

container

interest

the

the

repayment

repair

year

years.

annual

And

of

annual

10%

account

of

The

amount

help

escalation

into

that

factor.
recovery
(CPINT)
for
rate

eight

factors

takes

The

in

leaser.

associated

description

short

(ONCOST)

10% per

container

the

costs

the

money.

of

of

all

considered

and

= capital

variation
over

followed

= CNCOST X CRF

assumed

the

the

interest

The

is
the

is

cost

sum

annual

to

for

are

to

payment

subprogram
A

with

capital

is

annual

containers

procedure

flow

it

model

maintenance

where

the

model.

containers

The

an

If

below.

In

cost

makes

Subroutine
cost

given

the

leased.

cash

container.

is

often

outlines

discounted

container

are

and

the

Eq.

(11.11)
(11.12)

array

remaining

e.

(CNCOST
of
CP(I)

converting

275

CPAID(I-1))

the

loan,

are

then
them

i.

Eq.
e.

interest

converted
into

(11.13)

present

into
worth

Fig.

11.2.

Container
subroutine

cost and financial

model
CONDCF)
subprogram

(Flow

chart

of

C---7

C
START

--

I
READ CNT,

10

CPAY = CNCOST x CRF

CINT (1) = .....
CP (1) = CPAY-CINT (1)
IPAID (1) = CP (1)
1

20

CINT (1) _
CP (1) =
CPAID (1)

ACONT, ACMANT, ACINS

LIFEC, SETCNT,
CPINT

LIFES, DISCNT
COSCNT
CNTINV =
CNCOST =
COSREF =
COSREP =
COSINS =
CMCOST =

3o_ CNCOST

I=0
YEAR = 2.0
I=I+1
Y= FLOAT (I-1)
YEAR = YEAR +1
x=y+3.0

CNCOST x ECONT(1)
I

40

ONCOST=
CNCOST x ECONT (1)
/ECONT (I-LIFEC)
i

PWF =

CLIFE = FLOAT(LIFEC)
ECONT (1) =
ECMANT(I) =
ECINS(I)
_
CRF =

I!
N

1=

2x
OR
3X

__

TCDCF = TCFC(I)
I
+ TCDCF

LIFEC +11
">4.

Lir

rrrf+

Ll.

_t

/1

53

276

TCMCOS(I)
TCINS(I)
TCMCF(I)

=
=
=

Fig.

11.2

(Contd.

TCINCF(I)
=
TCINS * PWF
TINDCF =
TCINCF(1)
TINDCF

TINDCF =
TCINCF (I)

TDCFCN =
TCDCF +
TCMDCF +
TINDCF

RETURN

277

(DISCNT)

at

rate
the

Therefore

discount

of

present

in

specified

value

the

of

the

future

input.

annual

repayment

is

TCFC(I)
CFCSL(I)=

where
future

The

rate

= TCMCOS(I)

TCMCF(I)

insurance

cost,

(DISCNT)

at

+ CINT(I)

CP(I)

maintenance

discounted

PWF

= CFCSL(I)X

Present

Eq.

(11.14)

Eq.

(11.15)

are

similarly

interest,

of

PWF

costs

value

total

of

maintenance

in

cost

Ith

yr.

(11.16)

Eq.
TCINCF(I)

= TCINS(I)

PWF = Present

in

cost
The

and

maintenance
as

annual

in

escalation

the

and

ACONT,

factor

escalation

the

cost

of

insurance

of
Ith

cost,

container

insurance

ACMANT

and

(11.17)

Eq.

year

acquisition

container

repairs

value

are

input

ACINS

respectively.
The

total

ECMANT(I)

ECONT(I),

the

Ith

(1.0

+ ACONT/100.

ECMANT(I)

(1.0

+ ACMANT/100.0)

ECINS(I)

(1.0

+ ACINS/100.

book

the

value

the

otherwise

year,

CNCOST
Similarly

for

the

escalated

cost

the

of

O)

is

by

given

Y
Y

O)Y

cost

equations

in

(11.18)

Eq.

(11.19)

Eq.

(11.20)

the

insurance

and

Eq.

Ith

is

ECONT(I)

maintenance

cost

container

replacement

CNCOST x

year

ECINS(I)

and

ECONT(I)

Therefore

The

in

escalation

cost

Eq.

(11.21

the

are

TCMCOS(I)

CMCOST x

ECMANT(I)

Eq.

(11.22)

TCINS(I)

COSINS

ECINS(I)

Eq.

(11.23)

is

discounting
is

which

The
insurance

are

the

value

present

for

done

than

higher

the

life
of

accumulated

life
of

the

of

the

cost,

in

TCMDCF

(LIFES)
(LIFEC).

container

container
TCDCF,

ship

and

maintenance
and

TINDCF

respectively.
the

Therefore
maintenance

and

TDCFCN

value

present

insurance

= TCDCF

of

the

container

cost,

is
+ TCMDCF

278

+ TINDCF

Eq.

(11.24).

CHAPTER
ENGINEERING

12

ECONOMY

12.0

INTRODUCTION

12.1

INTEREST

12.2

RELATIONSHIPS

12.1.1.

SIMPLE

12.1.2.

COMPOUND INTEREST

TIME

ADJUSTING

INTEREST

MONEY VALUES

12.2.1.

COMPOUND AMOUNT FACTOR

AND PRESENT WORTH FACTOR

12.2.2.

CAPITAL
RECOVERY FACTOR
AND SERIES
PRESENT WORTH
FACTOR

12.3

ECONOMIC

MEASURE

OF MERIT

12.4

ECONOMIC

COMPLEXITIES

12.4.1.

TAX

12.4.2.

INFLATION

12.4.3.

DEPRECIATION

12.5

CALCULATION

OF CAPITAL

CHARGE

12.6

REQUIRED

FREIGHT

RATE

BEFORE

12.7

REQUIRED

FREIGHT

RATE

AFTER

TAX
TAX

12.0

INTRODUCTION
Economics

a finite

supply

Engineering
knowledge

for

then,

is

needs

with

design

goal

ment
from

A to

safety,

the

inflation,

depreciation,
made

the

in

thesis

tax

allowances

and

operating

of

calculating

the

measure
tax

are

his

are

three
the
of

the

basic

principles

measure
e. g.

of
tax,

assumptions

Taxation,
for

depreciation,
building

shipowner

U. K.
the

of

a design

depreciation,

allowances,

of

various

indicated.

measure

of

complexities

chapter

account,

for

merit

containers

a concrete

choice

the

and

builder's

require-

of

of

the

sections

functional

basis

the

ship

a number
of
constraints
(stability,
nature
strength,
)
to seek
etc.
an optimal

calculated
in

ship

resources:

or

number

economic

also

society's

use
of
(147).

the

etc.

etc.

last

The

tax,

other

economy,

process

certain

calculation,

various

the

given

rules
on

scientific

meeting

funds

legal

or

introduces

economy

at

design

infinite

of

Engineering

in

satisfies

chapter

and

merit

also

judged

engineering

of

aimed

of

solution
(148).

This

use

as

classification

merit

the

society.

defined

physical,

technical
of

which

technical,

as

investment

transportation
B)

face

engineering
be

may

allocating

the

effectiveness

the

of

in

design

and

of

process
(e. g.

ship

to

approach

materials,

The

of

task

funds

defined

benefit

a maximum

manpower,

of

the

an

be

may

the

as

investment

of
(147).

possibilities

defined

be

may

operating
taking

details

gives

into

inflation

and

account
the

account
cost

and

escalation.
The
can

be

12.1

INTEREST
Money

monetary
notion

has
unit,

of

little

with

used

time

CAPCHR,

subprogram

subroutine

modification

ECONOM and
for

other

ANPVAL
types.

ship

RELATIONSHIPS
not

only

a nominal

but

also

value

of

time

money

279

in
value,
expressed
(161).
Therefore
value

is

fundamental

to

any

some
the

economic

This

calculation.
in

terms

an

annual

(b)

loans,

mortgages

The

thesis

only

the

F=

rate

expressed

as

expressed

in

ship

and their
(149).

or
is

compounding

There
(lol).
to

are

Two
series

12.2.1.
These

are

the

e. g.

into

account.

up.

taken
simple

or

compound.
N years

after

Principal
loan

of

to

half

or

a present

and

i=

usually

the

method

calculation

future

interest

far

as

is

however

cases

annual

by

given
done

methods

in

on

Benford
the

(141).

compounding
all

of

making

compounding

investment

in

N years

after

decision

assumption

non-annual

is

concerning

repayment

As
the

yearly

assumed

is

+ i)N.

financing

six

P=

economic

Other

this

basis

Annual
thesis.

MONEY VALUES

ADJUSTING

TIME

tied

earned

repayments

years

concerned,

usual.

Container

is

total

is

capital

laid

be

This

P(1

application

quarterly

12.2.

of

and

F=
is

opportunity

being

either

money;

the

of

as,

is

mutually

a fraction/annum.

economics

compounding

of

of

number

most

design

deposits,

+ Ni)

COMPOUND INTEREST:

is

lost

the

being

The

P(l

sum
N=

design

ship

F=

as

for

this

saving

carry

the

former

may

INTEREST:

money;

employed

as

And

in

which

when

resulting

interest

future

12.1.2.

expressed

used

interest
a ship

SIMPLE

of

foregone

or

expressed

sum

is

transit

12.1.1.

type

called

in

contracted

where

also

any

this

expressed

invested.

bonds

without

In

generally

funds

the
and

is

which

cargo

usually

rates.

interest

interest,
up

is

interest

Implied

is

of

percent

is

money

which

interest,

agreed

of

147)

Contracted
bank

is

in

be:

can

value

interest,

charge

interest
(a)

the

of

time

basic

related

compound
to

single

interest

relationships

payments

and

the

others

payments.
COMPOUND AMOUNT

relationships

are

FACTOR
used

280

for

AND PRESENT
single

WORTH FACTOR:

payments

and

is

in

shown
is

the

sum

12.1(a).

Fig.

to

multiplier
expressed

and

the

is

rate

xP

(1

lease

the

be

future

repayment

as

i,

usually

of

the

(12.1)

Eq.

year,

with

the

are

leased

then:

i/T)NT
if

the

containers
in

assumed

is

+ i)

per

as

used

bought

(1

times

annually

can

being

of

compounded

expressed

relationship

instead

into

sum

CA =

where

CA =
This

(CA)

factor

amount

a present

convert

(CA)

interest

interest

compound

as

F=
If

The

this

thesis,

half

made

since

yearly

or

quarterly

(141).
The

reciprocal

present

worth

convert

the

interest

rate
for

thesis
discount

of

CAPITAL

These

relationships

shown

in

Fig.

instalment

of

paid

expressed
+ i)-N

is
is

and

as
(12.2)

Eq.

subroutine

discount

taxes

flows

(1

the

before

and

C =
by

and

cash

RECOVERY
are

on

subAn

rate.
in

assumed

to

referred

principal

plus

the

payments,

mortgages,

The

of

capital
capital

series

a loan

the
the

as

to
is

principal

recovery

usual

in

later

investment

to

281

interest
in

used

the
account.

for

in

early

used

to

leasing
years,

years.

(CR)

factor

annual

two

are

method

predominating

of

builder's

the

calculate
the

is

is

and

with

which

WORTH FACTOR:

series

There

instalments

which
interest

by

repaid

balance,

program

PRESENT

payments

interest.

equal

declining

Uniform

repayment

in

AND SERIES

for

used
For

charge

and

FACTOR

12.1(b).

capital

initial

year

15%/annum

common arrangements&
(a)
repaid
principal

an

the

discounting

sum

the
to

multiplier

present

generated

is

rate.

12.2.2.

(b)

PW is

PREWOR given

program

the

PW =F_

where

xF
the

program,

the

factor

amount

is

which

into

sum

(PW)

P=
In

(PW),

factor

future

compound

an

is

equivalent

convert

annual

capital

F
interest

Repaid

principal

in

NN limo

years

=PWxP
Borrowed

p
Fig.

Fig.

12.1a.

12.1b.

Compound amount factor

Capital
recovery
worth factor.

282

factor

and present

and series

worth

present

factor.

charge,
is

It
the

includes

which
a

P and

this

convert

the

capital

charge
The

is

by

factor

(SF)

factor

is
given

are

by

Buxton

The
studies

of

different

studies

it

is

rate
Benford

calculation
(101)
Buxton
capital
Table
for
of

and

input

popular

convert
sum,

(12.4

Eq.

N1
the

as

series

fund

sinking

compound

amount

relationships
(147).

these

12.2

Though

of

up

to

is

in

merit.

merit

are

a measure

of

merit,

available

at

the

(161),

advantages

any

stage.

and
Details
by

given

textbook

standard

which

depending
design

design

Oostinjen

of

chart

usage

freight

required
(162).

measures

decision

the

concerning

the

or

an

previous

give

of

not

indicate

those

on

design

ship

this

merit

usage
of
(101),
Goss

283

in

used

drawn

measures
(163,164)

Benford

merit

12.1.

various

(166).

data

of

been

investment

selecting

+ i)

Benford

emphasis

gives

to

series

These

measures

the

of

on

i(1

Hettena(165)

of

the

a present

known

and

Buxton

apparent.
(163,164),

disadvantages

on

has

The

is

OF MERIT

particular

containerships.

annual

+ i)N

the

Table

economic
with

an

container.

into

thesis.

(101)

in

to

model

to

the

of

(1
=

measures

list,

exhaustive

(12.3)

xA

the

MEASURE

shown

life

reciprocal

different
are

cost

containers

payments

= l/CR

in

used

and

P)

container

relationships

its

not

ECONOMIC

12.3.

(SPW)

P=

and

the

annual

basic

two

(A)

amount

factor
recovery
of capital
(SPW) which
is a multiplier

SPW = P/A

other

the
in

over

regular

where

in

investment
repaid

given

uniform
(CR
A=

interest.

+ i)

used

factor

of

the

and

Eq.

initial

worth

a number

The

as

(1

reciprocal

present

and

expressed

is

equation

principal

the

CR =1N
1-

where

the

between

relationship

principal

and

both

can
on

the

be

used
type

Therefore

TABLE

Summary

12.1.

past

of

economic

design

studies.

(NPV)
Net present
value

(NPVI)
Net
present
index
value

(IRR)
Yield
or
internal
of
rate
return

(RFR)
Required
Freight
Rate

and

their

use

Ship

Minimise

Type

Ref.

Yr.

The present
value
of all
flows
in
cash
or out,
discounted
to present
time
at a stipulated
that
interest
rate
reflects
the
minimum
level
of
acceptable
profitability.

Max.

TK,
VC,
MP

150
103

76
82

The
per

Max.

(CN+

Definition

(160)

value
net
present
invested.
pound

that
The interest
rate
the
brings
net
present
to
zero.
value

Max.

to the
The unit
charge
that
be
must
customer
if
the
is
earned
owner
to gain
a reasonable
on investment.
yield

Min.

TK,
CN

TK, PC,
CN,
TK, CN
CL, BC,
OC
BC
RO
CN
MP
oC

(AAC)
Average
Annual
Cost

A uniform
annual
expense
in
present
equivalent
investment
to the
value
costs.
and operating
future
Discounts
amounts
interest
rate
at
an
the
investor's
reflecting
time
of money.
value

284

39

Min.

TK
CN
CN
RO, CN
CL
CN

71
72

ports)
TK

CN

in

Maximise
or

Economic
Criteria

criteria

86

151

55
152

40

70

74
74
67

74

l04

76

153

78

61
103.

78
82

154

67

155

79

52
37
156
125
157

70
68
78
68

77

TABLE

12.1Contd.

Economic
Criteria

Maximise
or
Minimise

(160)

Definition

(Pw)
Present
Worth

The present
of both
worth
investment
and operating
Uses
costs.
same interest
AAC
to discount
rate
as
future
amounts.

Min.

(LCC)

Same

Min.

Life

PW

as

Ship
Type

Ref.

Yr,

CN

54

72

cycle

cost

(CC)
Capitalised
cost

The
ing

(A')

Uniform
annual
flow.
cash

Returns
9

10

after

provid-

Min.

tax

Max.

Uniform
annual
operating
Marginal
costs.
costs
of
operation,
exclusive
of costs
recover.
of capital
.

Min.

(CRF)

Ratio
returns
initial

of

Max.

CN
OC

40
62

74
58

Years

to

Min.

MP

103

82

Max.

GC

148

68

158

70

159

81

(PBP)
Pay

12

worth
of
service.

(Y)
Operating
costs

Capital
recovery
factor
11

present
perpetual

uniform
annual
before
tax
to
investment.

investment.

back

regain
If

initial
flows

cash

period

are
uniform,
reciprocal

this
is
of CRF.

(SMF)

Reciprocal

of

RFR (158)

Ship
Merit
Factor
13

Note:

Total
annual
costs
the
ship
operating
mile

Annual
costs/
tonne
mile

Carrier;
BC = Bulk
Cargo
GC = General
OC = Ore
Roll

Carrier;
off;

of
per

CN = Containership;
MP = Multipurpose
ship;
PC = Products

TK

Min.

= Tanker;

285

GC

ton

Carrier;

VC = VLCC.

CL

= Cargo

Liner;

ship;
RO = Roll

on

a)
r1 -P
m

(1)p

0
n U

-1J ri
H

10
Cd
4-)
U

a)
p
co

O
\lo
mi

I y
Ak

10
{

P'l

I
I

0
E
0
U

4-)
0
s
"
UO "
+

4i cd
"ri
4H
r-I
p 4i cd
a
W (d r"i
0 'd cd
HU

Jw

r"'I
J

r_
0

ri
U

m
-41
(n
0
U

E
0
r.
0
U

a)
y-i
0
U
.,
O
.'
U
0
4-i
-4-)
Cd
U
F+'
0
.H

",
U
G)

ld a) "ri
UW(

.0
a)
Fa

4-)

" ri -F
U)

U
ri

40

W
W

W
Pq
W

a)
a
H
U
0

fJ

-I

r.
0
.H
U)
.H
U
G)

r*i

a)
E
0
U
0
-41
cd
r-I 'b

U G)

N r',
cd

z-
F
T
0

a)
a

E
0
U

ril

u)
"1

z
O -I
p

En

'd

o
"

Cd

.,

r-q
cd

U
U

U
0
.H
4-)
Cd fd
.,
a 4-)

Cd
A
+-)

Cd
rA

r1

o
4-)
Cl)
0 r4

4.)
W

"ri
W

cd

cd
U

(0
G)

-='

r-I
Cd

Cd
4-)
b cd

9 r-qa)
U)

9
0
"rl

4-)

a
II

4)
E
O
U

t-I

G)
4-)

Cd

r__-

C.
) P4

z
r-4
Ca
L?

"rl
4H
a)

Cd
H

4
H

w
4.)
0
z

a
H

ao

286

P4
a
Ca

0
4-)

CV
r-I
0
U)

p
Cd
U
"ri

U
0
4-1

C\1
N

r-I

.4-)
rl

there

is

the

ideal,

no

choice

the-optimum

of

for

And

the

finding

entire

drawbacks

of

RFR,

ship

the

on

no

with

are
used

as

into

case

of

Since

the

in

met

in

there

will

to

the

This
of

(101)

Buxton

and

describe

Constructing

such

complicated,

and

rate

system

cannot

be

behaviour

deemed

an
the

as

out

and

the

of

average

by

ship
the

(AP).

Profit
real

profits
the

multiplying

rate

will

AP

be

during

determine
(165)

quite
freight

conference
competition.

perfect

evaluation
such
as Net
(CRF),
RFR

calculated

as

worth

an

life

operational

present

the

in

value

Factor

the

rates

required

merit,

is

then

detail.

more

a comparative

Where

total

freight

is

Hettna

under

used
economic
measures
of
(NPV),
Value
Capital
Recovery

Absolute

the

ship

operation

carried

rise

mean

container

rates

not

the

average

demand

supply

will

that

assumed

ships.

but

in

commonly

Present

by

be

can

of

future.

model

be

freight

freight

of

the

of
profit

CRF.
A sensitivity

uniformly
RFR method

analysis

increasing
leads

costs
to

no

of
and

difference

287

the

various

revenues
in

criteria
showed

the

the

In

extra

does

the

econometric

Though

(161)

Oostinjen

this

between

(167).

term

it

fluctuate

will

longer

of

an

in

ordered

to

will

supply

force

in

the
fails

also

ships

will

behaviour

be

neglects

rates

demand

which

be

to

ships

cannot

RFR

(165).

new

If

RFR

Higher

order

term.

cyclic

designing

construct,

term.

the

of

expected

and

and

to

suitable
yes

the

it

freight

years

to

overtonnage

in

when

tonnage

shorter

shorter
be

fall.

supply

the

one

considerations

for

to

primarily

demand

the

shipowners

attract

fixed

deciding

since

supply

demand

takes

ship
be

cannot

the

is

when

Further

neglects

economic

which

point

RFR

competition,

by

no

criterion
RFR

perfect

is

(160).

level

account

determined

will

that

Moreover

take

is

acceptable

profitability

revenue.

This
there

merit

fail

may

although

the

on

of

measure

project.
since

criterion

depends

design

minimum

below

well

optimal

the

or

itself

(161,164).

criteria

applicable

universally

optimal

with
that

the

speed,

AP

whereas
leads

to

NPV

and

lower

optimal

the

was

are

optimum
the

as

of

them

the

are

is

income

be

to

reached

one

12.4.

the

RFR
by

can

be

and

inflation

in

and

to

preferred

Therefore

12.4.1.

system,

term

representative

However

because
the

optimum,

to

the

and

optimum

decision

wrong

of

compared

cut

economic

SPW,

year

the

assess

depreciation

U. K.

regime

tax,

have

the

year

tax

of

loans.

on
for

written

shipowner

interest

calculation

interests

been

depreciation
in

by

flows

cash

influence

and

and

by

offered

like

complexities

and

programs

tax

uniform

(101,160,168,169)

CR

as

studies

ships

have

generally

government.

design.
of the
optimum
(164)
the
where
effect
by

NPV

and

AAC

pronounced
This

of
and

is

ignoring
tower

288

effects

made

taxes
speed.

leads
by

the

on

apparent

RFR.

built

domestic

utilising

Tax
Taxes

speeds

short

computer

terms

conference

yield.

correctly

such

allowances

credit

or

incorporated
like

the

NPV

101).

shows

the

of
lead

not

simple

assumed

relationships

under

region

will

the

COMPLEXITIES

ECONOMIC
Whereas

the

usually

1977-1980.

period

in

is

shorter
12.2

none
earlier,

criterion

the

RFR

out

under

Fig.

the

laxity

chosen

in

the

of

pointed
as

operate

fixed

are

in

by

ships

ascertained.

rates
flat

predictable,
a

which

drawbacks,

some
as

as

the

discussed,
drawbacks

have

RFR

characteristics

been
or

preferred

container

can

has

by

deviationifrom

salient

applicable
not

found

larger

the

criteria

be

rates

freight

is

pitfalls

are

to

freight

the

various

universally

Since
the

Rate

incomes

RFR

case,

far

characteristics

optimum

that
So

All

the

the

of

Freight

criterion.

when

region

possible.

out

optimum
depends
and
on the

criteria

signifying

Required

pointed

but

the

flatter

much

of

in

curve

other

and CRF
discount
rate.

speed

speed

to

Compared
of

higher

gives

by

choice

Benford

to
Tax

higher
is

Figure

12.2.

Average
Representative
Container
Unit.
per

500/800
months

1EU
Time

Time
(132)

charter

6/12
Charter

330/440
TEU 6/12
Time
Charter

289

Rates

months

to

assumed
in

be

by

in

inflation
to

his

this

is

since

both

income

uniformly,

depreciation

shipowner
(160)
rate

works

costs

effect

e. g.

with

due

to

inflation
of

line

e. g.

rates

in

indicated

incorporation
12.6.

Section

of

these

inflation

incorporate
Most

pounds.

of

when
the

Chapter

14

12.4.3.

DEPRECIATION
There

are
by

given

study

is

in

are

regime

'free

allows

the

on

(101),

out

for

to

the

pounds

extinguish

290

how

in

without

inflation.

and
Since
the

Free
liability

to

value
out

under

all

on

carried

(142).

assumed.

in

constant

depreciation

shipowner

costs

of

indicated

in

well

and

procedure

studies

as

items
10.10

is

used

give

costs

certain

program

is

(101)

of

be

can

the

Sections

Cameron
a

values

escalation

of

of

assigning

relative

for

value

either

Buxton

gives

types

depreciation'
shipowner

given

parametric

various

carried

be

calculating

constant

Buxton

escalation

program
by

8%

of

the

and

(160)

Benford

tax

stipulated

In

(142),

the

therefore

inflation

or

be

rise

inflation,

rates

in

changing

50% without

data

9.4

well

the

percentage/annum

in

shipowner

can

and

of

rates

Escalation

his

may

than

was

Cameron

as

Therefore

not

rate

can

that

inflation

do

assumed

which
(171).

long

costs

higher

Historic

income.

Section

other

are

means

(164).

rising

escalation

rates.

escalation
the

rate
56.5%

guide

are

costs

an

be

escalation

are

countries

reflect

assumption

pays

to

values

absolute

to

allowances

tax

out

As

rates

whereas

in

effective

freight

and

However

are

year

calculations

which

neglected.

reasonable

neglected.

pounds

is

adjust

costs

as

one

other

the

studies

constant-value

deflation

or

free

for

considerations

engineering

for

out

carried

as

and

(170).

Gardner

Normally

in

profit

INFLATION

12.4.2.

the

taxable

on

Tax

given

is

levied

(101).

arrears

are

52%

these
the

U. K.

economic
tax

depreciation
for

tax

depreciation

until

the

12.5.

CALCULATION
the

After
the

It

uses

the

ship,

life

of

loan

repayment

is
(2)

The

taken

by

of

the

years

are

the

of

the

ship,

interest
loan.

on

The

made:
to

finance

30%

other

loan

of

101).

subroutine

percentage

shipowner

Cost,

12% per

loan
on the
(3)
The discounting

estimated,

cost

in

rate

the

Capital

is

in

capital

assumptions

number

is

ship

number
of years
of
(101)
is
followed.
Buxton

by

the

70% of

exhausted

the

and

loan

the

discount

following

The

the

of

calculated

input

as

given

procedure

The

is

been

CHARGE

cost

account

CAPCHR.

(1)

OF CAPITAL

building

builder's

have

allowances

is

is

the
the

7 years

ship

owner's
own
the
interest

and

annum.

is

done

a discount

with

rate

15% per

of

annum.
(4)

Year

(6)
of

The

keel

1=75

year

e.

loan

the

The

calculates

the

loan

set

off

account

in

based

followed

in

by

carrying

out

ship

is

in
tax

for

the

above

step

the

an

period

The

capital

The

interest

subprogram
charge

on

payable
to

TINT(K),

array

program

be

Cost

based

ship

the

on

the

BLDDCF.

The

291

the

over

the

assumptions,

step

2.

year

subroutine

Capital

a container

algorithm.
by

e.

allowances.

in

shows

the

in

out

accumulated

launched

year.

stored

of

signed,

when

instalments

12.3.

as

is

contract

i.

account.

value

on

is

the

and

1.5,50%

year

equal

Fig.

profits

12.3

the

delivered

carried

in

year

is

e.

every

paid

builder's

present

Table

i.

5% when

is

against

outflow

laid

shown

every

The
cash

is

procedure
is

the

is

repaid

and

CAPCHR and

30% when

and
is

loan

signed

2.

Instalment:
the

is

contract

year

year

Building

15% when
i.

the

in

delivered

(5)

is

hand

program
calculation.

building

same
was

procedure

validated

account

READ
CAPCOS
LIFES, DISCNT
PCINT, YRLOAN
OWN ACT =
0.30 x CAPCOS
BLDDCF =
OWN ACT

YEAR = 1.75
K=1

TINT(K)

CALL PREWOR()
BLDDCF = BLDDCF + TINT
(K) x PWF
K=K+1
YEAR = 2.0
TINT(K)
=

CALL PREWOR()
BLDDCF = BLDDCF +

K=K+1
YEAR = YEAR + 1.0
REPAYM = 0.70 x CAPCOS
YRL AN
TINT(K)
_
CALL PREWOR ()
BLDDCF = BLDDCF +
REMAIN = 0.70 x CAPCOS
LOANYR = IFIX(YRLOAN - 1)

DO 20 I=1,
LOAN YR
YEAR = YEAR + 1.0
K=K+1
REMAIN = REMAIN - REPAYM
TINT(K)
= REMAIN x PCINT
100.0
CALL PREWOR()
BLDDCF = BLDDC
(REPAYN + TINT)
F+
(K) X PWF

20

CONTINUE
RETURN
END

Fig.

12.3.

Flow

chart

of

capital

charge

292

program

(CAPCHR).

tl0
t`

()

H
\D

r\

CV

"

"

C\I

C\l

ri

ri

C\I
.

rl

"
0

CV
t-

c"\

--t
00

t-.

00

Lr1

C'\

Lr\

Q\
"

r-1

-t

C\l

00

t`

r-i

C\l

a\

00

C\I

"

ON

i`
r-I

t"

Lr\

r\

\D

"

"

co U)

a\

0\

\10

cY,
oo
H
ON
r-{

oo
H

-7
"
Lr\

c"\
.
00
C\l

r--i
tI"
O
r\

\O

O\

ct

t`

O\

rn

CO
"

C\
.

C\
.

r-i

c'\

C\t

0\
r\

\D

Lr\

\o
C1

C\t

r{

Lr\

I-D
n
c\t

Lr\

r-i

t`

00
"

"

rI

C\t
r"1

00
"

WN
\,0O .Lr\
zl-

.
C\

c\t

\D
1D
0

-tt`0

ct

\D
"

C\t
C\

Cr\
.
C'"\

r-1

Lr\
.

_:I,"

--:I,.

CO

rn

Lf\

r1

r\

--Zt

Lr\

il -

"

q 4D f1
W

"

O
I-i
r-
0

"

O\

Lr\

_::I-

cn
r-I

II

"w

m4-
8

1-1

4-1

0
Cd4-3 a)
Fa
D
a . CV@j

c1

t
..:
r1
Q\

rl

.
0

0.

\O

Lr\

r\

Cr1

Lri

t-

"

a\

if.)

\D

r-i

00

"

E-+

"

(\t

\O
C\!

Lr\
"

O
-Z"
t`

-t

-t "
N

00

0
H

c\t
0

r-I

t-

r\

.
O

Lr\

Lr\
Q\

n
O
"

..-t
rn
00

\O

"
Lr1

"
.

.
.

00

t`
Cr\
C\l

\,O

C\l

CO

\O

Cr\
"

r-i

"

Lr\
"

P-4

00

---t

.rl

u,
co
r-q

r -I

4J

Ln

r I
if, ,

C\l

Lr\
Lf\

CO
C\l

--t

r\

C\

C\l

f;\i

r-i

rln
C\l
C\t

00
V)
r-I

"0
Eo

t0

ri

--t"

rl)

U1

rQ

ON

C)

OD

"w
VTT`

N
Lr1
"

.,
'C

CO

a\

r-q

0
0

01\

rn

9,
a
0

II

U
a\

N
aE

cd

00

\.D
U)

0
U

H
0

rn

C\

"

a\

o\

o\

"C
--. \Z
)
O -4
r-I N

00

ri

H.
o

-
C\t

4-

ri rz
b

o
I

C\ C\t r-I

+)
W

u\ r-i O

0"
ri

\.

(V

C\!

P!

"rl
"

$4 +)

(1)cd

4-) rl
0 C) y

Cd
Cu

E CD
OE

00

Lf\

t`-

r-I

r-I

C\!

U) -":t
rQ f\t

C\

_:t

Lr\

\D

t`

00

a\

.rl

r-I

cd

293

...
nt
c-

Cd cd

Lr\

pWq

\10

t1 n

; 'r\ O
C
"

C\l

o C\t
00 (Y)
rn

Pa >~
c1

t ...
rn

ri n
H
4.
U))
..

rh

a)
ro
r
.r.,

A
0

r-i

0
Cr\

rn

0\

a\

11

12.6.

The
income

Required

needed

costs

the

and

freight

income
The

annual

Freight

PW(annual
In
factors

cargo
the

the

on

calculated.

Thus

term

average

freighting

with

actual

the

is

ship

an

Since
freight

the

rate

calculated.
is

procedure
zero

gives

(1)

is

assumed

As

this

e.

level

of
NPV.

zero

therefore
as
can

to

uniform,

not

that
not

be

the

exact

be
long

a calculated
then

be

compared

that

building

not.
initial

an

initial

an

can

ascertain

are

!is..l9

the

all

RFR

regarded

operating
+ containers)

r. -.
a.. i. -

estimated

or

find

worths

vvaaiav

which

may

the

PW(annual
ship

proposition

so

known,

NPV

exactly

zero,

freight

be

can

iterative

an
rate

which

NPV.

is

then

chosen

operating

w/

rates

to

which

The

be

NPV

adopted

ship

The

=0

we have

can

flows

The
(RFR)

year

cost,

cash

operating

i.

f'/tn""

12.5,

economic

the

present

=N

_A

freight

market

the

and

all

year

a/I
0

Eq.

RFR

ship

is,

chapters

RHS of

the

on

101).

ascertained,

quantity)

previous

return

+irior.
Vca1111.1

vaa
i+r+'.

operating

are

Cost

r\yr\.

the

equal

(RFR)

+ PW(Acquisition

of

return,

equation

Rate

cl4
uJ11

of

be

can
the

all

containers
of

produces

of

cover

transported

cargo

which

form

Required

and

freight

calculated

rate

rate

expenditure

general

to

cost

required

rate
and

ship

acquisition

the

the

required

the

TAX

is

cargo

the
in

the

containers,
costs,

of

provide

BEFORE

Rate

unit

invested
Since

RATE

Freight
per

to

and

capital

of

FREIGHT

REQUIRED

procedure
program
cost

cost

escalation,

than

the

ship's

is

best

as

design

or
program

in

the

capable

of

accepting

since

ship

and

the

life

life.

294

Required

minimum

adopted

the

of

the

gives

the
of

the

Freight

below.

explained
in

escalation

containers,
the

design.

optimum
is

containers

Rate

and

container
is

less

costs

r,1/ 1

(2)

The

first

to

estimation

subprogram

ECONOM.

allowances

are

considered,

tax.

value

routine

This

income

and

RFR

of

income

interest

and

not

tax

characteristics
(4)
The year
2 is

year
(5)

The

3 is

the

cargo

of

each

trip

and

(6)

Each

factor

containers,
cargo

RTPA

is

the

of

with

a differing

year

is

outwards,
the

operating

the

general

ABATE

the

is
of

number

elements

of

the

for

years

(1.0

cost

in

of
the

ability

on

a round

cost

escalated
in

a given

of

are

O)y

escalation

and
are

assumed

Eq.

to

12.7)

Y is

the
be

escalating

rates.
(AHANDL,

Costs

EHANDL(I))

EPORT(I))

(c)

Fuel

Costs

(AFUEL,

EFUEL(I))

(d)

Basic

Wages

Crew,

PO officers

(e)

Other

Crew

Store

weight

annum.

be

can

+ ABATE/100.

which

(APORT,

(g)

per

escalation-Following

Costs

Victualling

the

trips

rate

Port

(f)

WEC is

Eq. (12.6)

formula

(b)

security

tonnes

distribution

escalation

percentage

operating

at different
(a)
Handling

by

X RTPA

homewards,

round

ship.

given

from

13-10)-

0 to

the

is

Teu,

Fig.

year

deliver

2 derives

elements

the

and

ECOST(I)
where

of
cost

rate
by

given

in

another

number

subroutine

since

ALFMAX

of

depreciation

as

subroutines

(CDWTPA)

homogeneous

assuming

of

operating
(see
containers

to

capacity

before

the

and

taken

2.0

RFR

another

operation

WEC x

tax

sub-

estimation

various

the

annum

ship

actual

one

carry

per

CNT x

container
in

weights
to

is

CNT

of

time

be

carried

CDWTPA =
where

year

to

assumed

the

and

the

such

in

costs

ship

the

the

a first

as

calls

the

is

allowances,

weights,

of

and

this

considered

are

the

calculate

taxation

used

in

calculated

so

tax

ANPVAL.
subprogram
(3)
The ECONOM subroutine
which

The

is

and

loan

on

RFR is

Costs

and

as

insurance,
or

costs

such

cost
travel

Provisions

(ASTORE,

(AWAGES,

Costs

ESTORE(I))

295

of

overtime,

EWAGES(I))
leave,

study,

(ACREW, ECREW(I))
and training
(APROV,
EPROV(I))

(h)

P&I

(i)

War

(j)

Maintenance

(k)

Administrative

Risk

The

be

shadow

(7)

for

each

are

the

each

of

an

array

year,

These

values

DISCNT

rate
(9)

From

until
repeated
(DF RCOS),
and

to
we

10.10.

costs

the

in
life

have

the

the

are
factor

escalation

PWF

the

present

for

value

of

discount

PREWOR.
this

value

of

the

cargo

of

I,

year

ship

present

Eq. (12.9)

subroutine

of

Eq. (12.8)

ECOST(I)

equation

factor

worth

the

the

Section

and

element

by

= CCOST(I)

calculated

year

Cost

discounted

present

and

9.4

by

calculate

considered.

operating

multiplying

to

to

is

are

the

PWF is

be

Section
the

taken

but

must

of

= Operating

PWCOST(I)
where

in

elements

which

CCOST(I)
(8)

rates

after

is

program

alternatives,

indicated

are

basic

comparing

ERMANT(I))

EADMIN(I))

the

escalation

price,

in

stored

in

EWHINS(I))

(ARMANT,

(AADMIN,

rate

values

Then

(AWHINS,

Costs

Repair
Costs

we

EPIINS(I))

Insurance

and

since

Typical

Hull

and

escalation

zero

the

(APIINS,

insurance

is

process
the

cost

running
carried/annum

(DCFDWT).
(10)

The

present

Section

12.5,

routine

CAPCHR,

CONDCF

was

cost

operating
(Eq.

value

the

of

building
in

calculated
the

and

the

present

(TDCFCN)

was

(BLDDCF),

account
building

value

of

account
container

in

calculated

the

subcost

and

subroutine

11.24).

Then
RFR

REQUIRED

12.7.

Once
is

the

iterative

(TDCFCN
FREIGHT
first
the

available,

ANPVAL.

for

As

pointed

procedure

a particular

+ BLDDCF
RATE

AFTER

out
to
design

in

the

ECONOM

calls

the

determine
(RFRMIN)

296

k/tonne

Eq. (12.10)

TAX

of

estimation
program

+ DFRCOS)/DCFDWT

last

required
another
section

the
in

required
/tonne.

freight

rate

subroutine
ANPVAL
freight

was

an
rate

The

program

main

steps

(1)

flow

Since

Rate

know

we
the

RFR,

be

the

of

is

shown

procedure

are

the

estimation

chart

first
income,

annual

in

Fig.

12.4

described

the

and

below:
Required

of

AINCOM(I),

in

the

Freight
I

year

can

calculated

AINCOM(I)
And

= RFR

= TRCOS(I)

EXPEND(I)
Therefore

CASHBT(I)
(2)

Up

to

off

as

tax

is

set

off

as

assumed

in

the

program

to

the

ship

and

is

(3)

The

allowance

is

tax

designated

where
The

percentage
(TAX(I))
tax

the

general

form

CASHAT(I)

more

end
tax

balancing
zero

is,

flow

cash

before

depreciation

is
is

allowance
the

capital

the

year

cost
of

of

operation

equation

of

flow

cash

for

taxable

tax

(interest
depreciation)

allowances

TAXPCT/100.0

(TAXPCT)

of

tax

is

assumed

of

the

to

is
be

Eq. (12.14)
Eq. (12.15)

an

paid
for

equation

and

input

data.

one
cash

later,

year
flow

and
tax,

after

is

CASHAT(I),

the

set

are

= TAXPROF(I)

TAX(I)

is

= 3.0.

the

of

the

is

(12.13)

Eq.

interest

until
I=1,

Eq. (12.12)

+ CFCSL(I)

depreciation

liability

= CASHBT(I)

and

of

the

YEAR

form

tax

the

Year

as

general

the

by

given

Free

and

is

is

EXPEND(I)

rest

year

+ TCINS

depreciation.

exhausted.

TAXPROF(I)

At

and

the

(LOANYR)

(12.11)

Eq.

CASHBT(I),

loan

of

extinguish

and

profit

year

tax

tax,

before

= AINCOM(I)

the

in

+ TCMCOS(I)

flow

cash

EXPEND(I),

expenditure,

annual

used

x CDWTPA

of

to

life

= CASHBT(I)
of

the

be

then
paid,
(101,140)
charge

CASHAT(I)

= -TAX

ship
for

there

will

I=

LIFES

+ 1,

year

297

the

scrap

Eq.
be

however,

assuming
(I-1)

TAX(I)

value

(12.16)

one

the
to

be

Eq.

(12.17)

DO 900 KI =
1,3

20

I=0
YEAR = 2.0

I =I+

DEPRES I
CASHBT(I)
TINT(K)

_
_

40 DEPRES(I)
CASHBT(I)

TDPRES(I) =
TDPRES(I-1)
DEPRES(I)

DEPRES(I)

...........

"

K=I+2
LOANYR= IFIX
(YRLOAN)
(I
52 ITAXPROF(I )=CASHBT.

-DEPRES(I)
TAX(I)
=

10

= CAPCOS -

TDPRES(I-1)

TDPRES(I) = TDPRES(I-1)
+ DEPRES(I)

EXPEND(I)
AINCOM(I) _ .....
CASHBT(I)

_
_

Y= FLOAT(I-1
YEAR=YEAR+1.0
X =Y+3.0

PWF =

30

<, I < LOANYR

TAXPRUF(I) = CASHBT(I)
-DEPRES(I)
- TINT(K)
TAX(I)
=
CASHAT(I) = CASHBT(I)
)
CALL PREWOR(
PWCASH(I) _
DCFCAS =

CASHAT(I) = CASHBT(I)
)
CALLPREWOR(

DEPRES(I) = CASHBT(I)
TINT(K)
TDPRES(I) = DEPRES(I)
TAXPROF(I) = 0.0
TAX(I)
= 0.0

PWCASH(I)
DCFCAS =

53

I
CASHAT(I)
= CASHBT(I)
PWCASH(I) = CASHAT(I)
*PWF
DCFCAS = PWCASH(I)

CONTINUE
I=I+1
K=K+1
YEAR = YEAR + 1.0
EXPEND(I) =
AINCOM(I) =
CASHBT(I) =

TAXPROF(I) = CASHBT(I)TINT(K)
TAX(I)
_
CASHAT(I) = CASHBT(I)
" TAX(I-1)
CALL PREWOR()

PWCASH(I) _
DCFCAS=

Fig.

12.4.

Flow chart

for

calculating

the minimum required

298

freight

rate.

`BLDDCF> DCFCAS

IF
o

CONTINUE
I=I+1
YEAR = YEAR +1
EXPEND (I) _
AINCOf(I)
_
CASHBT(I) _

910

RFR = RFR*1.20

900

CONTINUE
X=0.0
CALL LAGINT (X,
CLNPU, RFRAT, RFR)
RFRMIN = RFR
RETURN
1

TAXPROF(I) = CASBT(I)
TAX(I)
= ... _.............. _... .
CASHAT(I) = CASHBT(I)TAX(I-1)
CALL PREWOR (............. )
PWCASH(I) _
DCFCAS =

END

LIFES>

%4
I=I+1
YEAR = YEAR + 1.0
CASHAT(I) = TAX(I-1)
CALL PREWOR ()
PWCASH(I) = -----------------

I
DCFCAS =
_. _ ... _
CALNPV = BLDDCF - DCFCAS
CLNPV(KI) = CALNPV
RFRAT(KI) = RFR

Fig.

12.4.

(Continued).

299

920

RFR = RFR x 0.80

flow
cash
(DISCNT)

The
rate

is

and

PWF

is

the

is

The

value

present

of

life

of

the

ship.

(4)

The

net

present

CALNPV
and

is

the

building

cash

value

is

= BLDDCF

us

3 values

an

interpolating

after
freight

RFR
RFR

Required
tax

which
rates

rate

can
as

and

the

present

is

(12.18)

then

be
in

is

the

operating

as
Eq.

worth

12.5)

4 is

to
RFR

the

and

the

of

present

of

for

repeated
0.80

and

NPV's,

LAGINT,

which

shown

year

3 values

Rate

Freight

and

DCFCAS.

1.20

e.

and

(DCFCAS)

calculated

the

step

i.

each

over

then

account

subroutine

freight

required
This

of

flows

(Section

BLDDCF

of

values

flow

between

account,

year

in

DCFCAS

difference

the

flows

cash

cash

the
operating
of
worth
(5)
from
The procedure
other

the

all

the

all

for

Eq.

PREWOR.

discounted

as

accumulated

discount

factor

worth

of

input

PWF

subroutine

summation

the

at

as

stored

present

in

calculated

discounted

CASHAT(I)X

PWCASH(I)
where

is

tax

after

we

RFR,

which
by

then

Fig.

300

12.2.

with

the

gives

using
the

calculate

the
NPV equal
gives
(RFRMIN)
is
the
freight
compared

two

to

actual

zero.
rate

(12.19)

CHAPTER

APPROACH

DETERMINISTIC
13.0

INTRODUCTION

13.1

CONTAINER

13.2

13

SHIP

TO CONTAINER

SHIP

CAPACITY

13.1.1.

EXISTING

13.1.2.

DRAWBACKS

13.1.3.

FACTORS

DETERMINING

UNDER

13.1.4.

FACTORS

DETERMINING

DECK

DESIGN

PHILOSOPHY

13.2.1.

MAXIMUM

13.2.2.

ACTUAL

DESIGN

ESTIMATION

METHODS

OF EXISTING

METHODS
DECK

CAPACITY

OF THE APPROACH
SLOT

LOAD

CAPACITY

ADOPTED

CAPACITY
CAPACITY

13.2.2.1.

INITIAL

13.2.2.2.

STATICAL

13.2.2.3.

INFLUENCE

OF DRAFT

13.2.2.4.

INFLUENCE

OF INITIAL

GM

13.2.2.5.

INFLUENCE

OF BALLAST

WEIGHT

13.3

SEAKEEPING

13.4

PARAMETRIC

13.5

OPTIMISATION

METHOD
TECHNIQUES

STABILITY
STABILITY

INTRODUCTION

13.0

size

The

container

and

shape.

line

stream
of

the

in

cargo

shape,

in

stowage

deck

is

to

deck

geometry

Thus

stability,

major

role

In

a better

chapter,

the

The
other

various

Since

only
the

at

are

needed

the

hold

and

the

the

this

can

be

Statical

The
optimum
simple

two

distribution

deck

without

ship

design
parametric

are

variation

ship

the

plays

carried

on

ship.
methods
compared,

The

of

notion
load

container

ship

which

of

stage,

is

capacity
the

and
the

govern

the

the

a simple

the

lines

to

'Therefore

The
principal

seakeeping

program
for

algorithms,

301

in

described.

in

of

are

approximations

ship's

cargo.

and

discussed.

vessel

containers
to

container
is

the
certain

of

incorporated

then

the

container

criteria

design

stability.

are

recourse

established

are

the

design

stability

which

criteria

and

and

containers

containers

proposed.

dimensions

of

geometry

ship's

of

the

discussed.

are

the

centre

of

studies

parameters

principal

to

number

capacity.
above

estimating

past

of

preliminary
as

establish

stability

capacity

hull

of

different

capacity

operating

load

container

known

slot

and

ship

of

carrying

of

of

cargo

rate

of

number

loss

cargo

general

geometry,

method

make-up

in

deck

capacity

in

proposed

estimating

introduced.

how

container

container

maximum

the

total

the

curved

stowing

annual

the

to

opposed

function

determining

been

have

which
and

as

this

But

by

up

function

ship.

This

handling

below
a

of

space.

to

its

extent

preset

inefficiency

higher

largely

is

the

hence

the

of

in

the

capacity

deck

on

stowed

this

increasing

certain

made

of

modular

cargo

compared
of

container

that
the

in
be

Further

thereby

The

and

however,

because

containers,

being

loss

containerships

tolerated

units

accommodate

some

deck.

on

form,

cannot

can,

space

to

cargo

ship's

without

containers

is

The

cargo

the

moulds

are

described.
the

determining
is

based

dimension

to

first

on

deck

large

generate
design
one

is

located
the

with

design

model

design,

by

two

the

minimum
is

based

of

number

deck

be

can

the

estimate

The

deck.

slot

underdeck

capacity

and

then

area

or

loading
as

function

Some

of

the

of

1:

METHOD

is

capacity

and

metres

for

valid

METHOD

2:

below

as

estimates
deck

and

TCONT2

ships

This
deck

and

these
deck

as
area

= 1.307

area

above

to

estimate

of

volumetric

the

deck

and

permissible

capacity

capacity
of

subdivided

the

as
deck

simply
(54).

ship

below:

that

m3 and
in
to

deck

functional

the
cubic

total
number

dimensions

all
Teu.

Teu.

the

total

container
relations

container
(54).

Teu

2400

Equation

Eq.
in
are
(13.1)

container

capacity

capacity
of

and

volume

under

deck
CN +

55.648

xLx

B/1000
(Eq.

302

(13.1)

(39,55)

rhsyactively
Cb

was

container

of

divides

be

containers

CN/1000.0,

800

above

below

METHODS

capacity

method

that

deadweight

can

a function

outlined

of

past

deck

function

container

the

capacity

D/100

CN =LxBx

and

as

assumes

a linear

ship's

containers
and

a ship

estimate

ESTIMATION
method

of

the
container

given

deck

total

are

= 1260.687

TCONT1
where

the

methods

This

deck

volumetric

EXISTING

13.1.1.

is

Or

on

load

stability

of

in

method

deck

or

ship's

below

below

of
(39,52)j

actual
number

capacity

capacity

function

based

allowable

capacity.

carried

preferred

maximum

stowed

relationships

container

be

empirical

container

containers

stage

respectively.

the

as

maximum

by

maximum

total

The

optimum
These

1 and

design

defined

can

the

as

All

the

of

stage
ship

Whereas

limited

requirements.

into

that

defined

stowed

second

techniques.

the

is

capacity

geometry.

is

capacity

The

CAPACITY

containers

and

optimum

selecting

rate.

the

of

by

selection

form

the

and

designer

optimization

phase

slot

the

automatic

of

SHIP

designs

freight

algorithms

CONTAINER

hull

on

application

Maximum

by

required

deterministic

13.1

feasible

of

manually

design

ship

of

numbers

Teu
13.2)

(13.2)

Equation
7

high

tiers

deck

3:

container

the

ships

This

for

valid

below

for

and

METHOD

is

is

to
the

is

function

of

under

which

is

function

of

deck

TCONT3

7.6o7

4x

10

tiers

of

Method

sum

which

staked

to

up

containers

on

Teu.

200-1800

similar

capacity

two

deck,

of

is

containers

2
the

of
deck

area

(Cb

deck

under

volume

CN)2

total
capacity,

deck

and

deck

and

The

above.

capacity
(52).

loading

+ 0.862

Cb

CN

Hold
+ WABV/CDEN

+ 58.0

Teu

(13.3)

Eq.

Deck
where

weight

tonnes

and

10.764

m2.
It

is

(CDEN).

4:

METHOD
capacity

as

the

TCONT4

capacity

the
cubic

function

10

deck

and

estimates
modified

160
10

weighs

ships

with

=LxBx

standard
of 400-2400

for

as

area

cranes

(39)

DKAR

container

deck

of

4x

18

tonnes

containers
lashing
cables.
Teu.
hold

container
(CN

number
deck

of

to

area

CB)

expressed

5:

This
as

Validity

of
6:

existing
capacity

10-3

Equation

x 10-

estimates

of-L,

B, D and

0.984

LBD
is

method

(46)

is

ships

(39)

(13.5)

in

x
(13.4)

Teu,

200-1800

other

(13.2).

function

This

Eq.

for

valid

method

Eq.

+ 3.380

Teu

is
as

0.852

CN)

B)1'329

same

(CB

TCONT5 = 567.275

container

the

valid

deck

(13.4)

capacity

ships

to

a function

deck

shipboard

method

= 3.306

factors

of

each

791

B).

Equation

METHOD

no

as

(L

METHOD

are

This

of

that

secured
(13.3)
is

Equation

(L

= function

assumed

There

are

and

DKAR

(wABV)

deck

above

the

the

early

expressed

303

1.13

as

based

container
Cp.

coefficient

Cp

0.965

Teu

Eq.

(13.4,13.2).

Eq.
on

seventies
as

total

prismatic

0.573

same
is

the

regression
and

function

the
of

analysis
total
cubic

(13.5)

number

and

speed.

TCONT6

= 8.88
V=

where

to

This
as

valid

35

knots.

as

= 7.681

of

10-3

ships

800

of

the
D)

deck

of

the

and

32.614

Eq.

by

to

for

containers

Eq.

in

It

seems

the

to

beam

containers

to

that

force

the

the

on

passage

was

13.2.

the

deck.

on

dimensions
the

depth

structural

into

account

through

certain

both

methods

and

of

estimated

There

fixed

breadth

basis

taking

alone,
for

assume

B).

(13"7)

Eq.

carried

METHODS

LxB+

estimation

OF EXISTING

fixed

depth

and

and

will

considerations

these

of

Table

(L

as

capacity

in

shown

each

natural

be

container

and

holds

containers

ships

the

13.7
in

DRAWBACKS

13.1.2.

the

13.1,

variation

wide

of

Table

13.1

was

container

10-3

Teu

hold

Teu

in

ships

3500

expressed

100
For

to

container

area

LxBxD+

Eq. (13.6)

Teu

estimates
(L xBx

function

(v)1.08

for

(61)

function

90

is

method

capacity

TCONT7

knots.

20

of

7:

capacity
deck

in

equation

speed

METHOD

(CN)11

speed

This
and

and

of
stacking

constraints

on

canals

and

harbours.
To

a certain

anything

else

vessel.

This

beam

varies
from

varies

individual

and

requirements

this

extent

in

the

choice

apparent

from

3.071

m.
to

to

beam

in

stability

to

and

Table

3.714.

2.843

but

seem

of

made

m.

true,

choice

is

2.038

is

be
depth

13.1

m/row

as
of

the

tier

m/container

the

the

where
and

factors

strong

depth
below

the

deck.
The

as

capacity
It
large

is

well

apparent
in

certain

from

variation

percentage
as
that

deck
the

cases.

is

capacity
percentage
This

304

actual

is

shown

in

Table
is

variation
because

hold

container

most

of

13.2a

quite
these

as

Lm

Fw
94C:

-p

l0

to

co

1-4
.
O
,.;T

r-4
.
V
M

tf)

-4
rr
M

r-I
r-C

.
M

r-

r-.

01
M

C'r)
V'
M
.

0
w

Ln
M

r--1

M
M

r-1
r-i

M.
M

O
l0

ri

l0
M

r-A
.
N
M

.
lD
N

f.

r,
n
Ol
r
M

rl0
N

l0
M

Ln
o
N

t`
V'
O
.

N
N

k0
r-

C
0)
O

M
N

M
O

O)
U)

r-I

Ln

(L

r1

01
"r-j

0)
.;r
V

r--I
V'
V

tf)
Fm
ci

U)
V

U)
F,
M
V'

l0

0
U)

N
N

U)
N

M
N

t.O
N

V'
0

V'
co

l0
O

N
N

tf)

N
M

0)
M

r-

0)
r,

Ln
l0

0)
tf)

In

CO

V'

0)

r-1

lfl

r-

U)

rM

r-I

l0
r-4

r
CT

CO

O)
U)
r

r-a

0)

tll

O)

ID

N
r-

M
0
l0

Oo
C

r-1

r-1

lD

V'
r-i
M

0)
M

V
N
Ln

l0
O

O
lD

l0

U)
O
L1)

(3)
r-{

l0

CO

1.0

r-4
r-

r"i
CN1

O
r-I
t0

l0

r-4
r-I

N
r-A

d'
-4

N
1D

O
N

In
O

l0

O
O)

l0

r-I

ra

N
lO
l0

W
r-1

O
0

U)

1,0

en

In

r-1
M

01

L)
O)

CO

1,0

N
N

CO

r-1

M
M

N
0)

r--1

CO
M

V'

r(n

1,0

d'

Q
M

r-C

r-4

O
0)

U)

01

r-

ra
O

rn
V

0
C'

H
r-I

(-

Q'
Ln

V'

0
l0

l0

V'

l0

V
V
r4
r1
00

.N

:3

A 4)

tf)

tf)
Ln
.
N

r-i

O
0
0
lO

V'

XO
PQ O
r-1
\

(-

l0
.

-4,

V'

U)
N

M
r--I

.
U)

.
co

0
t`

rZ
19

U)

O
to

rl0

CD

V'
r--1
l.
In

(y)
r

r-A
"
O

M
M

r-1
(U)
.
M

O
N

4J
0
Ey

r4

N
A

V'

Ln
.

C;

U)
.
N

M
CM
Cl)
U)
.
N

lO
to
to

0)
l0
U1

[>

r(\

U1
r-

M
r-

l0

-1
(-

Ln
"
M

M
M

()

V
U)
1,0

V
(N

W
W

O
0

CO
M
.
CV)

N
kb
.
M

r-I

r-1

l0
1.0
U)

O
O
U1

r -I

0)

O
l0
U)

C)
N

U)

(O

0)

O
t`
U1

O
O
lO

CO

In

! ")
M

lO

M
V'

1,O
[.

.
N

.
CO
d'
0)
U)

O
t.0

U)
V

Ln

U)
CO

Ln
N
-,
kO

V'

lfl

r--I

r-I

-4

1-4

M
r-

0)

-4

U)

l0

O
0

O
0

V'
.

co

M
M

U)
N
N
"
M

In
N
.
M

rl-

.
O)

1,0 M
.
M.
U)

N
C'

U)
r--I

1,0
, -1

O
V'
l0

O
O
to

r
lp

(`
to

C)

r-4
U)

0)

V'

!`
M

.
V'

O
CO

Ln

(+-)

U)

.
Cr1

U)
U)

Cr)
O
M

tn
0)

In
r-C

1.0

0)

r-i
pG

r0

co
co

r-1

U)
N

r -1

3
'-,
0
O

t`

0
(-

U)
M
.
M
N

110
r--(

rU)
to
"
M

r-i

M
.
[

0)
U)

CO

O)

tV
r-I

C:)

V'

CO

tzN

M
N

U)

M
0

N
l0

(-

q
U)

l0

(-

O
r-a
N

CO
CD

O
0

V'
r--1
!`

0
0

Crl

r-a

lO
l0

M
M

co
M

N
N

0
N

0
lO
.
r-I
0

r
r-

V'
U)

to

r-i

Ln
0)
N
ri

M
0
C-

U)
M
N
r1

O
r-I
10

O
-1
to

N
M
to
1-4

0
1-1
0)

N
M
U)

V
0

N
M

fM

Ut

r-

O
.
M

0)
.

V'
l0
O
r-1

1.0
r-1

Ln
M

0
O
V

U)

U)

to
N

r-i

r
U)

1,0

1-4

1-1

r4

O
al
U)

l`

r,

rN
N

r-i
r --1

U)
r-I

O
0)

r
U)

r-I
r-I

CO
M

l0

r-4

M
co

U)

0)

r-1

O)
N
V

""
U)

O)
ri

co
U)
r-i

U)
N

U)

t`

IP
r-1
ri

W
l0

(-

V
lO

CT
U)

O
U)

r-I

Ln

0
r-i

t`

1.0
1-4
M

U)

U1
U1

CD

M
N

0)
.

r-i

r-4

-I

CO

O)
r0)
r-1
lU)

r-I
N

O
'A

t`

lfl

O)

to

Ln

0)

CO

(3)

U)

O)

0
to

r-1

U)

U)

rI

M
N

. --

r-

()
r-I

U)
r -i

O
r-i

C
N

U)
U)

Ln
O

O
C

O
N

to

lO

lp

l0

l0

lD

lO

0)

l-

r-

[`

r-

r-

0)

O0

I-

10

U)

u)

CT

O
M

O
V

0
0)

Ui

U)

ra
3

rz

rI

U)

r-I

Ln
r4

U)

rI

C-

- 4

LA
N

U)
N

U)
N

O
o

O
0

O
0

a
ry

.,

o,

. .

Ln

U1

(-

tf)
l-

r-I

to
V

0)

r-4
O

U)

l0

U)

Vr

l0

r-4

r-I

r-4

14

r-I

r--1

l0

x
w

U)

0)

U)

U)

U)
M

r--1

U)
N

V'

O)

CM

O
0

O
o

l0
M

vt

U)
r-

Ln

M
-4

lO

l-

U)

:D
ca

0
o

Ln

U)

U)

r-I
N

19

U)

0)

U)
r-I

tn
N

r-i

l0

O
0

O
O

to

O
r-I

lO
0)

O
0

ra
0

r
U)

V '

O
t`

0)

10
r-i

U)
N

N
M

v'
M

O)
f

l0
If)

O
O

O
O

r-

. U).

U(

a7

t1
W

-1

. O. U).
Ln

C
H

3 tx K A
w w

l0

0)

O
. -4

r-I

cn

1-4
7

>+

Ha

cn

r4
Cl)

r-1
-A

V'

w
h

r-1

jz

N
U)

tW1

[07

-I

(f)

. O.

V'

-4

U)

ICY'

l0
r-4

r-1

r-

r-4

Ln
C-

U)

cn

r-I

lr,

p,

0
IT

U)

h
r--I

U)

0)

w
rj

l0

CIQ
a

U)

C`

O
C

305

u1 N _-:
t 0 c'l -t C1 C\ u1 .Il\ID -a \: c'1 Gl\ t. - ul n r1 O 11.0u1
t- \l0 110 O,\ \D C1 N -7 t- N t- 00 00 rn 0 00 cv 00 r1 c3"\"0 00
t-- t-- t-- t-- t- rI O \D t- U1 (v (1I \Z 00 H CM-:t (\l C1 t- (M 00
H
r-i
r-{
r-i r-{
r-i
r-i
r- O i- r100 r-i -:t 00 Cl -71,C\f O\ N NC\f C1 01 r-1 H -7 \C V1
c\t 0 ri -:I, r-1 I'D H Cl --:t 00 r-I D 00 M r- h- t-- -:t C\t CO O'\ \C
C\t r-i C1 t t- 1` t- r- C\t r-I 110 00 --:t C1I H r- HHH
-: t r-I
C\t r-i

r-i r-

Lr)

0
U

00 N irl Cr'1co M co O C-) c)

z Lrl NN
\O \O r1 N0
0
NNNNN
r-1 0 l0 CT lrl
ri

E1
-tE-4

0
U

t-- rn tiLtl\
L-- V-ZO 00
t-- t` t` t-

r-1

r-C N

t ri NO
CV tr1 r100 O,\ C\!--t lr'1
-:CM
r-I -r CV.7t c\ Lr1 O -,t c100 c\t
N CV.N0
r-I r-i Cr1c"1 0'100 Cr1r-i
CV r'i

r1

r-{

H C\f

c\t r-4 C1 t- cv N r100 1-4 t- 00 0 00 t \Z 00 cv C1

O 0 cm .:t v1
,0 4 rn ZD N r-i -e c\t p r1 N -2 rn .\,_:
C1 (1t C'1CO
CO C'1r-i
t` N0
lD co f1 c\! (M tI- 00 HN
H

ri

HH

m H

Ei

U
A
E
0

a
x
H
0

m
V

0
E

c'1
H

z
0
U

u1
c"1 C\l t` r-i rn rl 110
C'1 0 C'1 H -1 C3.
0 0
C'1 rn r-I
u, CT C\l cn t` \,D 0 1oo n \,o
--t 0 C1
N
C\l .:
CV C'1 M r-I CV r-I
1r1 --t.
C"'1 I-i
-"t C\l -I'

C\l Lr1 C'1

n n

c'1 r1

C\t CV N
_4

t
-:
CV

1r1 -:t --:t

cr1 c\t n
u1 u'1 ul

D\ al \0 CV t O u1 r-I a\ O -i 1r1 ON 111 Cr1 N a\ u1 rl

-:
Cr1 c\t r-I
t` O t-- t- u1 C"1 t-- 00 tf\\O O a\ t- r1 N
--t
LC1ul 00 t. - -:I' I'D c1 ri r-i 1f1 C\t t-- ri C\t C\! 00 111 a1 M

r-I

r-1

c'1 Oorn o, O 0\ N\0 -t ,0 0, r-I 0\ n >n O t t 00

0 rn --:t OLr ON
c\t r, it-, C\f 0'\ c'1 c\t On
rn 00 0\ a~
rn
ti -:t cr1 N -t cn u1 rn\,0 N
00 00 00 00 00 Cl C\t i'- 0\ u1 NN
CM
C\t
ra r-4
r-I
r-I
r-I

a)

b
>l
10
b
a)

ca

c'1

U
A
E-+
U
C"1
A

x
H

cm \,D C1 .O r1
cn c\t c\t c'1 c\t
C1 cr1 r1 cr1 r1

--r
t--:t

\0 NN
r-I rl 00 ri C\t 00 (\t t-- I- cq o\ --:t rn
c*) 00 r-I cq -:t C1 rn 0 cq tr1 -I O1 rn cY10o
00
-:t nt r1 N r-I H N. c -.t rl c11H -":tM . -t Lr1

cv 00 o t,- --:t ln cn 00 \,o O. t \o In t` cn \0 00 00 ao t- O O\

C\t O. Cl) O\ C''1 r'\ .t Ort` -zt c\t t- u\ \o 4,0
r-t H0
r-1 O\
u'\ -:t v Ln, u\ O\ 00 -:t u\ C\ r-l r-I u100 00 r-I c\t r-1 0 u\ r-i O
H
r-i
r-I c\t

U
ri

cd
U

C\l

0
U

U
cd

Ei

oo
4 r1 cn r-- cm.m, 0 1,0 -t H
,-1 -e . -:t rn oo -i mi -tIn C\t
0 -2
cn c\t CmN cmm Co
.D .e In o .t0
00
NoH
krn
\O 00 Ln CMc\t N 00 r-t c\t crl CMc'100 C1 O
NNNNNN0
H
r-i H

C%l
x
cnLnr) cncnrA
l0
u,
n
U
.t.: t
.:I-

a)

CQ N

I-

N00

In rnrno,
r-i
-: \DCn0
C1 r-i
0 CT ri \Dr-i NO u100
r-I Cn
C\t . -:t Cn ri ri
C\t C\t Cn Cn CV C\t r-q r-I

1r)\,D0
o'%in
\ Nn
r-4
Cn CV n

-: dl

O
U

N
A

xH
U

r-I

10
Cd
H

Ei

0
U

E-+

o \o in O,\ 0 cn in \lo _:
t cn In cv H cn _e Ho In rn
r-q rn
o cn in-2 00 cn r1 CMC r-I cn cm-2
cv \lo cn\Z 00 t.
,-i rnr-iIn -i
t
n In Cor-. -: in cn ,--q,-4 In -2 oo -1 cmH rn un a, -In -2

ocv

ooI'D

rn :t rn \D rn cv ri n oo cn 0 .:d- cv 0 u1
in arn
r- o rn 00
H m \g
00 t(1 _:t
u, -1 rn rn 0041 rn oln u\ cn 0
\.O in -It
00
\Z
CV
C\1
cr1
q 00 r"I N
00 00 00 00 00 r r-i \o 00 u- -i c\t t- C\1rI
rl

..
r-{ N

"".

-'

"""

cY1- u 1\D I- 00

.............

oriccnln0ornor
H ri H
01. ri
r-q ri
r-{ r-q

306

ri

ri

CV CV

Cq

Table

13.2(a)

Percentage

Il

TCONT7

-T

(%: c"0

CO M
11

00 1-

l(1 t-

1.06"0068...
t

\O VlNpo.

s
o
II

variation

-e-,

III

"-

1 U)

OI!

.-

.-I

of

(> J

container

%MM

s-

"0 (N

.-r-I

JJ

109&9
OUM

a%o

cEpacity

ti

c-

r-

c-

r-

t0

ul
ul

O M
---

TCONT6

0s

ooo
I
i.

NOco M

TCONTS

N00

""I

o% 0N
co
cm NN

r-

cri r)
I

I-

N`DOON

oOr' e-

U10
tM

O.
I

a--

TCONT4

a-

r-

O'OuI'Oa

MV1Nti

cV

r--

1:100-10X

NN

hhD(h
'-

00 Vto

0 0s

"

O 1U O: o
r-

cV

l! 1 M l11 %0 O

C:) %V V1M

-1'%D MMMNOCO

-th

".

OD %0 (> N K1 O r-- U) -4 N
%D
0.
I..........
0.

O. %O N
....

V1MW
I1IIII

Ooc-

t,- 00 Lr) vN

Go N
.......

M...... ON -1 Co f- N

a-

N""I11I11
a-

r-

-,TNtiWt-

NOo000IlI'TO'

III/IIIIIIIIII/IIIIII

CTDCK4

tilnOTpp0011'1N
" NM

OOOO
11I1

ot0

Ln OU)

....

r-

O.

o1-

00

.............

I
N)

0,, M,
In 1
INI

CTHLD4

r-

I"'

S MOMr"'
-4- NNII

Ui W) T*-OOO.

Lfl M

o0

- N

...

cA N

1111

00

.............

TCONT3

OtOOKIe-OtOtoOc-NO,

TOMr--

"....

\G NNO M P- M o, NN0,00
<- .- r- Ni II-

0` O o. M"0
.-11IN

Ul

\...

ul 0s

-M

rn

ii11iiiii

TUN

(D coo C %0
I.
II.

vN

.I....

CTDCK3

O T t

00 D O O I

%O Lfo

-r

-T N%0

CTHLD3

MOMN
fV

1II1I

a0 Ul co Ln O

""""""".

."".

M00

lfl

.O.

"

00 D tn .T .MN
N1o

MN1NN
'TN
IIIIIIIII111I1111

O %0 Co K)
I.

Lll Oc)

OttOMN
(V
"-

r-

"

"

DO
1N

t'-

IN

Ntl1e-

ti

r-

c-- ON
""""

"".

I"

""

.T

ctn 00 MN

e- tiLn

".

LA U'\ N

MN
'

.TO
I

1`
tV

III
f

1r1 M ti

O
.I..

TCONT2

%0 a-

Ul

%t r- ".

YN1lNIA
III111

r-

lfl

ti

NQ

00

a 0,

c30 %0 M O,
.-- N
M1-

1;
1O.
INr
T- r^

o0CD

0,

00e-

00

..

0:

..

a-- a-

UN
.

% N

aO
r
.-

.ao

CD tntl-

CO

"--

...

00tnM
M"

T-

.
N

Ifl

N1

. -

tn t LA N u1 OLn
...........

CTHLD2

Oo.

"""

t
1

00 -? f-- O(I

MoONIn

......

rI

a--

""44"0b6.9

8.

ti oo, co t,- t- r.

CTDCK2

DNM

ll1-40

t-

otr)Oocvvnti

P-%Din

OO.

M ln O 00U1OM%ONi
...........
K)

c%l
wo Mtl,

L! O hNOS
1 aK1 e-

Ot

trios

-t O, , OIr)
lIl

0,

r1 l O

r-

Inl--

%0

""""""""""""""""""""""

TCONTI

00000000

hve-ONPOOOT
Jrr-Ne-

111111I

30 6a

Ion

MII

ONa--GO
1

TABLE 13

Container

Distribution

Ship's
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

10.
11.
12.

Name

in

Cont.
m.

_B
in

m.

Deck

on

per
Tier

Max. Rows
Below
Deck

Max. Rows
Above
Deck

LxB
in m2

Cont.
LxB

. 032

ACT

205.74

28.96

190

10

5958

MANCHESTER CHALLENGE

151.79

19.35

80

2937

ENCOUNTER BAY
STRIDER

213.36
105.00

30.48
16.75

184
55

9
5

10
5

CP. VOYAGEUR
SEA WITCH
ORIENTAL CHEVALIER
JEDDAH CROWN
FIERY CROSS ISLE
MANCHESTER VIGOUR

153.00

25.60

108

177.34

23.77

158

192.00
104.00
133.60

26.00
18.90
21.50

166
60
72

6503
1759
3917
4215
4992

103.10
218.00

15.55
30.48

55
196

5
9

5
10

154.70

23.0

120

DARR

AMERICA
MARSSIELLE
ATLANTIC

1967
2872

1603
6644
3558

282.74

32.00

336

12

9048

231.12

31: 70

288

12

7336

D
C-G-S-85 C&D
TAEPING
SELANDIA
JAPAN ACE

224.0
234.4
192.00
257.60
175.00
224.96
178.00
252.00
248.20
247.00

30.48
27.
30.50
32.20
25.20
30.00
25.85
32.20
32.26
32.20

270

11

6828

202
305
129
270
157
262
328
205

9
10
7
9
8
10
10
9

12
12
8
11
10
10
13
9

5856
8295
4410
6749
4601
8114
8007
7953

CB
0.60

CM
0.974

CP
0.616

V 1L
0.870

0.570
0.600
0.622
0.648
0.640
0.623
0.545
0.570
0.566
0.590
0.570
0.735
0.550
0.610
0.610
0.637
0.572

0.961
0.978
0.973
0.980
0.978
0.975
0.972
0.966
0.964
0.968
0.946
0.977
0.963
0.972
0.979
0.977
0.969

0.593
0.613
0.639
0.661
0.654
0.639
0.561
0.589
0.587
0.609
0.602
0.752
0.571
0.627
0.623
0.652
0.590

0.970
0.832
0.884
0.803
0.829
0.866
0.894
0.. 933
0.952
0.920
1.05
0.843
0.957
0.889
0.823
0.843
0.913

EUROLINER

CALIFORNIA
ELBE MARU
TABLE BAY

STAR

NEW JERSEY MARU

MANCHESTER CHALLENGER
STRIDER CLASS

ENCOUNTERBAY
HAIWAIAN ENTERPRISE
CP. VOYAGEUR

SEA WITCH
ACT
SELANDIA
TAEPING
JAPAN ACE
JEDDAH CROWN

FIERY CROSS ISLE

MANCHESTER VIGOUR

EUROLINER
CALIFORNIA STAR
DART AMERICA
ATLANTIC MARSIELLE
ELBE MARU

R. J.

SCOTTS

Position
of M/C

3/4
3/4
3/4

3/4
3/4

3/4

LBP
in m

027

. 028
. 031

Lr)
M

027

037*
.
033
.

030
.
025
.

. 034
029
.
. 033

. 037
.

039

. 039

. 035
037
.
. 029
. 040
034
.
. 032
041
.
026
.

Aft

153.0

Coeff.
Shape
0.911

Aft
Aft
Aft
Aft
Aft
Aft
Aft
Aft
Aft
Aft
Aft
Aft
Aft
Aft
Aft
Aft
Aft

105.0
213.36
206.35
153.0
177.34
205.74
257.60
192.00
175.00
104.00
133.60
103.10
224.96
178.00
218.00
154.70
252.0

0.91
0.82
0.913
0.870
0.837
0.806
0.733
0.716
0.720
0.861
0.794
0.958
0.712
0.702
0.815
0.781
0.708

DATA

Fine

ships

carrying

40'

containers

0.85

ships

carrying

20'

Aft

Full

containers

Aft

0.90

Fine

ships

carrying

40'

containers

Full

ships

carrying

20'

containers

Amidships
Amidshi
s

307

0.80
0.83

II

tu
a

equations

were

containerships
seventies,
this

after
In

many

which

are

the

not

capacity
Ships

strongest

is

the

type

between

in

movement
deck

to

give

with

Other

to

low

(see

than

containers
double

for

bottom

the

on ballast

dependent

the

along

influence,

slight

is

With
crane

interference
there

is

no

located

for

aft

is

also

made

with

ships
Table

and

shaft

therefore

This

13.4)

aft.

influence

slight
in

length

cargo

This

the

of

is

capacities

variable

ship

has

or

space,

less

The

bottom

double

the

are

available

containers.

fuel

and

container

one

of

containers.

required

usually

usually

13.2.2.

20'

have

stowage;

containers.

the

space.

machinery

or

container

loss

between

allowances

HOLDS
hold

stern.

Also,

crane.

machinery

the

and

containers

the

stowage

have

IN

than

more

interruption

no

Section

which

sections.

therefore

coefficient

with

factors

is

machinery

shape

ships

space

is

of

two

diesel

and

the

deck

machinery

space

shore

with

aft

with

of

the

machinery

with

container

stowage

the

3/4

compared

of

way

into

the

the

ships

not

there

next

turbine

generally

the

by

machinery

depth
also

being

volume
the

40'

for

ship's

route.
In

spite
can

capacity
under

machinery

increased

apparent

trade

the

interfere

containerships,

of

with

the

in

size

aft

house

to

tunnel

than

taken

determining

gas

machinery

location

aft

all

or

is

CAPACITY

of

speeds.

carried

and

the

CONTAINER

position

space
The

well

hold

and

be

hold

in

factors

turbine

machinery

located

the

discussed

higher

and

comparison

should

built

ships

containers

a valid

which

DETERMINING

steam

of

of

early
for

size

tiers

so

the

results

larger

of
of

are

the

installation.

poor

data

of

to

prior

determining

of

with

smaller

were

while

One

give

factors

FACTORS

analysis

and

specified,

capacity

13.1.3.

regression

number

Other

container

due

during

date

consideration

of

built
therefore

difficult.

the

on

and

cases

on deck

based

deck

of
be

volume

all

these

factors,
by

approximated
-

the

under

308

the
relating

deck

volume

deck

under
it

to
being

the

container
ship's

expressed

as

product

or

what

is

container
the

100.0,

it

general

cargo
ship
(30% being

enclosed
is

From

spaces).
bale
loss.
0.70

of

container,

the

two

is

0.6

to

subtract

to

be

The

bale

cubic

it
a fair

give

higher
on

for

fairly

once

the

loss

the

good

cargo
bale

bale
form

expressed

cubic

capacity

extreme

volume

capacity'
be

carried

on
the

to

volume

that

the

to

under

of

that

space,

cubic

etc.

(13.8)

hold

(13.2),

above
space

usable
But

this

of

is

CB Teu

Eq.

of

the

of

hold

the

CN x

Eq.

because

capacity
be

= 1.82

to

equations

should

equation

(13.8)
is

approximation

this
An

in

data

containerised
of

this

container
ship's

actual

dimensions.

be

approximation

Eq.

of
side;

available

that

may

assumed

CB

coefficient

the

the

the

containerisation

capacity'

be

may

bottom

the

the

to

cargo

the

of

20% of

bale

89% of

CB/

enclosed

double

bale

general

then

the

of

'containerised
of

LxBxDx
capacity

capacity'

xLxBxDx

the

on

equations

assumed

number.

be

and

under

capacity.

assumptions
and

peaks

x 0.80.
81% to

from

will

700

- 0.85 x 6. o96 x 2.438 x 2.4T8

Comparing
it

bale

'container

one

that

bale

If

and

container

CTHLD

assume

be

CB)

volume

to

necessary

may

85%).

the

enter

deck

is

cubic

hull

room,

it

between

the

as

coefficient

number.

modified

taken

engine

varies

containership

ratio

be

can

xLxBxDx

represents

the
of

'containerised

of a container
(average
say

to

a relationship

to

which

Thus

as

give

volume

this

capacity,

cubic

and

reasonable

block

and

modified

(5)

capacity

Taking

volume

the

Karsh

and

depth

beam,

known-s

Henry
deck

length,

of

it

shows

form

give

will
and

capacity

established,

applicable

for

is

derived

this

form

DECK

CAPACITY

container

all
in

Section

13.2.1.
13.1.4.

FACTORS
The
or

area
It

is

DETERMINING

containers
area

on

function

9 however,

difficult

deck
of

are

usually

length

and

to

analyse

to

correlated

breadth
the

of
data

the
to

deck

ship.
arrive

at

functional

good

deck
stowed

deck

above

depending

down
deck

above

number

coefficient

for

tier

varies

from

This

variation

rows

on

on

ratio

is

deck

highly

increasing
they

which

two

or

deck

as

increase

the

ship's

can

be

be

the

volumetric

stowed

Table

13.1

of

container
for

in

Table

able

to

is

per

smaller

that

ships.

container
than

more
13.1.

load

containers

capacity

without

The

capacity.
deck

on

in

rows

earning

ships.
largely

fact

container

to

existing

40

the

shown

desirable

they

since

by

explained

one

number

density,

is

and

to

the

cargo

deck

above

ships

support

the

for

used

by

larger

be

below

rows

LxB

for

be

may

method

are

establish

know

coefficient

of

24

to

and

tiers,

corner
to

containers

block

can

deck

down

four

or

Therefore,
need

area

containers

weight,

would

of

the

of

It

tie

and

independent

container

one

deck

because

three

container
used.

capacity

the

Moreover,

total

be

two,

either

methods

support

corner

to

appears

in

the

on

tie

and

This

capacity.

between

relationship

by

governed

to

extent
the

following

considerations:
a)

Owner's

Container
to

be

have

ships
to

reduced

steering

and

from

protection

salt

Visibility

d)

If

shore

based

to

which

container

the

boom

as

well

cranes

sail

adequate

as

avoid

area

have

may

which

statical

stability,

requirements
port

minimum

used,

the

angle

water

of

or

the

often

at

GM.

310

is

more

goes

ballast

depend

upon

tide

to

working

to

than

with

crane

When

(5).

cells

to
sea

tiers

of

limited
in

aft.

number

draft.

severe

to

located

high

and

heel

require
ship

will

jamming

containers

will

maximum

freeboard

ship's

and

bridge

with

be stacked

from

is

requirement

are

could

limiting
to

entering

wind

especially

distance

the

This

provide

problems

both

cargo
50

large

response.

c)

the

container

damage.

water
b)

for

requirement

the
be

seagoing

added
more

on
than

The

e)

if
f)

the

The

number

and
in

results

hatches

smaller

As

is

deck

of

is

formula

is

followed

is

satisfied.

Also,

it

is

not
As

their

design

because
for

at

achieved

beam

B/T

at
and

ships

drafts

the

draft

lower

with

cargo

is

on

procedure

is

type

ratio

lower

carried

on

than

deadweight

deck,

requirements
acquire

ships
3.15.

This

requirements

are

draft

scantling

is

Panama

the

of

at

obtained

freeboard.

volume

container

the

tier

stability

restrictions

than

13.2.1

ADOPTED

most

the

and

basis

per

deadweight

design

it

program,

Section

in

statical

design

stability.

the

capacity

APPROACH

of

the

iterative

an

GM and

13.1,

in
on

deck

obtainable

base

to

the

the

perhaps

Later

then

the

Fig.

is

limit

for

ships.

smaller

However,

container

the

vertical

direction.

by

nautical

consideration,

lashing

arrangement

stability

would

tiers

and

OF THE

deadweight

larger

handling

exclusively

percentage

in

the

capacity

factors

limited

determine

minimum

to

shown

of

Canal

large

possible

(35).

of

lifting

many

stability.

area

that

than
a

since

Weight

unacceptable

which

capacity

containerships

less

draft

above,

is

to

PHILOSOPHY

all

certain

usually

crane

in

of

and

the

until

DESIGN
For

area

deck

on

the

deck

developed

based

solely

containers

the

result

containers

deck

available

only

hatches.

by

foremost

determines

otherwise

13.2

from

deck,

tiers

limited

complex

hatches.

apparent
on

withstand

of

smaller

may

pontoon

containers
The

be

to

quite

three.

exceeds

tiers

and

and

for

two

heavier
may

time

than

hatchcovers

become

designed

are

more

tiers

deck

of

hatchcovers

loads

of

techniques

securing/lashing

within

the

The

or
be

able

limits

has

unlimited

stacking

height

ship

lack

seakeeping,
by
to

increase

of

deadweight

311

the

be

may
of

A ship

stability.

space

stowage

adequate

with

number
requirements

limited

of

maximum
container
or

draught

in

S.

_,
O
0

t
O
\"

N
C11%

00

*0

40

\6
40

000
00

)?

I?\ P"

00

0
400

4
Y
a.
t .
O

4:
4i

0
A4

s`

4,0

""

-3
sill

0
PO

'd

\\

0
0I

N
c,4

a
"

r P

09

c^ "

"-

ID- .

.c`

of

0
CrIl

"

c'1
H

1'

"

r \

40
-rl
rk

0
N

`
.`

.,
IF%
1-4

II
t1N

!
_-_1
r4

I___1_

IIII

00

.0

9-4

"m UT u2TseP
312

438SQ

I
ti

limitations.

To
the

involves
that

the

done

either

solving

arms

by

increasing

the

necessary

the

lower

part

The

in

carried

at

stability

the

figure,

more

than

increases,
remain

On

permissible

draft
the

reached,

is

capacity

in

to
a

value,

this

design

draft.

is

fixed

not

with

given

If

problems

per

fully

container
the

maximum

the

is

weight
(including

utilised

and

than

other

container

ballast

available

what

the

are

each

does

not

tons

exceed
loading

container

here

is

is

which

313

designed
be

to

the

of

of

about

technically

in

the
container

draft?

containerships
provided
6, e. g.

a particular

each

design

of

tiers?

optimise

weight

weight

top

at

weight

with

the

the

fixed
to

the

used
not
optimisation,

economic

the
ship
cargo.

up

optimise

design

20

of

tiers

designer
if

one
to

should

of

values
is

what

container
the

homogeneous

practical
it

are

are,

with

if

bottom

which

These

designed

loading,
the

remain

design.
be

enable

does

word
optimum
based
chosen
on

still

ship

so

possible

to
refers
the
maximum

displacement

design*

stowing)

of

how

*The

draft,
items

average

in

shown
ballast

with

weight

are

Alternatively

rated

carried

optimum

slots

from

would

hold

as

deadweight

Alternatively

loading

container
the

for

more

weight

is

It

in

an

cargo

the

If

of

containership

container

(b)

ship

be

can

., satisfying

in

average

container

non-homogeneous
each

be

Fig.

that

Further,

other

the

container?

each

is

by

containers

increase

containers

loading?

cargo

ballast

some

provid-

in

permanent

ballast,

can

the

all

two

fundamental
Should

by

or

adequate.

However

(a)

of

without

With

be

can

illustrated

requirements.

container

deck

available

number

draft

constant

increases.

or

practice

best

be

containers

since

cargo

the

ballast.

without

sense

stability,

water

In

the

This

form

either

can

certain

minimum

in

conditions.

shows

the

capacity

problem

ship's

hull.

problem

which

container

maximised.

the

the

load

design

(36)

13.2

be

must

ballast

of

even

actual

a stability

of

righting

ing

carried

the

obtain

with

maximum

the

number

of

tiers

Maersk

ships

of

1200

20

tons

will

(172).

each

context
of
but
merely

be

Teu

ship

able

to

carry

Fig.

13.2.

Influence
of draft,
the
on
containership

F--

LL

314

GM and ballast
(36).
capacity

The

OCL

container
loading

geneous
for
Thus

for

calculated

of

gravity

the

These
due

fine

improvement
fully

into
or

lines
And

of

are

the

to

up

weight

empty,

possibly

homogeneous

are

guidance
drawn

high

high

amplitudes

gave

disagreeable

ballast

of

not

GM-values

(13,173)"

periods
with

a consequence

led

yet

only

the

in

holds

that

decrease

in

on

containers

are

take

to

containers

ships

also

is

of

to

and
it

progressive

for

water

operation,

carry
container

deck

designed

today

GM-values

on

two

which
for

non-

design

for

load.
some

indicative

TEU

0.50
o. 4o - 0.45
0.30
resolve
a

lower
as

ships,

GM m.

design

ballast.

water

(13).

drafts

To

weight
loading

to

problems

tier

most

container

Following
the

topmost

stability

container

leading

reduction

with

the

ascertained

container

of

second

as

rolling

these

the

considerably

combined

actual

load

rated

maximum

was

short

tiers

lowermost

three

the

in

selected

homogeneous

load,

overcome

that

account

average

deadweight

of

ship

the

was

ships

has
conditions
(13,173)"
solution

rolling

to

order

an

often

of

draft

possibly

assuming

periods

satisfactory
In

of

of

motions.

rolling

basis

container

rolling

the

to

container

the

of

consequence

short

built

however,

non-homogeneous

with

and

10-20%

about

homo-

assuming

(19).

each)

operation,

centre
of

tons
with

In

the

on

10-14

design

average

generation

purpose

designed

also

figure

first

of

sometimes

the

and

the

generation

(abt.

were

deadweight

a mean

was

ships

some

of

leading

German

(174).

Following

about

container

700-800
1200-1500
2300-3000

the
ship

ship

issues
builder
are

the

design.

315

regarding
was

container

approached

conclusions

that

ship

for
can

be

(a)

The

average

companies

stowage

layout

the
cargo

of

Most

from
design

stowage,

average

weights

of

higher

It

is

by

of

part

a major

13.2

was

of

is

will

a fixed

on

be

process

be

should
to

related

done

focussed

as

a widespread

the

keep

the

stability

With

regard

all

depending

on
to

'field

13.3.

in'

of

of

The

loading

is

ballast

13.3

be

should
This
10t

of
8.5

between

to

needed

Fig.

weight

on

GM.

conditions.

container

the

containers

capabilities,
which

diagram

weight,

which

level

in

assuming

certain

water

interest'

water

Fig.

number

a certain

of

the

in
of

ballast

before

containership

shown

'built

average

on

m.

possible

of

anticipated

between

is

the

amount

stipulates

205

illustrated

as

containers

draft,

and

reached
is

to

m.

shown
14t

and

11.0

and

m.

draft.

As
is

usual

by

the

pointed
and
double

can
For

be

has

earlier

to

hatch

taken

stowage

selection

weight

be

for
amongst

loading
per

selected
into

lines,

undertaken

a homogeneous
average

out

Selected

needed.
and

containers

design

ship

process

and

number

deck

of

for

loading

the

be

higher

specify

optimization

which

design

used

corresponding

to

the

container

aim

the

homogeneous

under

an

to

Teu.

per

base

specify

normally

Reefer

more.

of

task.

Therefore

gives

can

assumption

exclusively.
of

transportation

Fig.

or

to

nor

purpose

tend

of

route.

the

shipowners

weights

RFR-criterion

using
The

13t/Teu

type

ship's

under

shipowners

realistic

weight

container

ships

for

the

on

the

of

Danish

average

not

leg

shipping

importance

greatest
depends

to

e. g.

German

much

of

their

whereas

(b)

leg

the

and

ships,

lOt/Teu

have

is

container

shipowners

homogeneous

containers

practice

differs

and

of

weight

is

and
is

stowage

ballast

typical
competing

large

numbers
and
Optimum

container.

316

is

illustrated
be

will

water

operational

a few

assumed

containers

This

account.

less

of

problem

designs.
of

a possible
design

feasible

designs,

range
draft

of
in

most

in

Draft

M.
10% Fuel,

GM = 0.6

10% Fuel

m.

+ 2000t

ballast

10% Fuel + 6000t

ballast

12

Co

iiV

10

"A
40
c
0

WS

__

..........
\"id"1"41A"iN"b{. bb"

-....
```
.......,

.24

70,

I-I

fln

I1 31 -l II -13613: 110133:31=1
III
*T*T^'TT+
It iI
"r.
Ta*iiTT*i^*T^i
[its I

"i tip" iH ii HH

. 01
m
(r-

9+

14

u. mini
L1;J II Pl l1p
i.

mi__-

=!

flr

"1

8+

't
L-Li

cr
LLJ
C3
Z

w
F-i
V-

10001200

1400
Total

Fig.

13.3.

V)
cr
W
H
N

1600

containers

in

Total
container
capacity
205" m. container
ship.

317

N
ix
W

V)

n1

-t

1800

w
F--_

2000

2200

TEU

versus

draft

for

cases

be

will

(see

container,
in

the

not

To

and

are

the

CAPACITY

the

maximum

procedure

the

The

conditions.

container

load

capacity

are

This

procedure

may

alter.

as

to

is

done

empirical

incorporate

and

particulars

stability

inputs

designer

determines

in

that

so

The

then

of

capacity

slot

criteria

the

until

period

two

is

route

program

whole

maximum
step

since

characteristics

capacity,

determined.

such

ensures

desirable

the

the

with

cargo

stability

be

can

is

for

next

angle

studied

and

slot

Once

parameters

met.

This
which

per

designs

be

route

SLOT

weight

competing

route

same

large

average

then

conditions

capacity

operating

loading

the

route

and

load

can

certain

determined,

initial

actual

this

design

suggested.

is

ship

both

containers.

determine

equations

A few

of

on

MAXIMUM

13.2.1.

14).
optimum

for

life,

of

in

operate

ship's

limit

the

flexibility
designed

ship

of

of

stowage

a certain

will

upper
Chapter

region

selected

the

the

actual

requirements
subprogram

subroutine

STABIL.
A good

in

stowage
of

rows

deck

of

number

starting
tiers

the

rows

are

8 then

deck

and

2 tiers

tiers

the

depth.

ballast

on

empty

tiers

can

First

approximation

For
cubic

be

large
number

against

the

in

13.4

Fig.

high
deck.

equal

of
than

that

proportion

capacity
ships

CN x block

number,
of

the

under

container

deck
ships

318

number

of

tiers,

container
below

high

deck

under

determined

permanent

deck

container

of

be

carry

rows

of

number

tiers

container

under

the

if

will

containers,

to

cubic

or

to

e.

6 tiers

stacked

deck,

is

the

to

to

container
i.

square

Thus,

are

ship

tiers

containers.

The
the

number
(cubic

so

be

above

greater

bale

is

limit

upper

the

that

section

of

the

defining

imagine

containers

If
or

to

should
tiers

deck

and

is

midship

containers

including

in

point

number
(175)"

or
of

by
water
container

modified
Cb)was

coefficient,
capacity
carrying

as
different

shown

fitted

Fig.

J! i. ,
_.
.

13.4

70000

60000

C_.

50000

-c

L/)
w

LD

40000

E
Li
u
Z

30000

20000

10900

200

400

600

800

?000

PROD.OF CUBIC NO. 9 CB

INCUBI[ METRES

319

1200

sizes

of

containers

be

could

into

converted

common

denominator.
A straight
Bale

cubic

line

equation
(hold)

capacity

There

was hardly
any
(an indication
squared

a curve)

even

If
Eq.

the

containers

(13.8)

by

0.88)

0.0283

This

one

the

closeness

order

data

Cb

+ 148.0

sum of

the

fit

of

polynomial,

points)
m3 Eq.

(13.8)

differences
to

data

of

is

For
(34

2000

<

capacity

ships

data

line

straight

can

the

main

total

differences

there

derived

by

dividing
and
3/4

machinery

higher

the

numbers

containers

interest

container

>

capacity

this

equation

deck

capacity

by
a

in,

the

2000

and

Teu

Teu

Eq.

than
is

20'
one

of

those

the
beam

of

3/4
lost

deck

the

the
of

product
the

shows

with

deck

area

length

and

coefficients

container

ship,

maximum

capacity

per

machinery

aft

aft.

are
of

13.3

actual

stage,

geometry,
of

Table

this

at

hull

function

for

coefficients

amidships

machinery

an

vessel.

length

Since

above

as

represented
the

by

to

allowable

of

and

Eq. (13.9)

Teu

+5

total

with

container

between

is

breadth

aft

earlier.

be

and

ships

Cb

CNTHLD = 1.28
x CN x Cb + 220
of 0.773.
for
capacity
container
size
other
(13.8).
be derived
from
Eq.
This

capacity

tier

CN x

hold

easily

Since

can

8'

TEU.

approximation

slot

8'

points)

proposed
First

dividing

equation

= 1.39

for

then

standard
(20'
cubic

following

CTHLD

of

in
Containers
correlation
with
hold
Container
ISO

the

valid

ISO

bale

container

Hold

equation

20'

are

gives

in

Containers

of

7th

in

the

of

CN x

(47

form

adopted.

was

with

= 44.21

improvement

to

up

the

was of

higher

ships

than

containers/tier
aft
under

and

those
can

amidships.

deck

and

320

with
with
be

machinery

stowed

Whereas
indicated

3/4

machinery

by

for

aft,
ships

the

number

the

shape

(13.10)

4
x
a)
U -rl N
G) E-4
A
N
9
O

lD
01

a)

O lD
CDa0

-4 -1
H

_q
fa
a-3
0
H

N
In
le

l0
eO
d'

V'
N
rl

Op Lf)
in M
r-1 r-1

O
01
r-i

l0
Ol
r-i

OD C
ON

CD V'
u-, ("1

O lD
m c3,

1-1 r1

ri

rf

ri

mNN

t+'M MNN
lD
tn d'

r-I
lD

w
tD

d'
1n
1-

V'
-e
t-

N d'
D 1-4
t.D [,i
r-1

V'
O
(N

111 O
COD

(V mOONN
0M
IDD

Q)
- rn
H

OD N
ll1 r-1
NN

a)
", i 00
H

WN
Lfl . -i
NN

av

a
" o
Ei

OMN

4
(1)L(1

O
O)

-.pA

NmMM
r-q

-4
rl

ON
O) Co

rY)
O

01

l0

0p

OD OD

01 V'

NNN

r-1 1-1

NN

l0 01
r-1 NMMO
1-1 1-4

Ln

r4

r-1

01 (Yl
N(h
r-1 -1

MOONN
Ol

lD M
Ln r
CO CO

Ln
r-i

110 NN
r-i
NN

Ul

O(V
1- ri
r-i N,

l0
N
r4

l0
[-

r-I
t-

V' Ol
Or-

ON
OONNN

Q1 l0

Ilp

dMNO
0N

r-i

ri

ri

-1

14

r-I

4
CDN

d
l-

Ct
d'

N
O

r-I
1-1

r-I

r-I

r-I

00 "T
lfl 0
ri

"rl

U1
k0

l0 O
O> Ol

N-1
O I-

co m
ra r-I

E-4

r-I

4
v
"
EH .-

IT
Q

171 l0
lD lD

r-1
l0

lp
r

(h
co

r-1

-,zr ui
OOrM
. -1 .1

lO

r-

r-

lfl Ql
1n 1n

O V'
rcN

w
O

O
CO
0
r-1

u'i
CO
_A
r-4

lD
O
N

[P
01
r-I

O
ri

NN

OD CO
rn O
A r

tD D
ul v1
NNN

OD
rn
-

U1
Cr1
r-1 -1

". 1 M

r-i

V' Lfl
r- N
NN

MO
r-I

OD Ol
ON
r1 1-1

rf

01
Lfl

to
in
r-I

-4

0N
01 00

E4

Ul
Lfl

lD
(+')
r-I

["l
O

r-

r-i

co
t-

a)

3
"
0 H

0)
CD

r-

wO

r-i

ONN
tf1 r-I
NN

"rl [E-4

xU

Ln 01
O[M (N

r-1

'; t' K1
dl Ol
1-1 1--1

tn
frl
rl

LD WN
Lfl Ul

r-

Ln in

OD tll
l0 lfl

co
Ln

0M
r
01
r1 r-i

M r-I
tn Ln

OqT
d' Ln

lfl
tfl

r-i
r-

r1

O(C' [1'

N
l0

0)

r-I
wC

Od
OD r)

k0
d'

rf

N
V'

IIl
V'

V
Ln

rn MVN
Q[N

01
lfl

OD 1-1

14

z
W
10
N

NN
aroi
+J

rtt

A 4-) H
WUb

v4

r4

K41
r-i
>+ U it

+)

(0

p4 r-I rA
wco
0w
b0
Ea :3U0zu0U0U40U
r-4

115

r-I

1)

rtt

rl

r-I

to :1b:
aJ r-I

s
4J r-I

HUBU

it

r-1

U34U

r-I

b: 3
H

4J

to

RC UUU

H0
tC

1J

r-I
na

O r-a -4

r-I

RS

W 4U

f0

NM4

U)
Lfl

321

1)

ro"

cn r-I, -i
n
ill

in :30 rz F:
:lur-I U4J 1-1

'17
U
,

U)

a
H

ro (n

:juIV

41

ZU

r-I

tC

U4U0

UNWU

b
pG

ill
di

:im
VJ4 JJ
1-I
RS

r-4

W. m

is

HU
,Z

E-4
N

ai

4J

1- CC)
U1 'V'
-4 r-1

l0 r-I
01 NN
rf N

r4
r-I
r-4 r-I

Nm
lfl tNN

1 co
lIl d
r--1 r-I

W r-4
On NN
r-1 N

r-1
r-4
1-1 r-i

NM
V.D 1
(N N

l0

OM

rn u1
ko 00
V' <Y'

ON

lll

OD
1-4
1.4

m
r-I O
r-4 r1

rl

r-4

N
r-1
IQO (n
N
r1

19*1
r-4
Ln 01

01
N
r-I

v
-1-a
C
O
U

U1
r-I
r--I

r-i

O*1 M
ap rra ri

0D O
O Cl
N r-1

[- N
01) lr-1 r-I

ODo
rn rn
-A

Lnu1
N rI
ri
14

r-IN
CO [ri ri

00
r-i
14

m
o

O1%N
l0 r
r4 r1

OD o
CO

qV1' O
V
01
r-I r-1

d'
r-1

r-q

000
I Ol
rf
r-I

r-i
ri

I
-1 -4
Q1 O
r-I

l0
tf1
-I

0D
d'
r-1

V' in
O Ql

o0 [N t! 1
-1 4

V' O
OD Ol

d'
d'
r-I

mO
m
. -1

l01% CO

l0 t-4 M
r-1 r-1

OD (M
II1 CO

dm
rl N
r-I r-I

I
Ei

(l-

NN
00

01

l0
N
r-4

a
w
H

El)

ro
a
ro

c
H
H

z
P4
:
o 4-)
Ga U

a
U

14
1-4

a ro

U
H

l
.4.
U

41
U

E-4

ca

Ei

ri

r-I

-I

r-i
ro a

aU
U
ro
w

a
w

32 2

coefficient,
with

as

machinery
A

the

finer,
on
more

with
both

machinery

space.

results

in

the

superstructure

under

deck,

per

tier,

but

the

and

machinery
of

number

space
longer

CTDCK

13.2.2.

remaining

after

0.0355

being

is

there

housing

the

ship

with

to

more

containers

housing

the

deck

machinery

in

results

deck
lower

deck.

the

of

containers

0.96.

deck

on

Therefore

maximum

the

maximum

slot

depend

on

the

initial

required

the

of
volume

operational

double

the

to

space

endurance

i.

the

taken

up

as

capacity
draft,

e.

Approximate
depending

and
in

fuel

oil

is

vessel.

determined

Eq. (13.12)

Teu

load

actual

of

the

store
be

can

is

deck

vessel

parameters,

bottom

required

the

the

CNT =

above

of

13.12),

GM and

tiers

capacity

Equation

being

capacity

(13.11)

Eq.

1.0

of

slot

(CTDCK)

CAPACITY

from

Teu

Correlation

LOAD

determined

of

15.0

xLxB-

ACTUAL
Once

rest

due

aft

Whereas

and

besides

estimate

CNTHLD

the

compact

container

on

of

fit.

perfect

volume

more

and

tier.

per

aft,

deck

under

superstructure

first

correlation

will

forward

3/4

is:

tier

with

deck

on

increases

containers/tier

ships

or

position

ship

for

amidships,

lost

the

capacity

A reasonable
per

aft

is

With

aft

and

containers

of

lower

aft.

holds
The

aft

machinery.

3/4

is

machinery

in

more

space

usable

13.4,

and

containers

deck

Table

amidships

containership

stores
of

in

shown

double

ballast

to

on
bottom,

improve

the

GM.

Shape
defined
can

be

as

the

same

coefficient
The

the

shape

ratio
in

carried

containers

(CSHAPE):

coefficient

that

of
a ship

can

dimensions
for
coefficient

the

some

shape

total

number
block

shaped

be

carried

as

the

actual

in

ship's

suggested

323

to

that

containers

the

The

in
given
(58)
Scott

are
by

of

a rectangular
shape.

ships

is

coefficient

total

number
block

values
Table
and

of

of
of
13.4.

shape

(37)

Chryssostomidis
for

ships

with

the

as

to

length

type

it

express

in

aft

V/

ratio

of

or

high

poor

the

effort

was

correlation

function
For

of

the

of

results.

well

as

Some
but

This

Froudenumber

terms
as

particularly

amidships.

machinery.

these

gave

be

by

expressed
FL

to

influenced

and

coefficient

shape

aft

be

position

made

3/4

machinery

must

coefficient

found

were

speed
3/4

machinery

amidships

or

J Lft
x V/

- 0.8715

CSHAPE = 1.4805

(16

data

points,

correlation

For

aft

machinery
CSHAPE

-0.730)

= 1.1788

0.4168

(18

V/\rLft

data

points,

correlation

(CSHAPE).

The

and

found

and

the

LBP

of
of

to
loss

following

be

adequate

in

number

LBP <

M.

shape

values
in

150

and

ships).

Great

the

of

of

coefficient

container

shape

were

container
accuracy

coefficient

in

adopted
the

predicting

the

program
bays

of

number

containers.
LBP>200

175<LBP<200

15o<LBP<175

0.91

CSHAPE

0.86

0.72

0.82

distribution

Container
To

the

calculate

and

deck

is

the

hull

form

containers

in

and
each

containers

To

find

combinations

centre

bay

number

account
of

in

every

the

the

along
hold
of

as

the

length
as

of
on

conceivable

324

principal

of
of

for

ship

every

deck.

stowable

curvature

hold

shape

number

the

the

the

in
the

estimate

containers

of

container
requires

well

hull

gravity

of

the

turn
to

a procedure

in

the

of

This

required.

of

into

vertical

distribution

cargo,

container

taking

values

determination

in

needed

not

tier

for

characteristics

stacking
is

Appendix

See

-0.4168)

from

in
among

holds
the

dimensions

is

difficult

task.

required
then

the

power

number

of

containers

stowable

60

series

the

at

is

of

the

vertical

be

and

first

13.5

double

hull
is

as

values
hold

and

the

program

to

larger

the

beam,

can

plating

Fig.

13.7

the
the

and

for

by

the

a given

(15)

Buxton

ships

ROWS and

TIERB

Various

(13.12),

gives

values

are

combinations

the

the

number

is

number

container

Section

= CNRI
it

is

then

total

(NCLOST)

of

or

rows
from
the

calculating

and

container

give

of

number
determined

width
for

number

be

respectively,
deck

user.

accommodated,
(5.14,5.15)
Eq.
The

for

approximation

taking

into

stacking.
ROWS and
number

TIERB

of

ROWS x
fed

containers

of

TIERB

in

TIERB
The

chosen.
10

and

5 to

number

to

assumed
to

of

The

9.

of

containers

that,

325

lost

due

be

be

is

estimated

to

hull

5.4.

CNT

assumed

containers
(BAYS)
bays

values.
input

as

ROWS x

the
possible,
most
economic
one is
(ROWS) can be
6 to
of rows
from
varied
(TIERB)
deck
under
from
can be varied
(TIERA)
initially
of tiers
on deck
are

CNT Eq.

lines

ship's

are

number

calculates

speed.

program
by

13.6

in

shown

For

(ROWS)

allowances
(35)
Gilfillan

and

the

good

and
(TIERB)

deck

height,

Watson

vertical

accurately.

recourse

depth

given

Fig.

and

the

as

in

distribution

a precise

fairly

gives

athwartships

appropriate

account

tiers

form

gravity.

below

bottom

number

and

estimated

standard

long

adopted

also

of

of

tiers

containers

values

the

suit

distribution

estimated

without

ship

container

Further

are

stage

as

procedure

centre

For

If

to

prepared

container

required

can

accurately

data

for

design

distribution

fairly

of

not

gravity

container

In

the

preliminary

Therefore

in

BSRA,

or

containers

Fig.

Otherwise

is

form

103).

centre

of

hull

propulsion

(176).

However

the

best

and

estimated

of

the

speed

geometrically
e. g.

Therefore

shape

by

4.

I
1
1

0
0
N
I'1

II

II1

a
o

II

10 _H

II
"1

"I

I
I

III

I
i

II
1a
"
Ia
I1
1" ol
1 .I 1

I
"
.:

i
i

6D

aN
m
'd
r4
E ,+)
iw

0o
4-1
b

A
4.) 40
a

vx U
bO
10

I-

01

, - "

A
-r4
g +)
bD
/" 4g

0
F+ F+
m
3
0

t-,

O"I

,4o

,H

n
N

i
i

mm
10_H
E

i
i
i
I

4-3 b

"

1
II

II

i-)

krl%

w
1on
.

10

-i

a1
mm
b
4.)
E
!1w

xz

Ir

,i

00
I;

; ' o
Xz

,iE
-H
r-i

o
ati
a
C)
u1

4. i
r. 4

uu
q

-7

o
aN
mm

tko
a

E
4.4
0
, -i
"

,i0

xz

o c+

O
Lrl%
H

,. o
*0

W1

.
y'1
d0

0
0
0 r-I

o0

'-I

0
0

Lrn

r-4
"m UT

326

apFs

jo

qjdaQ

,-

11 U

40+

O
0
cv

ao

d
0
Q.:

I
I
o.

i
i

10

"

"p
O"
'"O_

Qt

i"
III

a1

a.

I"I
1

"I

a"

"I

0':

co

I"I"I

"I

'

"

"I

I
\

cI.

4-1
.
U

Id

p-p-

::
Ii
i
i

'd
Cd to

Q1

11

i
i

I
SV

nn

11

f,

CD

_i

.I
a
1

P
40 4)

O
U

ll
cn
ri

%0

h
1' S

40
f,

-IiIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIi
0

CV
n r
N
01

cn

it',

cv

CY
'm UT PaPTTOm qZPBesg

321

kn

F-4

00
OA
c 79

.a0,

cr1

sy
0

=6

Q
aZ

'/

+'

/X

x
00

aN
0
45
pg ed

"

...

0
0
0
r-4

V
0

.d4

mD
O

0
0
0
N

4-4 o

J
`U

O
0
0
CO)

U p,
"i

TJ

/\

,,
\.

41
ir
'd

+
"i

Op
O

O
U
4

ti

c'1

00
,a
N

'K

F4
m
A

\/

1I 0N0W
IIIIIIIIIIII

II

II *% I1
H0

94oa71

UT paed ,0-`OaTA. ia"

328-

\'

Q
-A

11

lori

(i)

The

integer

tier
(ii)

1,

The

2,

The

(iv)

3.

part

NLOST

integer

The

lost

results
first

in

not

to

26% of

lost

containers

is

from

of

20% of

lost

containers

is

from

of

remaining

lost

remaining

upper

number

validated

of

containers

in

shown

some

Table

the

actual

13.5.

it

are

tiers.

with

agreement,

is

good

vertical

container

Though

the

enough

as

centre

of

containers.

is

approach

by

given
in

containers

Volker
tier

one

(61).

et al.
(NCONT)

is

assumed

in

one

be
NCONT(one

The
To

of

determine

loaded

A simpler
The

from

is

to

the

of

is

close

approximation

gravity

containers

was
and

are

lost

from

assumption

distribution

ship

of

3.

part

uniformly
This

30%

NLOST2.

integer

tier

of

NLOST1.

integer-part

tier
(iii)

part

tier)

equation

gives

the

deck,

movement
in

containers

weight

average

high

very

the

determine

Teu

=LxBx0.0352

of

each

values

of

of

containers

containers

bay

above

tier

per

container

and

is

in

below

and

are

multiplied

its

distance

bay.

by
from

the
the

keel.
The

whole
in

carried

out

briefly

here.

between

the

of

problem

becomes

one
to

added

which
limits

limitations

estimating

of

iterative

largely

the

the

requirements
be

would
by
set
(36).

able
allow
the
Thus

to

are

function

hull

deadweight
maximise

329

of

then

containers

the
be

number

the

with
of

shortened

requirements
number

are
the

until

A ship

met.

to

dimensions.

capacity

which

centre

hull

principal

stowage

increase

the

to

and

in
deck

described

and

metacentre

the

is

and

difference

container

procedure

the

a
from

from

subtracted

is

the

of

established

of

would

stability

the

be

STABIL

height

is

metacentre
can

Appendix

subprogram

location

stability

minimum

tiers,

or

shown

metacentric

vertical

and

geometry

subroutine
The

The

mass.

The

procedure

maximum

container
within

or
of

draft
containers

that

be

could

maximised
(i)

carried

impairing

without

The

moment

(Section

items

(see

(ii)

the

vertical

FMFB
for

weight

(iii)

and

Moment

weights

(iv)

and

(v)

Moment

of

centre

weights

(vi)
Total

of

Appendix

the

double

bottom

(FMFB)

tonnes

Eq.

(13.14)

Eq.

(13.15)

Eq.

(13.16)

Eq.

(13.17)

WFD

required
*

Section

see

FKGBAL

gravity

If

NPLAY
NPLAY

lost

m. tonnes
Section

see

each
4,

tier
If

is

NPLAY

not
the

represents
tier(TIERS)
NLOST4

tier

and
is

given

NLOST4

of

= NLOST1

deck

is

lost

from

tiers

+ NLOST2

number

N123

follows:

three

i.

(TIERS-i),
the

of

lost

containers

by
+ NREM -

330

number

of

containers

e.
tier(TIERS)

integer

containers

NREMV
TIERS-3
the

tiers,

remaining

of

= NPLAY

as
to

one

+ NLOST

represents

tier
......
an integer,
number

calculated

chart)

it

the

tonnes

Section.

see

below

the

13.2.2-5-

m.

gravity

containers

flow

WTLT

of

= NCLOST
is
an integer,

from

8.2.3.

weight

centre

2 for

tonnes

m.

if

8.2-3-

(FMFD)

tank

NREM
Let

miscellaneous

Section

see

gravity

= FKGLTW

N123
(See

of

in.

of

containers

of

number

of

lightship

and

Moment

(13.13)

Eq.

gravity

settler

= BALAST

centre

FML
for

(WTMISC)

tonnes

m.

WFB

in

= FKGFD

FMBAL
weight

qualities.

of

gravity

oil

ballast

of

be

must

weights

WTMISC

in

of

the

of

for

fuel

oil

centre

and

Moment

operational

miscellaneous

centre

= FKGFB

FMFD
for

moment

8.2.2).

the

of

ship's

of

= FKGMX x

Section

Moment

deadweight

is$

FMMISC
FKGMX

the
the

contribution

8.2.2

where

deck

on

NREMA

part

of

NPLAY

from

tier

5,

lost

from

tier

tier
4,

NREMA is

where
NREMV.
is

The

now

The

the

number

ROWS x

BAYS

NLOST1

CONT2

ROWS x

BAYS

NLOST2

CONT3

ROWS x

BAYS

NLOST3

CONT4

ROWS x

BAYS

NLOST4

layers

is

the

number

as

CTDCKC.

in

= CONT1
= CNT number

of

the

assumed

the

number

of

difference

the

assumed

per

them

is

less

If

the

deck

of

number

of

tier

by.

given

TIERS-4)

13.11)

by

given

deck

containers

is

five

CTDCKA,

the

until

less

greater

CTDCKA,

of

number

than

is

increased

calculated

less

termed

is

the

is

against

containers

the

then
until

deck

than

difference

containers

anc

five.
containers
between

containers.
in

containers

and

4th

the

tier

are

greater

tiers,

subsequent

is

CONT1

+ CONT2

+ CONT3

+ CONT4

= CONT1

+ CONT2

+ CONT3

+ CONT4B

then

checked

Eq.

layer

per

decreased

5th

by

containers

lost

CTDCKC

the

is

number

of

the

than

is

+ CONT4

containers

calculated

is

deck

capacity

container

in

containers

+ CONT3

calculated

of

in

- NPLAY
hold
and

containers

layer

lost

TIERS)

CTHLDA

number
if

BAYS

+ CONT2

between

Similarly

number

the

of

the

CTDCKC

the

the

containers

than

CTHLDC

ROWS x

containers

assumed

I=1,

by

CTDCKA

containers

of

given

CTHLDA

by

multiplied

follows:

of

If

containers

as

CONT

This

of NPLAY
(CONT(I),

part

CONT1

TIERS

Number

of

determined

remaining

to

integer

the

+ CONT

than

the

hold

x (TIERS-4)

otherwise
CTHLDC
where

containers

given

by
CONT4B

The

lever

arm

in

for

the

subsequent

CONTO + CONT x
(TIERB
-3
first

tier

of

331

tiers

TIERE

containers

x (TIERS
- 3.0)
4, to TIERB
is

-4
is

ARM1

BASE

assumed

in

levers,

ARMI

height,

Eq.

CH/2.

the

The

moment

of

of

Moment
The

containers

lever

arm

ARMA
where

container

tiers

of

= Depth
Height

The

arm

(ARMI)

tonnes

is

FMC
The

deck.

is

(5.8)

is

then

weight

of

each

and

the

total

the

summation

m.

(CMB)

is

container

of

CH is

the

of

(D)

and

M.
TIERA

m;
BASEA

is

= number

of

by

given

(Section
5.3(d))
+ Camber
(Section
5.3(e))
coaming
+

hatch

(Table

cover

5.4,

to

assumed

be

M.

containers

the

deck

above
X CTDCKC

moment

of

sum of
(CMA).

of

(CMA)

X WEC

containers
below

moment

= CMA + CMB

centre

gravity

of

the

is

tonnes
above
deck

tonnes

m.

and below
(CMB)
and

the

Eq. (13.18)

in.
ship

the

(FKG)

in

the

loaded

is
13.17)

+ FMC(Eq.

+ FMFB(Eq.

13.14)

buoyancy

above

of

2.4384

deck

hatch

of

CH)

(TIERA2x

side

by

given

above

condition

centre

above

= BASEA

KG = FML(Eq.

the

deck

(ARMA)

deck

above

departure

below

tier

each

(CONTI)

at

total

(FMC)

(viii)

in

layer

CMA = ARMA

moment

bottom

Eq.

mm)

of

moment

deck

thickness,

each

containers

500

(vii)

double

mm).

height

Depth

The

BASE

subsequent

moments.

of

BASEA

the

and

and

strake

containers

containers

these

all

m.

m.

Centre

(25

CMBT = container
(WEC) x the
lever
moment

2.4384

height,

container

2.4384

as

= ARM1
(5.7)
+

CH

where

program

thickness

doubler

m,

+ FMMISC(Eq.

+ FMFD(Eq. 13.15)
the

keel

transverse
from
the
metacenter
of the
(BMT)
by (86,177,120).
is approximated

332

13.18)

(KB)
centre

13.13)

+ FMBAL(Eq. 13.16)
Eq. (13.19)

and
of

the

distance

buoyancy

KB

1.0

+ 2.0

Cb

1.0

+ 5.0

Cb

BMT = KT

and

T=

where

B2
T

twin

gives

the

Validity

the

equations

< Cm < 0.98;

0.92
In

this

0.63

KMT
If

the

the

of

number

the

of

value

KG

of

value

The

greater

containers

on

KG

less

The

required
is

which

fed

iterative
on

are

the

calculated

the

total

container

The

distribution,
*The

loaded
required

data

of

KMT calculated

by

GMT is

one

and

until

the

then

given

by

m.

with

GMT.

An

number

of

containers

one

the

until

height
This

GMr

then

and

gives
in

ship

container

(13.23)

height*GMr,

compared
the

by

Eq.

metacentric

0.02

(13.22)

Eq.
of

metacentric

than

KMT is

KMT.

decremented

less

keel

M.

is

BMT

and

above

2)

whereby

required

KB

than

used.

value

height

capacity

us

the

condition.

data,

for

some

the

which

hydrostatic

departure
value

STABIL

subprogram

subroutine

ship

actual

cases

GMT is

departure

loaded

the

less

decreased

of

input

or

were

< 0.85

of

Appendix

an

incremented

the

value

followed

Volker

< Cb

be

not

load

(61).

coefficient

is

in

between

difference

deck

the

than

and

0.63

analysis

Volker

equations

than

of

is

form

screw

m.

value
as

(13.21)

regression

metacentre

KMT - KG
the
transverse

procedure

deck

Erichsen

could

metacentric

GMT_

by

(see

than

transverse

given

the

recalculated

is

Eq.
the

of

other

+ BMT

KG is

of

value

(13.20)

single

by

are

transverse

= KB

on

drafts

block

of

Volker

the

of

based

< 0.78;

ships

or

height

The

Cp

<

therefore

Erichsen

be

may

for

At

BMT

and

0.68

considered

either

BMT

and
(85).

given

however,

study

were

of

KB

of

KT

and

relationships

KB

of

values

m.

Eq.

Cw + 0.13)2/CB.

Comstock

of

of

in

separate

ships

charts

draft,

draft

= Cw(0.17

screw

data

of

load

KT

(39)

Erichsen
and

Mo

design
or

xTm.

GMT

is

333

validated
data,

operational
particulars

condition
of

was

were
denoted

and
available.
by

GMr

with

some

container
in

few

The

program

results
assuming

in

on

limiting

deck

no

deck

valid

It

space

capacity

the

maximum
in

whereas

stability

the

and

comparison

slot

the

program
deck

available

be

could

difficult

operational

deck

really

of
was

since
the

is

the

values

made

the

with

capacity.

Initial

13.2.2.1.
As

because

of

ships

damaging

container

two

requirements

tanks

and

stabilisers

with

out

that

the

design

stability

it

stage
is

provided.

analysis

of

existing

at

to

or

to

assume

by

filling

the

that

the
was
be

will

container
design

than

0.025

an

adequate

the

met
case

should

vessel.

It

Taggert

334

a
lest

unloaded

use

of

active

m,

stabilisers

passive
is

water
was

also

used

and

a GMT/B
ensured

double

suggests

value

GMT can

an

upon

service

and

at

ballast

sufficient
(27), based

stage

to-

pointed

problem

in

ballast

ships

0.9

now

ballast

have

container

ships,

be

period

the

operational
if

exposed

(39,58).

but

ballast

operational

segregated

or

m to

the

be

must

without

of 0.3
(178,13),

an

they

of

the

rolling

structure

adequate

Indeed

preliminary

greater

case

stowage

capacity

that

a
of

selected

In

height

such

cell

operation

would

loaded

be

necessary

In

time

the

at
GM values

Since

the

case

same

the

high
in

these

being

cannot
(39).

not

fitted.
the

in

to

load.

in

the

when

metacentric
are

stabilisers

At

loading

periods

load

forces

stuck

get

These

improve

deck

GM value

high

be

rolling

high

containerships

lead

may

container

(39).

short

reasonably

sailing

short

acceleration

too

became

of

carry

13.2
container

however

non-homogeneous

container

the

This

consequence

Section

homogeneous

with

stage.

the

in

earlier

designed

preliminary
with

stability

mentioned
be

should

may

Also

was

13.6,

The

m.

capacity

journals

criteria

Table

results.

container

available

Therefore

space.

0.15

of

reasonable

trade

in

shown

available.

the

based

capacity

to

total
fully

not

mentioned

the

gave

the

were

are

GM value

capacity

validate

data

data

actual

initial

an
deck

under
to

the

and

of

equal

it

is

be

maintained

bottom

reasonable

tanks

as

Ln
>4
aV
''1
Ln
41
1-1

In

41

m1

N
}I

co
-4

54

0
a)
N

4,0 N
O 'W

Ql

lD

Ln
H

H
r
M
H

m
C!'
co

r-1

In

P4

Ln

a)

_-

C14

O
N
O

v'

r-1
N
lo

M
d

. --I

r-I

rO

v'
rH

v'
H

rH

vN

d'

In

r
d'

In
N
N

v'

Ln

N
Lo

v
r1
r

a)

OD
0

LD

Ln

r-i

O
H
r-1

co

r-1

LV

H
H
al

H O
r
H
a) r
r-1

v'
lo
H

In

Ln O Ln

r
CN,

%0

co

_T T _

lD

r
M
N

Ln

In
In

(" )
-a rn

v'

M r
r-1 N
M N
co Cl)
In CO

w CDIn

r-1 r-I

0
vi

00

X
tn
"
Ln r
0

?d

v
H

U
41

.
U)
'

Ln
1`I

In

In

N
k

co

m
In
N

H
f1

L,0

a)

co

r-1

E.,

+
01
id
a
ro
r.
(s
to

AI

p
A

N
M

N
N

N
CN

H
M

OD

O
CD

O
a)
H

In
H

M
N

rM
In
H

a)

L,0

In

v'

co

L,
0

a)

r
r

Ln

f^M

O
N

l0

V'

1-41
41

Ly

r)

Ln

Fa

H
N

4;

M.
.

0
UaA

mil
M
N

r1

N
115
.

OD

_N4

41
Gx

In

l0
H

aa
H

vN
M

LA

In

N
.
v

L0
p)
v

co

co

r
r

L,0

0
0

M
H

41
V
O

, -1
A
a

U RC A

r{

Ln

1j
r
.
OO
UAA

xU

t0

co

4-)

r"

4.0

o
H

lfl

O
lD

v'

O
v

Ln

(N
o

o
O

CO
O
N

O
CO N

N
N

CO o
CO V Co
lD r
0

O
CO
H

L,D
r-I
N

v'
H

r-1

In

L,D
H

O
H
H

O
O

U)

O v'
v' H

In

O
r

N
m

U
x0

k-0 O
Co l0
r M

v'

N
U)

v'
(N

I'D N
l0

0
N

U)

4
v

"rl
4-)

4-)
b
w

a)

O
Ln
co aD
v N

+J

00

H
N

Ln
H

Ln
fV

o
O

o
l0

0
O

r-1 O O
o o r

rIn

"
(V
a)

v'
0

CO N

M
f" )
H

..
v

. -.
M

..
v

. -.
N.
.

O
M

In

Ln
N

k0

a)

O
O

O
O

O
lD

r-1

In

..
v

lo

..
O

In

d'

O
H

a)

a)
N

r
N

a)
M

N
H

l0

v
L,0

L,0

'd

0
L,
0

N
O

l0

In
(T)
H
N

O
(14
a)

v'
r
r

CO
H

co

l0

In

In

r)

N
H

v
v'
H

l0

%D

N
v'

.
M
v

l0

a)

..
N

V'

a)

O
r

LD

L.0

v'
N

co

(N

CO

In

V/

O1
r

In

H
l0

N
H

In

rH

U)

CD

In
In

O
19

In

In

i. f)

OD

a)

Ln
COC1 O)

$4
0

CO .--I V' ;r O
v O v' r-1 Ln
r lD LD H U)
l0 d' L,0 00 (" )

ff)

In a)
H
H CV r-1

l0
H

o r
a)
co
H
N

In

M
O

l0

In
r

In
r-1
N

In

In

N
H

a)

r-1

l0

kD ra)

O
rH

In

O
LD

a: r
"a w
rn
vo

r-1
M

O
O

0
H

r-I
H

w
H
M

Cl) M

H
r-1 N

In
N

co co

O
d'
H

O
O

li

v'
In
H

O
v
N

CO

CO H

a1

L9
qQ,

O) LD

a) O
H O
-4 Ln

0
H

l0

54

H
(3)

lD

U)

r
r

tn

In

H
N

Ln
r

r
M
a)
N

d'

O Q

Q.
N

H
H

In

v
H

(N

L`')
In

"

0
O

O
L,D

LA

CO

I
4
0
-
ro
I
0
U

O
CO

v(N

Ln

v
r

In

L,D

O
In

+1
fN

N
.
rf

H
tn

C1)

r
Cl)
N
I

v'

rv'

O
O
v'

a)

tD

l0

t0

Ln

rN

In
co

M
a)
In

N
LD
LD

cM
l0

U)

IV

N
w
H

CO
d' rv'

Ln
W

co

a)
H

U)

H
lD

"ri

0
M
0)

4J
r
O.

a itxA$
Q

UE

-1

J-L " iO
1~ x0

() -to
UEw

d'
al
r

a)
H

co

a)

Lo

In
CO

H
r

LD
C'4

v'
a)

O
O

OD

Ln
CO

In

a)
N

v'

(3)

co
LD

O
N

H
N

r
r

O
N

co
H

a)

N
r-1

v'
U1

a)

a)

In

rO

M
M

(3)

(3)

In)
a
v '
4

v'
Ln
a) N

O
N

o
N
p

'7
.

Z
,

ac
El)

r7

C7

4
.H

w
1=1

E-4

w
w

Ly

L0

N
fn

wk

w
cn
a)

Ix

>4

+ A >

U)

U)

a
H

w
v)

E/)

RAC

C/)

U)

E0

7+

N z a
H

H
H

Q
1

H
w

t+

r"]

l0

CQ

Q" Q

J
r)

335

bunkers

are
0.02

of

value
to

0.04

The
fraction

with

designer

can

input

the

the

breadth

of

thesis

are

requirements

of

the

In

moments
a

relatively

caused

by

range

wide

60

freeboard

large

to

vessel

as

GMr

studies

0.03.
by

safety

constant
heel

made.

An

allowance

of

angle

when

the

values

of

GM

Taking

these

initial

as

GMTwas

stipulated.

cm

in

GMT

wind
on
shows

Beaufort

12

in

container

account

that

their

of

even

weather

large

and

pressure,

stability
(173)

values

with

a
the

conditions

containership

will

the

allow

survive.

is

stability
CROSSC.

Majewski

(179)

subprogram
and

KN
W=

the

On the

basis

(179),

Kupras
following

main

mean
of

the
(48)

the

subroutine

in

given

by

developed

equations
the

form

diagrams

of

KN.
lever

is

expressed

as

function

particulars,

function(B,

6=

sin

linear

of
are

force

in

calculated

lever

displacement
ship's

set

force

displacement
The

be

small

of

present

Statical

Kupras

the

adequate

such

lateral

Albert

GM of

negative

the

the

freeboard.

large

of

values;

stability

of

have

of

governed

a higher

consideration

spite

heeling

where

solely

must

value

of

of

by

GMT/B

a GMr/B

since

unloading

Statical

13.2.2.2.

the

with

requirements,

and

into

factors

of

out

value

given

Most

a lateral
wind
and the
angle
(172),
turning
and also
reasonable

loading

while

for

ship.

GM/B

minimum

following

required

capsizing,

against

the

the

not

data

in

is

ships

GMT is

operational

heel

ship

carried

minimum

acceptable

for

had

one

of

this

in

(61)

a
a higher

suggests
ship

0.019.

and

suggests

container

Volker

and

0.012

ships

three

The

(39)

Erichsen

(58)

Scott

whereas

0.05.

(39)

Erichsen

consumed.

sheer,

(sheer

diagrams
carried

relationship

T, D, W, Cb)
+

aft

by

published
out

regression

between

336

the

sheer
Kupras
analysis

displacement

'ford)/2.
and

Majewski

and
force

lever

the

ship's

Fig.

and
(A))-

KN'g

= KN

sing

main

particulars

(A11+Ab

was

+ A31

D
XBX

A41

(see

suggested

A51
xB
20

KN'9

= 1.025(A1

+ A2

Cb

W
B +Ax

+ A3

X T)
(Eq.

m.

D
B)
A5 x
B +
Tx

13.21 4)

B
20

m.

(Eq.
The
13.7.
of

sets

Once
heel

of
the

are

values

draft),
but

ships

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

with

in

than

0.055

metre

Maximum

GZ

Area

under

the

0.09

metre

radians.

Area

under

the

0.03

Initial

GMT should

13.2.2.3.

Influence

deck
but
form

decrease
the
of

the

curve,

angles

(design

draft

with

to

than
300

parabolic

sheer

stability
(49).
Rules
300

between

were

should

be

m.

should

greater

300

be

less

be

greater

40

and

than

should

an

0.15

than

be

m.

violated

are

out

the

error

message.

draft

is

program

draft
design

Type-B

higher

see

and

radians.

ship

weight

0.20

40should

to

up

printing

minimum

average

various

Eq.

load

Line

00

constraints

of

with

at

Table

in.

statical

Load

than

not

container
by

form

from

metre

these
by

GZ

full

for

more

curve

than

this

for

greater

curve

greater

indicates

KG Sin

the

be

angle

of

known

in

given

radians.

at

any

are

included.

not

GZ curve

should

an

A5

are

60, hu11

with

occur

permissible

only

accordance
the

the

valid

conditions

under

As

KNe -

are

Area

If

series

following

checked
(a)

is

superstructures
The

to

by

calculated

(13.25)

KN'Q

of

GZ
Equation

A1

coefficients

13.25)

freeboard,

draft
each

of
Fig.

337

13.8,

for

the
the

same

than

similar

that

containers
initial

to

on
GM. r

increases.

container
is

less

The
the

one

(13.26)

TABLE

13.7.

Values

coefficients

e
in
legrees

`1

A2

A3

10

0. oo4

2.5

0.1333

5.0

0.1

0.6467

7.3

0.65

9.25

1.1

20

30
40
50
6o

-2.815

-0.2

1.1333

-3.0325

-0.3

1.6

10.375

1.23

-2.4045

-0.5

2.0

11.125

1.036

0.671

1.35

-0.004

0.1333

4.625

-2.192

-0.1

0.6467

8.25

0.1
0.65

-3.83

-0.2

1.1333

11.00

1.1

-4.1925

-0.3

1.6

12.375

1.23

-3.492

-0.5

2.0

13.000

1.036

,
n

60

0.0876

10

1.043

0.75

-0.004

20

1.3385

0.1333

2.325

0.1

-0.301

-0.1

0.6467

5.2

0.65

-2.28

-0.2

1.1333

8.5

1.1

-2.5525

-0.3

1.6

10.375

1.23

-2.407

-0.5

2.0

11.25

1.036

30

40

A\

50

6o

Base

-o. 004

-1.641

50

A5

0.1

40

A4

-0.305

10
30

various

00

20

at

angles.

of

line

J
= KN9sin

Fig.

A
338

4-:
7)1
d

r4

t-

r-4
A
4

0
0

rn

d
4

.O

6d
r4

bna
rq
. ..

O 'd
a

O
h
h
N

ge

,A

o%
bri
O

,{

IN

w
'C

0
0
rN

O
i

vy'1

a"

00
,a
N

1
43

t!

0
r

ao

.
40
V4

1-1

Iii

0
14
r-I

0
A
r-i

N
r-i

"

IIT

(PePUaT)

339

ii*xQ
I

0
0
N
-4

0
H

in

shown
the

as

Fig.

13.2.

draft

thereby

decreases,

improving
by

Therefore
containers
each

the

be

0.15

the

GZ

the

freeboard

increases

GZ

(Fig.

under

the

draft

but

loaded

Influence

curve

curve

higher

lower

with

increases

also

13.9).

number

deck

of

average

weight

of

The

0.45

m.
more

is

of

or

less

the

However

of

the

same

As

average

ship

increasing
the

larger,

to

the

beam.

beam

is

transverse

Since

disposition

of

of

ballast

at

as

have

2i

is

in

Fig.

corresponding

to

average
draft

ballast.

340

32.26

to
lower

displacement

the
by

hull

ballast

its

container
of

centre
adding

(39)
for

with

compared

the

by

Erichsen

weight

m.

of-the
the
improve

achieved

spaces.

13.8,

of

a function
way

be

becomes

transiting

ships

governed

GMT is

of

by
ship

beam

only

stability

height

example,

is

can

the

container

largely

the

considerably
the

the

gravity

This

improving

of

limiting

bottom

of

However

capacity.
less

shown

increase

can

ship

double

weight
As

ships.

the

corresponding

GMT.

for

ship.

decrease

at

metacentric

However,

height

the

to

draft.

container

way

the

weights,

metacentric

to

one

of

m.

ballast

adding

centre

transverse

ballast

in

the

0.30

this

in

each

increase

Canal

the

of

gravity

of

initial
and

from

and

variation

metacentre
the

and

geometry

m.

from

m.

the

decreases

0.30

restricted,

Panama

As

Moreover,

with

increase

0.45

and

13.8.

magnitude.

of

m.

Fig.

to

m.

earlier,

was

the

through

0.15

with

0.30

capacity

weight

mentioned

the

of

in

shown

constant

Influence

13.2.2.5.

to

container

GMT

increases

draft

is
the

with

increased

was

effect

increased

decrease

GMT

of

GMT

m.

GMris

is

area

the

container.

Initial

under
because

decreasing

can

13.2.2.4.

is

Area

suggests

container
containercarrying

each
to

container
ship

without


O0
. -i
.
MN

HH

tH
r1

"
N1
.4

"/.

' i '
0

0
0
0

00
0
b

0
0
A

0
0

.0
O
V
-P
0

A
r4

13.3.

SEAKEEPING
Seakeeping

is
design

preliminary
seakeeping

of

that

important.
to
well

to

severe

Todd-60

of

influence

descending
the

on

(b)

Length.

(e)

coefficient.

incorporating
their
the

form

the

program

are
For

simpler

and

the

special
The

waves.

m and
heading

does

not

for

require

and

large

of

such

sea

well

models
and

states
hull

as

heading.
but

The
input

to

the
the

loss

in

known

are

programs

on

to

of

alternative

are

limited.
(182)

Aertssen

between
is

speed

gives
in

loss

percentage

relation

the

at

wind

expressed

as
Eq.

percent.

(13.27)

BP
values

severity

knowledge

the

numbers

stage

coefficients,
the

the

along
computer

ship's

0v
=L+n

Block

extensive

as

dimensions

emphasis

are

and

of

(d)

effort.

predicting

percentage

data

of

major

shape.

available

design

preliminary

equation

with

the

use

possible,

100
where

stage

quite

and

readily

principal

design

preliminary

speed

the

only

routes

in
forms

had

These
are

following

buoyancy

occurrence

considerable

requires

Since

designs

is

information

input

their

intended

particulars,
state

gyration.

criteria

of

probability

sea

of

used

hull

the

of

due

qualities

section

centre

detailed

requires

have

qualities.

Radius

waves

(181)

seakeeping
(c)
Forebody
of

reduction

ship

that

the

were

Captain

importance

seakeeping

use

(181)

to

come

the

of

Position
(f)

length.

ship's

Speed.

by

varied

order

ship's

and

seakeeping

systematically

effect

constraints

& Huijser
the

the

had

speed

wind

the

studied

and

the

reductions

found

in

slamming

by

determine

They

in

design,

Beukelman

series.

parameters

and

speed

to

waves

ship

caused

voluntary

'TRIAL'

head

Swift

consideration
(55)
had

wetness
and
(180)
considers

motions.

program

(a)

deck

resistance

as

as

the

container

Journee
added

important

stage.

on

conclusion

due

an

of
of

the

342

the

of

Though

sea.
hull

which

form

it

depend
this
assumes

on
equation

that

the

frequency

are

known.

And

frequency
may

be

the

the

of

not

of

occurrence

results

are

various

sea

to

possible

the

of

various

reliable

states

predict

if

only

the

states

the

(182),

known

are

at

sea

which
design

preliminary

stage.
Babbage

(183)

used

for

the

preliminary

data

are

available.
known

usually
N

The

and

curve
the

loss

The

speed

set

the

is

best

which

no

power

is

voyage
is

A coefficient
this

of

be

curve

stage.

shape
dV
.p

speed
to

used

power
predict

ship

dimensions.

was

concerned

it

was

motions.
and

not

heave

characteristics
(184)
and Kupras

Baxter
following

was

for

expressions

Pitch

and

2.0069

xBx

(Cb

it

far

as

would

for

any

any

essential

only

seakeeping
between

rise

to

maximum

that

at

least

roll,

examined.
(185)
have

Lamb

be

should

approach

using

coupling

give

& de

simple

as

Zwaan

the

calculating

used

natural

periods

Heave.
((0.13
T)

+ 0.2)(2.2

(Cb

(1

(c

x
-

Cb)

(D/B)2)

1.1

b+0.2)

)/GMT)

1/2

Eq.
TPitch-

(1)

(T

Cb x

(0.6

+ 0.36

(T)))1/2

THeave-

2.0069((T

data.

of

coupling

that

And

be

their

Therefore

heaving

this

to

set

on

be

can

this

seem
and

analysis

therefore

for

only

understood

or

regression

and

motions

principal

pitching

by

ships)

Eq. (13.28)

knots

0.03

derived

does

the

rolling,

value

there

considers

can

by

given

was
(8

data

Unfortunately,

TRoll

speed

design
the

NXLBPO'63

of

as

Roll,

for

ships

the

of

N=

as

V)

equation

regarded

of

form

describes

speed;
(A
loss

limited

the

of

which

in

above

pitch
(105,

equation

preliminary

expressed

nV

which

the

at

another
design

completely

which

The

proposes

secs.
(13.29

secs.

Eq. (13.30)
x

Cb x

(0.333

11

+ 1.2))/C

W)1/2

secs.
Eq.

343

(13.31)

In

to

order

Troll

ratios

to

equal

in

the

was
The

PARAMETRIC
Early

few

graphically

to

Mack-Forlist

With
a greater

methods.

design

techniques
Taylor

designs

to

was

the

not

that

better
The

designs
means

statements
feasible

factor

of
of

(190),

is

by
of

systematic

group
and

of

The

constraints

or

as

constraints

would

the

possible

constraints

are

Murphy,

344

economic

number

of

interesting

one

to

do

use

of

subroutines

complex

away

with
which

relationships.

large

designs
solved

number

in
either
Solving

larger

feasible

advancement

the

the

the

designs

the

manual

Sabat

where

possible

constraints.
require

the

of

by

study

earlier

independent
of the
(191)
FORTRAN,
with

loops

inequality

to

on

more

for

usually

by

tasks

generating

nested

possible

A more

variation

searching

space.

to

and
economics.

ability

extended

with

for

method

a few

allowed
due

ships,

the

done

ore

carriers

approaches,

100.

Benford

ocean

replications
was

the

ore-carrier

was

manual

computers

results
usual

examining

ore

bulk

came

Earlier

equations

approximating

on

e. g.

iron

for

first

examining
(189)
approach
a

the

plotted

for

for

Lakes

computers

repetition

but

computer

(187)

than

the

results

(62)

computers,

of

on
(189).

1024

in

interest,

of

design,

1958

to

aided

computer

criteria

based

the

optimum

designs

One

limited

was

study

equal

I)

range
and

Great

of

of

1965

be

not

out

were

1966(188)
for

advent

manual

be

seakeeping

MODEL

the

1962

al.

Hettena.

number

carried

over

Benford

(154)

the

is

design

the

at

et

1967

ship

manually

tankers,

and

Krappinger

by

done

Benford

carriers,

gave

to

arrive

for

as

(COMPUTER

ships

being

should

the

SEAKEP.

hypothetical

1957

calculation

approaches

(186)

assumed

METHOD

calculation

/Theave

Tpitch

ratio

subprogram

13.4.

extreme
coupled
motions,
/Theave
Troll
should
never

and

the

and

program.

subroutine

and

such

(105,184,185)

to

prevent
/Tpitch

number

of
variables
'DO'

a predefined
as
of
of

equality
equality
iterations,

these

therefore
Such
of

procedures
dry

cargo

tankers,

Cameron

spite

method

parametric

because

in
the

for

algorithms
of
the
In

four,

these
design
the

and

manually
criterion,

two

in

designer

The
to

locate
here

computer

model

technique

to

the

in

chosen
designated

arrive

at

independent

phase

the

MODEL

optimum

345

number

total

of

of

design.

the

models,
of

the

of

feasible

henceforth

designs
on

Freight

Out

phase

various

an

Rate.

and

is

economic
The

the

utilises

design

of
stage.

ships.

numbers

based

II

only

design

variation

design

Required

large

computer

large

scans

than

computer

probablistic

generate

rather

the

deterministic

parametric

At

interested

container

these

freight

more

building

the

as
the

of

is
the

of

preliminary

four

of

the

possible.

the

of

in

optimum
as

is

optimum

the

one

techniques

required

with

step

in

then
the

graphically

This

RFR are

because

used

to

variables

analytical

region

a designer

design

uses

the

minimum

first

the

or

procedure

designs

around

phase,

MODEL

as

independent
designs.

are

Research

constraints

attraction.
in

of

mainly

two

Ship

optimization

search
its

used

deterministic

designated

the

the

preliminary

tankers

displayed

and

of

containing

programs,

to

and

optima.

stage

the

ships
1977

graphical

laxity

to

is

was

by

numbers

equations
this

found

lost

region

This

approximating

of

flat

close

the

optimum.

suite

the

design

examining

Therefore

not

large

preliminary

for

automate

has

of

where
optimum,
(RFR)
very
rate
the

to

one

contours

introduction

the

of

level

methods

oil

Drummond

(120)
British

by

the

near

(193);

and

1978

Kuniyasu

container

the

these

all

region

allows

mainly

is

by

1969

Eames

Validakis

function

the

by

carrier

1965;

carriers

and

design

to

Taylor,

and

liners

warships

constraints.

applied

Gilfillan

cargo

Equal

in

In

by

by

inequality

combination

carriers

products

interpolation

two

Sabat

and

(195).

show

Murphy,

(86);

and

objective

which

by

cargo

Association

to

successfully

1970

crude

and

been

carriers,

general

both

have

bulk
bulk

(194);

by

carriers

(192);

tankers,
by

replaced

ships

bulk

1968

are

second

optimization
described

more

fully

used

in

in
the

MODEL

and

Section

and

MODEL

Fig.

It

involves

following

the

generation

designer

L,

to

(b)

The

number

(c)

Maximum

(d)

The

step

and

T=0.5

of

be

restrict

enable

region

block

specify

or

or

the

a
the

of

optimum

coefficient,

L/D,

B/T,

m,

B=0.5

=1.0

decreased,

or

constraints

draft

of

L/B

and

ratios.
D=0.4

m,

field

blade

(d)

The

calculated

had

m.

is
lies

ratio

of

limits

the

of

a tolerance

program

generates

weight/container

from

increased

or

specified

weight

Cb

the

design

of

ships

8 tons

to

20

346

each

are

Bp-b

chart.

1.05.

and

with

tons.

narrow
container.

not

V/JL.

and

container
1%
was

of

to

the

carrying

required

decreased

Cb

within

container

0.5

in

V/jL

and

0.45

the

container,

around

of

limit

of

kept

values

between
the

each

considered

of

higher

of

capacity,

of

be

were

values

for

container

to

always

certain

because

weight

which

values

the

program

of

efficiency

area

but

GMT and

constraints

The

the

designs

the

of
L

criteria

(c)

be

can

tiers.

for

increased

for

that

the

expand

in

involves

possible

can

values

particularly

In

the

2.

M.

are
program
(a)
Circular(C)

within

basically

which

of

and

were

explicit

is

depth,

user

designs

minimum

sizes

width

available,
(b)Check

breadth,

The

of

shown
Appendix

Cb.

numbers

rows

stability

The

from

values

equality

step

designs

input

of

generate

and

simultaneous
initial

method

later

in

shown

length,

the

is

III

15.

of

MODEL

is

The

D and

Chapter

brick
of

of

MODEL

size.

could

to

T,

and_starting
step

of

in

logic

program

large

of

the

can

B,

fully

structure

models

as

building

variation

values

only

final

The

basic

main

basic

numbers

of

the

(e)

The

computer

designated

more

coefficient.

large

combinations

the

the

The

block

and

These

forms

two

other
are

described

parametric

generating

(a)

13.10.

draft

phase

are

models.

in

The

probablistic
IV

computer

13.5.

capacity
capacity.
kept.

average
These

down

the

values
limits,

m.

.,
+J
7 vC)

O'D
CO
F4 Cri
13 00
7 [) N
Cn
v

c
., 0.
+-1
-.
7U
t0

co
c
.,
+3j CO0-%

CD

CD

c CO
.a
i-)
O -

c
4 U0- %O
",
4-3
to %-o
-;T
F+ 7

(1)

Oc
H7v
.aH
7
N

7UN

:30
co
0U
U7
Hc
in
LOv
.O
7t

0
cri CC)
NUN
7
N

7
0

a0

.O

lD
c
"rl m
+3 E
7"r100

r-1 [l-

41 >. 117
O
-13
7

0-

7
cn

<n

CD
C
"rl
4-) m
73
l
O -1 Ol
fa mM

(D
c
4
.,
+-) "rl d

UD
o Q1 10'

.,
4j

7W
l0
OW
r1
NO
r-1
HN
-0
70..
i
N

H-P
N
-0 CO -

3
r-n

fa u
01 "rI
OP0
H -P
dm4.3

(D

m
L

(a

3
1--4
mm
Co13
Co o
LZ
CL

Um
"rl
4.3 O
Co a
"i E
Co
"r1 U
E
m"
43 Co
ID CD
'O r-I

ID Co
H "ri
7H
Co
.P
u>
7

o
H
A
7
U7

C;
r!
ri

rn

.,.
LL-

CD
C
"rl
j.,
.

n.

7md

kD
4.1 %I
c0 N
-P
m

NJ

CD

c
.,-I
43

7
OU .CO U3

(D
c
..I
+)
v
7 0,

CD
c
",.I
.o..
7 HtD

LI

CL
co vU3

OM
r-I
La CD r13 H
74N

.C
4-)

(D
c
., 4
4-) 4.)..

:1 0U3
OC
co
ia O 10

U
-0
:3mv
N

C
.,
43

"ri

o>o
c+ o_ ti
CN

CD
c
.,.
7 fa N

Co %-w

m
C
..
7C

fa W ri
AH
.-I
Z ti-. v
cn

..
r-1
Co c4

7L
CO
O rn ri
F+ 1N
4-3 ri
7 3
cn

[D

OU

CD
c
", j
+3 H
7O
O3
FI CDUO
13 H ,-4
:3 O_
N

.n
7U
N

-. %
o r-I c14
H Td
CO t7
-93
:1 EL, -,o
U]

CD

CD

CD
C
"ri
+J E "-.

Old

0
-Y
co M
r-1
.am
3 0)v
N

o
id

0)

in

W
4J
C
CD LO

CD
c
.,
.N..
=1 c11

Q1 CO
"rl 0
CCr-I
G1
'fl

cl__

EC
Co m
Ha
01 0
O'o
HC
Cl- "rI

-P

E COmm
'0
t0 "rl
H 4a n. to
co co m co
a>
-j cr-

C
"rl
co
E:

H +
om

.-1
LI O .. i

4-)

.. "rl
(-1
C0
wn
"r1 F^+EO

E
t
4J
".
O
u
H

3
oko
oc

ECmm
c0
"r1 U

N
M
r-i

Cu

O
F-

74v)

c
m
"rl
4-3 01t0

r"
"rl 0--%
H

O mri
H3O
.A0N
7 O. v
in

(14

m
.,

-f-I
0
O>M
F4
U7
io
DU-,

:3
N

I
C
O
M .aEt0
+)
NO
0cN
Cm

.,'i
OU
t4)
f4 m 01

to

7 'U
L-

i
i
CO
10
r-1
i

347

m
c
.
4-3 m
Fm* 7
ct0
O0
lf)
Hrir1
(3 0%-. o
.

-13
C
"rl
L
4J
"rl
3
co
N
H7
O1
",

:3a
in

CD
C

O H
. r1
m
-P
t) r-1
CW
7>..
LL 0

N
dJ
CD
-Y
U
co
p

O "r1 . -i
f-4 01N
Q1
_E)
7 I
in

:3mv
.Nno-

CD
. 43
m
U
.

C
". {

C
0
-rl N
4J ltl
Urlt7
C lD

>>v
LL 0

C
O J3"'i E mD
4-) OW
UCN
C g7m
LL-

C
O
.n
E UO
"rl
+)
0) 10
UCN
CH

:1a
LA-

CD
4J
0
Z

(f)

Messages

are

criteria

seakeeping
Implicit
the

(a)

main

Minimum

(b)

designs
the

and

constraints

which

particulars

of

and

SCB = 0.48

by

for

printed

are
the

not

criteria.

stability
by

satisfied

ship

of

block

restricting
limits

those

within

the

meet

are

denoted

coefficient,

= 0.72.

FCB

and

statical

values

maximum

do

which

Minimum

and

maximum

values

of

L/D

ratio,

between

10 and

(c)

Minimum

and

maximum

values

of

B/T

ratio,

between

2.25

and

3-75-

(d)

Minimum

and

maximum

values

of

L/B

ratio,

between

6.0

and
(e)

9.0.
Minimum

and

maximum

values

of

V/jL

and

1.5.

14-5-

The
the

and

main

There

the

input

and

is

the

other

for

generating

an

For

large

expensive

to

the

search
the

was

the

in

design

variation

adopted,

included

the

computer

codes

designs

of

an

Parsons

techniques

and

past.

Before

various

other

given

the

by

secs.

principal
is

Kuester

348

by

time

their

and

used

Box
and

only
An

optimum.
in

Fig.

13.11.

three

of

values

computer

MODEL

time.

II)
to

dimensions
and

consuming

application

algorithm

output

and

was made to
effort
(1)
an excellent
gives

algorithms

given

algorithm

for

of

Therefore

run.

designs,

(COMPUTER

TECHNIQUES

number

shown

given

in

printing

option
the

of

shown

designs

is

1500

required

procedure.

existing

region

2000

for
input

output

printout

about

parametric

generate

the

output

coefficient

The

of

and

and

also

options

feasible

0.40

subprograms

are

summary

the

input
in

sizes

of

was

all

extended

OPTIMISATION

13.5.

printing

generating

block

One

designs

input

extended

types

output.

for

primarily

used

of

the

and

two

were

function

subprograms,

attributes,

program

13.10.

Fig.

subroutine

various

between

ratio,

to
by

automate
review
ship
Parsons

These
studied.
were
(196)
and FORTRAN
(197);
Mize
Numerical

I
,A%
Fig.

13.11

Input

by Computer

and output

`N'Oon

in

Model
in

in

.6W

(Deterministic

In in

OOOO
Co C) OO
C)
++*+++*4+++!
WWWWWWWWWWWA"
N'O
t. ]01
PO
p7gi0In
P
GPI '41 V10
P fv
PN
NIV\OP
1+111 .
t aG
NM
'1. t IONr
In

v,
"D "o r
OOOOOOo0000
+44+4+44+++"O
WWWy;
1i -0 OU
P0
. "a

OOJN
co
IV II1
I1 In AY

"f
V1 O

Nf

11

zM

nN00
N
II

od6Gt566dd6G6
Z1141
M 11 11 M
NWLW
ZFVW7
wNZ
2W
MOO
W
tA
v
I-I V
In
u
In
tD /ZZawZ
cW3Zt<M
0W
M+ KOZrH
`d'
Jr
OY
03
IJ JN
ih NZ

oo00ovo0000000
ce,
dGdddd
Off

till

V)
a7
OWNW
I. u
VZW
N
a{J
z
-oz
UWa
z
- QN77

flit

/1

4Y
a

-z
NO
U-Oa
UVl
Mu+

zv
-"Z
UJ.,
ZJea>

Q'

da
N

ac C r"Yf

YN p

`+

00z

Z...
N"
W
a=

+>EVU..
aZ
\""

3Wid

UZz2
W=
N000aFWVVUVOUNaZaNaW2

Ha
OtaGZ

ti

dFJG
1

II

It

11

ZIJ
Z
V<
z
Z<

11

Q'

49
Z
w

O
LA

e, u.

r
S

rWh"O

NrIZ
"[

"r

In

1- Z
V) Z
O-C
u

L<

I4
w

iWtO

wr+

JJ

QWG
O
W`W
oVQ
'O

'0

4+

OOIPnDl-Vt.
cc ttpIII
O/Co OP .t .J 00 r- In OP VP
"MMP0
In 0 OC .G .t 00
e-tIV """"""""""" raC
NrIVN11-M"-.

aWY
O

0-

uftiJJIJOwOC
N Or
I"IC
c\r
"t
Vr
c> >aW
==
a. aA
i
V
Iv u0 a0 m`O
V7 M1
.O nO
C
c: 1 U0000000000
44+4+4+
4+
4
WWWWWWWWWWWWW

arV

a2a

a
s_ ".
JaCN
aF-1-1-

or .r2.
02"+K

"Ja

Z
Z
WO

V c c. .. .u t ca ai
h
V' a
rYr
F-2

N/1

11

t.

.O
O
4

t CID
C) co,
on .r
f

"-

ONO

00000
OOJOMM

""""
? NN3
O.
11

9-n 0aC

O""
"d01-

pvi0
.
Naa

MNN

"-

"

O
fV

11 YJ 11
1( CW

11

M d, C5 0000"00
MOM
11 11 11 NOM
W
"+J
W
HI
u

00000
"!!!
-i
11YNN
"-

1J

fV
/n

P" KZWH
tOC tI.
VWVar
-f
m n. l

NWNLNNN

WWWQi

Cd

Wrt

CD

C"1 arNOt
JH
O1-
"'W
OSel
Z.
KH"+ocr
V
N
"t V t. >ZNWNW
IL c"CCO
-Fu
t9C
W OJ
ZZYOC
Z
tLV
"C
WWV,
W
1-t
-Z
W O7Y"
"rW
M1
1L 4.
OSN2JCSJMM0
W WtDW
WS
a WV20
oc
N
Ot
V

G i
Z

a-

11 WOmW
[cF

G+ 0
O

!.

1- "-I
<W

W FHt

CL -i

CO L2N0LaJOJZ

oGP

00000000000

on

PA 1-

10

uW

4J

c
r

-0

CLCD

tJ

CAO
r- O

nv

rn

vra
m

..
a

6
o

.,. W. ncn

:`

-w

vJO
D0

K0U
L

Q,
p
C ((,, " N'
*!
NMJdO!

a"HC
Z%UZ
QV

dr

py

EJ
r-u
z0oG
f_aa2
G. 06Q4
aoz "
.
ObO
; co
a, o

"
"r-O
.+
V"O
NOZ
C3M
GJ-L
WJ
1- >LucS
.
VQL+3P
CW
- P<
O" O
PI WC
""O
VJ
-C V
20000
.yC
N
CA 4A
Z l.:
Z 1-'
IV
h>

3. N. v\u"
v aC v
Cw
O
tJOONO00C
I'
JUJ
d00c,
od "OVONO00OO
fv Nr
>wOZ
0v
ONOOn:
C"199=

NVVVUVVWoJVddH
n

1-

"OJ
0(+ vO
1/j " "n
""
1 "CC N1

00

11 ro WV
+-0.
co
M1JNO
QI rN

OtD.
-. a'
v<
O
Q3aC

....

IL r

1 NN
FW

..
r
t-. -aAX
1- zaZ.
20F-.
uv.

-.
W

Cr

0UViaNai
yW
1- a

tti

r.
rNl-

aa:

"po

""""
", a.: l-r-p

"a

aW
!2

IL

11

u-

ZZ.

v)

"-.
2.
11

11

WUCN
2
1-" WWG.

"+

I-

Q.

0000
c
QJ z
Z
tr

ut
"u
U"01-.
OWJ2

1S-C

W-SiSZ
W 1-

t7

tu

Yr

--p

00

-j

0
w

r- "OO"ea) In tn 4J O` U.
""
"""".
rd
fVCIz`l
A

tr

tr

11 11 N

11 N
t-

II

11

..

,, G. t-. 'a2

`
OW

L'%

tu

>

0'+r+U
lal-

Pm

"

rn

<
m0
Jt-

t9 W W<
V
uv>i

OP

'^

X. O
aj a

to
-1r

Vf

IN

Si 11 11 11 11 It
0.z
w
L
u+

F19 FoZHYOJ
t
1D <
IIr
VwC.
v)
LW
LL aiW
v1
W Wa
WaJ
ar.
OJ
a) 00
6/ V) C

349

In

act on

rv vVWQ,

C7 CI

Ih
"I.

PGNUNM`ONV
Ma
P. UN a.
NeM

v1V,

NO

VI

11

1 ZurZa
VaZ

arWr
O
"+ V.

Nza

Li
"-.
%d >a

l
o"t

.+

"n
Si

Z
VI

II

11

vI 2
C+ ar
UZ
S
""i,
C^ &H
zaW
aa

rul.
O

aal

fY JJV0waO
aGG-f.
U=
x2
.r

V1

a 3Ua

C)
Q.

aG v.; 4, n. .pK:
A
+ --Y.
. CJ
00
C] OOO0GU000C.
44444444444+
W U. yl
I1. LL' LL V) 41 U. W LL W
OMM
0
0
(Z)
fl- QP
1+0
VPM
G
CIUt
P(T
N. Ina
1na-0
"MM0..
GN100.
Y, `V
oc" fV n"n
r
IV N`. rMV
"" NoN
""""""""
C7000
11 OOG(D
C]
a
It
11 It 11 11 11 11 11 It
11 11 11
U.
rI
r
"- J
4:
NN
.ra
Orxu
"r
zWrwNu.
a
aUN
C7 G.
rWu4rzcrVc
V"G
Inr
maC
Wa
an Vr
1.+
!aa2U
O
r
In JYY
MLJNUZG
ar JOCJaa
rO

. -"N
r.
Uz.
11 IL
.. WWazJUaaZG
O0
0001
OW
'+"'+J
JZ
W ". I
JrrHrrrJwOrrra
lY
N
VI N
VI Zzww
a1 za
000000
M"-IDO0G0

.U
)
4
lY

NVUVUVVWOJUad
N
G0
ti
"MC"flt.
M'.. pP
a
M1
""r
""
"ti1y
P"
"
". i" 3
cc .
1n
11 Kl OL Cu VN3N
"p
' f
rP
o
a!: NOMd
""

Md
(NJ
IL

1"

11 11 it
r

on
Yv.
U' rWaYS2
tl[ JNOaL{.:
rM 3
at
wOwYo
az
rr=)
11
z
v, wmNzx33
a. O0C:
\aV
I a
lu
I
JW0OU.
t
OW
Zt9 fF- HNOaxxa
WwaVC:
"!zKW
"- HZaa4;
Z
a]
W Y OO

Oua33U
r
y sO
V N""

O "p

v,
V
C.+
F'

J
r

N1
Q

"P

"

In

v.

N
r'

11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 It

v1
J

ZP
n 1

0
M

C)

1-

r=

..
ul

.+Z
Wa

11

z
"r2

M
u. U.
f3WSY
H
1- J"
LL'

Ga

...
LL: Ya
3
a""

C.+ a
1-

f-

zN

4.
rV

+ 1SZ2a
I'J

It, N

vf

0L-.

%0 O
I

P-0
1 Y1

rc
t.

AcDPP
1n V..

N""""""

1 -1 or

V-

V'

xrrr
L7
"+
1vI

II

11

11

11 11

11

II

11 it

11

11

11

II

LL
>Y
S

fWV.
Q
ZpWGY

F- rI
GOSC.
u zarv
10
1- ZZZ
ZO
z
Ou+

x"O
Ov1-1-:..
zz
W+
O=
cvVJ
V1

., J

VQ

cn
z

I OVT
OJIUOr+r.
1- xOV

P
1f,,

V)

1L

F-

t9L;
u'
1 V
V>

O
"

Ul

cc

F- J
wa1
EVGn

I-

Co

O"
1.

"Md

"OOO
G1
uC.
""

. (J

"

00.

GNG

.--

1>
O

I-

"'C

"
M

"

I+t

22>iSVVuu"

JJ

VI

WWWWWWW

w
. -. uHZZa
rZZaWZN
It a
rr
aaGzFN

I: """

1z
a<
aaaW

I11 Or

In nMN
2 NNC00

,pu.
"M

O"0

k^ 0
Mn

In

Er

0O
cc .0OOONN
CD -2
t10 O"""a,
t>o

VL)

O
ar,
Z"+.
-"ia
"J
a
z"-.
aIWaG
d ar"r
JJ

>Y

a.

NWZW
Zruw7P
C9
NZaU.
GO
NV
W Vf
li
OW3Z
OW
1-"
aaJrYanr-.
0UJ

</

2vJC.
tti3

or,

6E.11 666666G66
11 11 it
11 11 11

O nNf.
- NN
In

0'

--

or q..) 0.4A

Wlna
zSWCYSOL

..

O-

r-

CA F-<v)HtU
II
C<
U/VfJC
zFW <w0
-C O<
Cv.
rIrNU.
uOw
JHO
b-a
1-J
F- Ly <W2GW00
V
Cr JCVV

2uz20uCz
N
.yZS
a<
C
a
ul

to
w(w.r
G
NOaiaWV
30a.
OOO
Oz
C7 VNOWw.
S

f
-y

20JW
Or2

-""

Cr

8-

a'

<OSCS"
1--a
C1'JrhZZW.
-2
-tZZHO
tV 202..
0oJW
u)
t
tJJ
'Otr
rJI.
"
<yln0u.
CY
C 1;vz
ICr CN1. -C
V2WW
Cr 1-

OON

zW""""N"ppO""
11 ONN
11

pN

a\

W>

HJ

NNNNNN
u)

F2<

Www
It
OOOLO!

1N

QLD
W-r

VOL

Oau...
0a
V a<z

"""of%+
Ntnln

y<

J:

tnP

oo

_
W
E
WWO.

aN
.rF
Oa
ON
wa
a LL

.a3
e

>0u.

-+L

4E
r
z

11 S
l9

ZaWu.

C00001n

M"h"

o0 /M!
N
O (V

LL

1-z

000zPN1.001OOOco
tr .Q tn .-..
S
OO
O
rr

v)
OOW
IA Oaf
W
J<IU
of CD <af
Zco
<JaH2J
K2JzJ
OS
<000Z
/-+<L
d22
2lL
VV
+L
Nt,

NAnOOIn
. On

NN

c,

0-J

ah-

z
SS

to
cc

rz

'j

at. %,.ox
1-

-r

. "I
JI-

^lt,

"p

-g

49rrtir-+

MpNpNN

W<

hW

Q,

pW
NOt

2iLwa

w3aaaZ

-" vGr

OQJ
w+

tA <WJNZ49WWOOWr
ILLly>y
31 = 92 VNH

<Q

1-

--

WmW

Cr

V.
>>
<2HZ

1-

JpL
W:..

ry*

H
a

11 M 11 11 11 11 6 11 41 11 11 N 11
1-'
N
w
sN
:
t"JIW!
YM.
S
y 3QJHptV0z
!
QO WOWYp
r-.
-.
z
7F-rtz
Wt
-2W
N
33\
z, n W mz=U'
a
mpO
-+LoO

M\
OJ

NNN-

Uf
3V

a0
JFaa
v:

'+

1r p v N/""""0.0
.p ev
""(1jlAtno
NO

flax

0"
"a

MNNN!
O V)

CA Ja
LL Ou

OVW
Gda
X
a

OOJJO'
.,
LLJ
= II

\
^
;'\.

c
rV. Q

uod
E
dZOZ

Z
+

2
[

odrIL

..

NJ
jr) W2
Ou<C
l v
OJU-
G ir sJ
_i
OC
\"PO
>
QVC.
".
n
"ri
C
O
:
;iGO=
"'nr
t\r.
vN"rp.

Izz

WOO

r--1

Hr

v00OOOn
;....
Is)dd
aWN

2
. ti

CL
3

I. -

HWN
OG
"O

JN

iC

ne'

r=
LL W

a
GW

WZ
co 2 a' ac QQ
OOOOLLUW
a
OSJJaaaa0a

OOO
ZOW
N"

<p
r-.
<JQQVYYWzWW
O

mI-6
J"
J 6
OC
tJ

\\

z V' --1YYrH
-+ZrrJJZZ

00

IJ
t7

2OrQO
Vf. J
J
V2OJOO
"'+-0
N
". u2
11 WWWWtZJO[<Z
al O0001
"-1'+JJS
d2 W
W"
JHHt--}rHJ
NO1-rH
NNNNZZWW
Cr
tD ZS
000000
0"-I]
0000

3QJJJm\tyy,
=VWJWOOWLWWZ

VUWWt.

O\

,!!

Cl

!1
aozuuunpunuuxu
zAL
zQV
t7L
ac rJ
S
O
Y
Y\
Y\
r
W-a
WSr
\W\J
NtLQ1-1Wt73-ri-mM
OZ
OONNFH
WO\O
VOSaOOx
xt7

a
0
'o

a
pv3

V)
rVL...
tJ

zc
ZWRN

M 11 11
/r
In N+
OI)cr

tt

'ZK

e0 .T 0 A
.t .tM
e0 VN ifl
e- hv

G
au
W

U0

Y. N<
S"-1+00

e,

a
0
.o
aA

I-

U"-1

fill

Phase)

11 11 11 11 11 11
t+
"
u)

69
<
o2

11

11
O1
20y0

1F1tG
tA WN
<
C.
oN
LL JliaV
a0a
2<S
V)
m)
Cr J
IA

11

2xrax

11

11

11

11

11
/-

11

11 11

11 11

11
w

LL

LL

vuvr

110

U' 1- Cx
h- YGJ
u.
U):
rrU'
Ia
I cW
la a
u)..
uo
WW
O[ WJdHx<x40
CJ
C) CC
) V) C

[i

V+ WN
<a
. aaav

V)

V)

O[

J.

V)

Algorithm

Group

(OPXRQP)

in

conjunction

Optimisation

tolerance

Himmelblaue

(3)

computer

All

these

linear

objective

linear

equality

Box's

Algorithm

implemented

NAG library

This

increased

for

for

other

various

required

variables.

evaluation

functions

and

first

and

because
in

the

(3)
on

FLEXIPLEX
2976

Two

ALGOL

of

which

Glasgow
by

Parsons

or

and

of

Mize

University
was

to

double
twice

the

does

is

have

precision.

not

intended

only
first

continuous

also

size

required

could

approximate

continuity

be

not

and

ensured,

equations
the

used

tested.

Moreover

machines

which

meant

that

lots

method

failed

to

work

source

tolerance
either

certain

in

errors

the

source'

errors.

therefore

were

IBM

by

algorithm

codes

and

be

flexible

printing
point

of

be

modification.

because

computer

Kuester

for

needed

or
program
(4)
Better
in

needed

statements

ICL

to

in

it

which

for

except

operating

routine

OPND3

and

number

written

was

the

derivatives

large

program

program
of

the

of

Though

(OPXRQP)

as

not

VME-B

used

space

which

non-

below:

memory

constraints

second

be

only

well

could

given

derivatives,

of

derivatives.
second
(2)
OPRQP
Similarly
of

can

solving

However

with

reasons

routines

for
as

codes

computer

Jeeves

and

(201).

Kupras

constraints.

2976

by

given

Hookes

non-linear

computer

ICL

of

the

the

require

all

Mead's

and

are

developed

are

with

inequality

by

given

codes

(199),

codes
of

OPRQP

Numerical

Neider

on

technique

are

and

the

of

each

codes

the

based

Search

by

Polytechnic

computer

functions

on

(1)

which

computer

because

system

for

Direct

and

which

(200)

E04UAF;

developed

Hatfield

method

Method

Simplex

OPND3

the

of

(198),

routines
with

Centre

flexible

for

NAG library

not

Kupras

codes

only

other

350

of

Parsons
on

Centre.

because

by

The
the

by
given
(1),
both

one

available,

successfully

Computing
adopted

computer

accepted.

therefore
were
(197)
and the

implemented

had

the

ICL

computer

following

2976

at

code

given

reasons.

(1)

Box's

requires

library

will

be

was

used

to

1 taken
The

to

Neider

the

The

could

with

the

supply

subroutine

in

program
is

Hooke

not

the

search

step

of

computer

time

not

include

the

sizes

of
the

less

by

the

well

search

external

penalty
methods

in

Fig.

did

program
use

small
in

only
error

subroutine

not

various
(1)
Parsons

by

need

user
one
40

number

covered

13.12.

the

Except

The

codes

developed

Parsons

the

of

errors.

in

reach

an

three

block

Computer

Computer

give

any

functions

and

MODEL

are

and

of

be

the

was

5 minutes
method

for

an

various

at

arrive
be

351

the

preferred

does
be

must
The

parametric

mode,
in

allowed

interactive

developed,

should

the

values
400 secs.

200...

that

computing

in

was

however

a batch

on

procedure

feel

to

run

to

reached.

technique

search

when

is

interactive

optimisation

This

II.

design

coefficient

points

optimum
only

optimum

MODEL

starting

could

of

for

secs.

a global

The

values

to

different

experience,

optimisation

rest

time

amounts

progress

than

user

the

CONSTR
shown

statement

in

procedure

starting

computer

and

the

0.01

before.

optimum.

With

between

direct

Parsons'

given

e.

the

of

limited

only

G05CAF

routine

optimization

i.

1500

in

attempted

the

of

shipsis

procedure

from

down

with

FUNCTN

are

another

here.

repeated

search

used.

search

CONSTR.

subroutines

machine

gives
(2)

and

run

is

numbers

Jeeves

FUNCTN
code

or

The
cut

be

codes

redundant,

compilation
of

one

container

computer

random

library

Parsons

employing

for

the

if

subroutines

specifically

use

and

simplex

structure

program

together

To

(3)

Mead

other

NAg

of

to

computer

real

by

Hooke

Therefore

technique.

one

2976,

given

codes
either

and

numbers

which

distribution.

a uniform

use

generation

pseudo-random

generate
from

ICL

Technique,

random

from

For

computer

option

fails

of

generation

difficult.
to

Search
for

implementation

dependent,

or

Random

subroutine

Since

numbers.

(2)

is

algorithm

with

the
one

region
to

interactive

mode.

possible
computing

took

Obviously

optimum.
once

see

the

user

the
has

O
",

(n

0)
"rl

E
.,.{

0
40
0

.,

ns
U
"rl
r-I

H -%
d-3

H -.

U) r-1
CN
OM
0,.. o

Q1 r-1
CN
OM
U

m
u)
r-1
r-1
Co

O
F-

a
a
Co

E
t
.,.

.,
3

m
o)
Co
a

U
., l
H
0H

O
Qi

C 0-%
O
-P
U 01
CN
7M
4- vl.

CD
--

m
m
>
CD LO

Od

.YN
ON

10

n..

2N
.. i

C
CD
CL U3
r-4
x If)
CDv

E
G+
CD

m
13

C
.,
4-)
3
o ca 0
N-4:
r
13 C

m
(4
7
4-3
U

.70
G]

H
4. )
(D

rn
0
N
CL

rn

.,
LA-

4O

%I

W r-4
CN
OM
U

(D
L

CD
-P
Co
U
.,. {
-0
C
O
-i-)
CD
X
U
Co
N
12

E
co
G+

M
. -I

m
L

Co
N
., -1
O

.crj
"ri

. -i

.,

N.
0 +3 le-.

H OD r-I
.OcN
7 0m7
fJ') 0v

CD
c
., j
4,3
=1
x d'
oH
N akD
E-=r)
-03
"rl Lfl
U) tA%-.,

C
-. -1
Z

",
3
O
m
N
7
01
-. i
l
m

0
Z

352

himself

acquainted

the

options
to

that

follow

the

parametric

only

the

in

of
method

the
using

type
design

optimum
the

program,

fully
the

computer

353

user
MODEL

or

is

output.

Print

To
can
I.

is

approach

and

met.

it

of

which

easily

optimum

because

criticised

black-box

being

not

procedure.

are

quite

procedure
are

region

one

included

are

constraints
in

as

misunderstood
notion

working

techniques

Optimisation
often

the

with

the

allows
to

observe

which
designs

observe
then

user

use

the

CHAPTER
PARAMETRIC

STUDY

14
AND

ANALYSIS

SENSITIVITY

14.0

INTRODUCTION

14.1

SYSTEMATIC

14.2

OPTIMUM

SPEED

14.2.1.

EFFECT

OF HIGHER

FUEL

14.2.2.

EFFECT

OF HIGHER

CREW COSTS

14.2.3.

EFFECT

OF HIGHER

DISCOUNT

14.2.4.

EFFECT

OF HIGHER

FIRST

14.3.

OF SHIP

VARIATION

SENSITIVITY

AND SPEED

PRICES

RATE

COST

ANALYSIS

14.3.1.

MERIT

14.3.2.

VARIATION

IN

SHIP

AND

14.3.3.

SIZE

RANKING

SIZE

VARIATION

NUMBER OF PORTS,
SPEED

IN

DELAYS,

IN

DISCOUNT

SHIP

SIZE

AND SPEED
14.3.4.

VARIATION
TAX

AND

SHIP'S

LIFE

RATE,

INCOME

14.0.

Introduction
In

the

previous

described

were

together

regarding

made

Section
for

subprograms
for
in

the

Although
results

phase

individual

when

give

used

the

such

as

fuel

prices.

situations

reduction

Sensitivity
the

gains

In

particular
effort

with

and
the

against

chapter

used

for

Only

nineteen

2500

Teu

ships

study,

although

ships

of

in

block

VI`L
powering

find

to

importance
which
such

are
as

scheduled
have

not

of

2500

above

0.40

to

1.5,

to

0.70

the

covers

ship

size

certain

stability
number

service,

cargo

of

these

and

limited

designs.

included.

354

week
costs

the
for

used
length
of

range

speed

the
for

inventory

speed

speeds

was

carried

A sensitivity

parameters.

estimation

per

in

be

particular

container

ships

Considerations
to

and

maintain
cargo

be

of

ships.

illustrated

calls

can
Teu.

2500

can

and

of

weight

II

and

variation

steel

II

and

included

not

container

which

traded

merit.

500

most

performed

improved
be

were

to

which

of

variables.

be

Models

of

values

in

carrying
capacity
above
4.8)
today.
Hence
ships

Teu

0.50

of

of

Models

computer

established;

numerically,

must

requirements

usually

been

computer

ships
of
(Table

well

may

measure

they
tests

increase

effort

capacity

operation

optimum

was

analysis

that

coefficient
of

the

container

the

Systematic
out

in

gain
shows

of

this

of

that

particular

estimation

extent

capacity

ratio,

weight

is

indicate

of

used

these

and

with

to

useful

are

ensure

together

speed

this

gave

reasonable

to

outcome

the

13.5

give

needed

and

of

models

may

improvement

container

are

container

and

and

expected

This

is

from

the

design.

optimum

analysis

cost

the

whose

of

resulting

computer

linked

when

testing

Section

while

are

assumptions

linking

two

tests

results

examining

of

their

basic

subprograms

alone,

reasonable

involve

These

II.

deterministic

subprograms

employed,

and

the

gave
Model

computer

methods

variables

13.4

Model

Computer

the

Computer

various

the

with
of

some

validation.

the

chapters

a
availability

14.1.

Systematic
Systematic

following

6770

of

route

ship

of

variation

the

for

out

of

variation

size

ship

size

n.

Table

Weight
container
Gross
each

14

x 8'

x 8'

20'

14

hr

gms/bhp.

135

500

of

study

case

Teu

varied

from

case

studies
of
was
Further

ship

to

Teu

varied

was

size

2500

from

15

ship

size

to

was

steps
30

knots
from

varied

Teu

in

steps

of

250

15

knots

to

30

knots

in

steps

1000

Teu

ship
to

size

2250

from

15

for

case

studies

and

ballast

varied

varied

in

steps

Teu

knots

of

was

to
2,3
109% of

considered.

355

27

Teu.
steps

container

250

4 ballast

displacement

knot.

capacity
was

speed
For

knot.

from

in

Ship
of

Ship

of

of

container

in

Teu.

knots

and

250

of

2250

from

varied

to

3 and

hr.

0%

in

knots

7t

Oq' interest

was

Teu

7%

12%

study

case

capacity

tons

gms/bhp

52%r

For

x 8'6"

10.5

15%

rate

displacement

2.2

162.0

for
terms
acquisition

capcity

of

Rate

1000

2 tons

Discount

speed

Assumption

empty

of

fuel

of

x 8'

20'

Specific
consumption

speed

trade

of

weight
container

Loan
ship

carried

Atlantic

Dimensions
container

were

Case

For

North

Assumption

Tax

speed

trip.

round

miles

and

for

assumptions

speed

and

container
Ship

Teu.

steps
of
were

of

1 knot.

5q

of

also

The

program

and

does

for

ballast

that

not

only

is

there

ballast

in

bottom

height

well

would

the

with
input:

were

results

was

preferred.

the

initial

and

hold

arrangement

rows

and

tiers,

the

Nelder

and

The

global

solution

but

in

included
of

number

in

tiers

an

The

iterative

input

L
210.25

found

by

varying

in

the

B
29.

hold

tiers

of

the

deck

containers

manner

to

meet

the

Table

218.
71

28.
63

11.00

20.0

0.55

10.
45

19.
55

0.552
0.52

28.

11.

21.

63

03

00

236.

28.

11.

22.

99

65

63

04

produce

option

The

optimum

configuration
to

deck

of
two

possible

containers
The
of

then

initial

tiers

varied

requirements.

/
tonne

225.

to

changing

Cb.

are

metres

56

by

number

stability

ship

procedure

tiers.

total

of

the

cases

limited

Cb

Rows
9

Tiers
11

50

all

D and

of

at

container

found

container

number

in

of

the
was

four

is

tiers

T,

double

calculated
of

Search

B,

variation

number

Dimensions

Trial

the

four.

less

of

were

was

was

L.

There

configurations.

Mead

10%

ballast

ship

in

for

need
on

tanks.

used

point

this

dimensions

was

indicate

checks

wing

and

bottom

available

constraint

each

rows
II

is

incorporate

involve

of

Model

was

principal

number

starting

spot

to

for

The

Computer

the

to

need

speed.

some

double

5% ballast.

program

dimensions

optimum

together

the

space

impose

might

although

particular

for

provision

designs

all

but

in

tank

adequate

bunkers

as

ample

considerations

The

that

confirm
as

ballast

considers

RFR
-

42,720

12

Starting
user

values,

Final
values,
computer
Starting

values,

user
0.506

"

39.804

Final

values

computer

356

The
optimum

for

29

knots.

of
8

although

in

hold

is

eliminated

search

at

this

the

search

and

Cb.

procedure

B=0.5

m,

limits

is

RFR.

speed

and

The

T=0.5

and

and

hold

tiers

ship

ship

0.3

tiers

found

for

adequate

tiers

by

values

method

Cb

hold

different

Mead's

m and

be

will

optimum

four

speed

with

with

found

Neider

Teu

global

to

sizes

1250

the

the
L=5.0

were

and

of

in,

convergence

were

B=0.01,

L=0.01,
Neider

to

Hooke

for

user

to
Direct

Jeeves

method

the

following

table

ship

sizes

Container
Capacity

twin
50000

throughout

used

over

of

configuration

speeds.

1500

1750

2000

2250

2500

10

10

10

value

of

RFR

shown

in

Fig.

discontinuity
screw

range

1000

Tiers

as

hold

optimum

1250

Rows

The

the

shows

750

Tiers

Container
capacity

the

= 0.001.

was faster
compared
(see
Section
13.5
method

500

Rows

speed

was

Cb

optimum

Search

Table

Hld.

and

option).

various

Hld.

D=0.01

simplex

convergence

and

The
for

T=0.01,

Mead's

and

the

because

in

the

step

achieve

The
The

three

D=0.5

m,

of

considered.

from

using

number

value

to

values

capacity

the

case

tiers
lower

input

container

this

the

shows

of

hold

gives

T,

B,

ship
In

initiating
L,

Table

above

installations

for

each

14.1
in

the

to

ship

size

Fig.

14.9.

curve

when

the

hp.

357

is

the

installed

was

plotted

An
jump

against

important
from

power

factor

single
is

about

to

O\
N

CID
N

rN

"0
N

CL
W4
.r0
t

Vl%
N

-Z
N

.+
cn
N

O
a;

O
vl

O
f-. 4
N

-,H
a

0
N
0
-f-4
+1

ed
.r.,

Ef)

I)

CC)
H

v
N
H

-+
hc

Cs.

+>

III

I_-_l

1111I111
W
owo1/3

9-4lg ? 421sai pipbog

358

%O
H

H
cc,
r

'r'i

O
C1

tl;
R

N
N

%Z
N

t
_I;
N

CVIN
N
to
0
c
N
N

, -+

10
a
H
cV

0
N

v
H

CO
1--1

r
H

1__J
N

IIIIIIIIIIIIi/I
0

:9
ouuo-4/3 ajvg -4q8poaA Paapbag

359

\D
H

R
43

HH
Nk.,

ai

43

x
r
"I..

I
II

11
\

Ln
N

\
\

`
\.

, '
\. \

;
\\\

"o

1
\`

'\

I'"

,`\,
\\

\'
i
I,

ti

=li

-:j- *to

H=I

co

1Ji

2'
52 t
4) i.I

a
a1

110 11

Iy

yeD

IIiN

II

c'

IUsi

nI

L
ii
WI

3
iII

cn

1'/

Ii,

//1,

ON

//

Ln

l; I
l/ '

I.
I

III

IIIIIIIIIII
Ln

II

//

SiI,

bD
. r4

s
L=DHM
sauuol

1f1
;

auuo/: y a,VsgzVMa

paztnbag

360

IIII

I1II

s
co

m
4-31

Lrl
N

H
H
cd
,n
a

oi

*A

III
.,`

o
,

III
Lf)

IIII

9W

s
0
CC)

sauuoj, =[),qM

auuo'413 a'eg 17421a.

Tg paalnbag
361

Li')

0
m

\
N

ll

\1

\
\
N

\
\

S\

P4
.r.,

a)
.r.,
cd
C
0
U

N\

\
\ ..,', N\ \, ,,
\ ,\,\\N\ '\
\\
,
\\

\\

N\

\0
Ln

N
`r'

.\

',

\\

\\

\\\

\\\

a)
E-

1 X11

0
Ul

" p\
cb

CV4

Id
a

1
\

P,
.H
S-1
In

1
1

f-1
0
4-1

*4

II
W\W!

31

3%

V)

I
I

a)
14
a)
0)
0
0
.,

cd
.,

Ii

H=I
=I

Fm
w
31

to

i
Ea:
i
,

H
i
i

Oi o
U

-1

a)
N

bD
.H

N4

i
I

/1/I

I'

iiII1III1III

U,
r

sauuoi

L=oam

auuo-l//3 9,1-eg +u.?taaj

362

i III

4-4
0
01

=I
sl

IIi

\\\\

r-i
\

\\\
N\
\\\

cd

4-)

pazinbag

I'
oI
R1

L2

III

_1
N


i-

4--l

\
N

cd

H
ri

r-i
HH

r-I

`
.

-4-3

\fTTT

N.
\\

S.

0
(r)

+-)

Ql
N

43

CO
N

\"1I

\\
\\

\I

II

\.
\N

\.
\.

\_

`.
'N

I
I

\\\

\\

\\
`

N\\

- N

\\\\\
'\

`.

.\
\',
r"i

\I

14-

\\

1111

f1

1t

\ \\

11

\\`,

Cd-

11',

1GIx
CNI

CD
H
0

1\II

En

l7

(^l74

N SII

N=1
to
m

td ,... 1 td`-.
C7

cd
UrIII _

Q)

IVCLr)

li

-I:.

..

'J

II

NO

v`'II

W!il I

WI

! JI

III

IA

II

,I

313

II

II

I1

IIIII

IIII

III
/1, ' ;

~
I,

/ii1

=T

oD

0
n

0\
0
CID

In

v sauuo1
S'OI=OM

I /IIii1

//I

//, /

11

Ii 'I

11 1I

I f'IIIl
I I/,

IIi
Il/,
Iii

+7I=O, M M
0
v

sauuo1 L=OsM
auuo'4/3 aITg '4y.?-taaq paatnbag

363

aE
I

\
\

4-3'

4-1
,II

V4

I
Lr)

CD
m

Ln

CD
s

rn

sauuo,4 L=DsM
auuoq./3 a;, eK qu2taad

364

pa.ztnbal:

I*
N

1-11
+-3
02
cd
r-A
r-i

+3
N
cd
r-i
H

a> a

4-) 4-3

5I

-0

`"ICD

Ln
N

U]
0

. r.,

Q)

0
lV

WA

Ln

Ln
s

sauuol L=om

CD
-t

)Q

0
m

89

Ln
r-

auuol. /3 a,eg lyStaaj

365

paatnbag

Lf)
N

_.

o
N

1
tN

a
t

. 'd

\o
N

V..'
N

-:t
N

so
C
U

Co",
N

4)

E-O
C

Y'1
N

N
N

ol

43

0
4i
H
N

CC

4)
..
in
c
0

-41
.N

>
IV

O
N

rn
-r

co

Oll

tiH

4C
"ri

%0
H

III

I111111111
NO

-It
j

Go

auuo'4/: Y Oleg 114818JApaapbsg

366

U-'
N
.o

i7l

Case

1
The

Teu
in

optimum
the

and
Fig.

rate

from

1500

value

of

range

for

Froude

to

Fig.

to

1750

ships

For

size
optimum
(Fig.
14.10

speeds

of

little

is

gained
range

and

in

5%

these

The

27

1000
about

shown

Teu.

over

The

reasonable
in

reduction

for

Fig.

increasing

14.12

optimum

can

studied

as

RFR

minimum

ship

found.

for

various

are

21 %

knots

18

and

of

ship

size
the

at

higher

speeds

beyond

2000

21

of

14.10

to

speeds

within

below.

shown

RFR

Capacity
5%

variation

in

Teu

RFR variation

1000 - 1970

850 - 2250

21

990 - 2030

830 - 2440

24

1210

27

1040

and

2f

Teu
1500

% variation

and

at

Teu

in

RFR

at

all

2250

the
in

5% variation
speeds.

367

Teu.

defined

small

Fig.

The
21 knots

Increases

in

plotted

14.13.

14.13

size

shown

variation

of

these

at

within

be

Fig.

Fig.

but

are

RFR was

laxity

and

the

that

sizes

to

speeds
flat

27 knots,

the

18

At

1750

ships

1250

the

knots

Container
in

to

as

favours

speed

14.10

The

by

size

if

Teu

Table

Speed

Teu

knots

to

doubt

Fig.

14.11).

and

the

ranges

1500

with
No

in

24

RFR were

14.13.

Fig.

much

and

1500

in

of

from

20

region

than

Tell

shown

Fig.

and

higher

departure

1250

at

occurs

apparent

The

change

as

is

RFR

with

to

this

rather

18,21,24

of

size

ship

15

1500

of

important.

speeds

against

Teu

not

is

region

between

outwith

above

number

the

14.9.

increase

does

RFR

in

is

speed

of

Teu

is

size

optimum

14.1

The

ship

1030
870

above

size
RFR

the

variation
size

2530

and

is
variation

above

about
is

oSzz N

a
w
a
cl

0
0

oL6i

"-1
41

id

N
N

WA
v

rk
H

C) ..,
U

0
a

0
ii

..r
to

9)
0

C14
-q
m
m

11

10

C
xr,)
cV
H

u
-i 1 1-4
;b

1+

(4
00

91

r--

--

0
0
0
000I ,

4
-.t+

I'I

d
N
.. -
Ef)

I.

kI

.'

C
H

w
t

:t

>e !

"
r

ol

W4

s0

NI

191

11111t

111

3c
euu03

a4g

368

ibajj
cD

pailenbg

C
C

O
U

o+MZ
C
l1r,
n:

C
O

O
ocoz--i
C

a
fir.
a

cV

. rl

=1

41

NH

:5
d
oc

0
v
0C

4-4

WA

ac

F-1

4d
U

a
a,
-4
N
a,

N
V
r-q

0
0
-4

6)
N
. rl

Oa
Ul
N
H

U
V

C
+
ed

O
U

Cl

-IE+

r-i

0
0
0
H

066

I)

N
-4

(I)

0(8

ti

W-1
it.

I
0

co
to,,

*D

c^

auuo-4r3 9'4tH : y210i, d PuTnbag

369

N
fr1

8
Tj"N

C,

ocSz
c
E
Gx.
C

.r4

oSZZ

xr
N

5
N
cV

rl

O
O
O
N

O
. -1
N
rd

is

H
0
4-4

v
40

..

HN
a

O
U1

4L

g
H

/I

IQ

II

'Co
.

N
H

OIZI
tUi

!!.._l ..__i
. _.

---'' 0
oEoi-1 O--+

III

0
VIA
r-

l
H
III

II1I11111;

lIi
9

q" g t'd
,, TZ

370

TnboU

co

No

0
0

c'z

0
0
0
N

0
H

E-

o
o

.14

.3
c,

Id
U
N

C
VI\
NC
HO

C
.. 7
e:

0
0
0

cL^,

a:
N
. ri
N
f"1

H
be
. r!
AL.

0
0
'I-'

auuo}/j

a:)

03w -4q2jaji

paslnbog

371

influence

A main
is

the

is

directly

no

economy

of

the

of
such

scale
40,

about

by

Fig.

14.10

there

value

of

in

port

For

mainly

to

change

in

Cases

2,3

RFR

to

ships

10.5

and

to

program

study

was

made

too

relation

is

too

expensive

up

the

turnaround

is

to

flatten

the

significant

the

Teus.

of

of

to

each

ballast

of

effect

1000

RFR

is

2250

Teu

container

RFR are

the

RFR worsens

as

the

displacement.

is

shown

to

better

conjunction
routines

figures
but

the

on

mass

without

ballast

However
be

the

it

at
14,

of

is

in

In

increased

from

5% ballast.

with

the

compared

372

of

This

with

of
the

using
carried
most

cases

5% to

10%

10% ballast

cases

precision

possible

cargo

ballast.

a number

than

not

when
of

when

obtained

is

Naturally

based

of

of

of

incorporated

values

optimising

in

number

capacity

conclusions.

precise

where

was

best

its

is

tonnes.

to

in

lowest

costs

optimum

weight

the

viewed

trade

vessel

speed

illustrates

average

10%o ballast

come

14.8
container

and

A careful
5% and

the

without

the

in

a certain

the

speed

Teus

of

variation

for

vessel

of

increase

Fig.
of

speeds

various

increase

any

of

fuel

to

cost.

14.3
for

the

inability

range

to

and

high

costs

first

giving

Teus

of

by

values

of

wider

and

Fig.
RFR

give

number

by

Teu

for

account

length

that

of

caused

caused

this

economy

remaining

the

indicate

number

larger

influence

The

time.

14.13

mainly
for

and

for

is

cost

have

etc.
The

has

and

do

increase

modest

smaller

sea

Teus

of

optimum

that

to

cost

this

costs

related

is

Fig.

an

RFR.
at

payload

to

crew

size

containers

costs.

be

alone

of

considered

operating
to

RFR with

handling

Costs

and

number

size

is

expensive
to

the

ships

costs

tend

as

caused

the

number

cost.

total

insurance

speed

on

fuel

the

Consequently

curve

In

in

change
Container

the

operating

as

of

as

RFR

to

scale.

of

small

cost.

proportional

50

such

handling

container

about

the

on

trend
the

must

program

percentage

be
and

change

route.

in

RFR

of

In

less

is

chosen

is

this

and

there
but

trend

of

to

zero

terms

broad

reversal

from

moving

for

deemed

is

no
it

when

10%
to

10% ballast
exact

explanation
the

occurs

ballast

than

be

the

B,

optimum

situations.

main

length

for

the

of

5% ballast
for

reason

this

of

design

condition

the

fluctuation

RFR.

of

Case
Under
for

the

weight

of

that

there

assuming
of

cost

assumption

of

the

that

containers
Fig.

14.5

for

ratio

of

1.40

of

speeds

little

the
be

optimum
regarded

higher

speeds

speeds
this

and

to
speed

of

Rate

this

thesis

at

various

the

cost

This

and

the

and

operating

Required
Freight

Required
2.5

sets

from

progressively
15

to

knots

decrease

speed.
as

of

the

17

knots,

the

and

RFR

is

1.22

almost

influence
actual

an
may

When
extension
bring

in

curves
indicates

a
higher

at

linear.

freight

rates
quality

improved

373

load

of

there

must

costs
are
of
factors.

fixed,
service

be

pressures

containerships

of

the

region

competitive

inventory

of

to

the
that

of
speeds

inclusion

Furthermore

this.

decreases

lower

about

resistance
the

acquisition

RFR2.

laxity

speed,

raise

acquisition

the

company.

containers.
I

excluded.

for

in

assumed

excluding

RFR

as

in

Freight

of

was

Speed

flat

optimum

set

the

and

operated

shipping

containership,

of

knots

Optimum

The

to

27

been

Required

RFR2/RFR1
at

the

also

containers

included

has

by

and

are

found

were

containers

and

not
it

designated

as

The

14.2.

the

cost

containers

value

shows

a finite

including

of

owned

is

Rate

Freight
Rate

are

with

associated

of
these

therefore

Teu

tonnes

leased

However

1500

10.5

operating

usually

and

ship.

of

speeds

are

dimensions

sets

zero

and

vessels

cost

container

were

maintaining

Containers
fleet

each

ship

reflect
will

raise
speed
and

may
thus

For

a
is

obtained
the
of

the

higher

fuel

container

the

14.14

for

for

a reduction

higher,

then

greater

and

it

greater.

and

this

study

has

crew

costs

effect

is

shown

the

range

in

of

crew

Effect

of

discount

Fig.

optimum

500,

in

speed

the

relative

would

also

steps

falls

to

16.60

16.05

knots

to

18.55

costs
be

would
drop

knots

speed

this

but

would

result

the

optimum

were

accordingly

in

affect

route;
the

results

show

speed.

costs

other

crew

14.15

considered.

higher

discount

to

The

effect

is

and

costs

to

on

optimum

speed.

significant

for

costs

but

annum

not

consider

rate

15% was

% and

5% per

at
operating

costs

at

in

inventory

escalated

Fig.

to

speed

knots

increases

including

short

to

respect

50%.

of

higher
in

121

14.16.

50% and

crew

to

rate
to

oil

by

24

25% and

of

decrease

relative

The

shown

the

RFR with

knots

were

relatively

in

17.15

route

higher

of

decreased

to

reduced

of

that

prices
of

was

speed

drop

taken

effect

and

chosen

lubricating

and

to

price

be

the

The

was

oil

knots

speeds

The

annum

14.2.3.

aspect

on

15

of

fuel

might

Effect

10% per

Teu

from

absolute

fuel

higher

The

demand

changes

and

change

increase

the

50%

increase

economic

be

14.2.2.

the

varied

of

also

by

and

price

price

the

diesel

optimum

fuel

fuel

the

occurrence.

was
The

3 knots.

that

25%

shows

speed

for

1500

price

oil,

improbable

an

the

fuel

of
by

Fig.

hence

and

ship.

price

although

speed

prices

fuel

of

optimal

costs

ignores

capacity

effect

the

speed.

of
of

RFR

as

average

speed

Effect

increased

If

this
of

the

knots

and
choice

ship

such

minimum

of

The

when

speed

for

problem

of

was

criterion

speed,

determine
speed

based

the

cheapest

14.2.1.

of

cost

increased

10% and

374

on

the

optimal

to

% and

171

effect
speed

of
is

this
small.

209c'
is

Fig.

I4. I4. Effect

of higher
(Assumption A)

fuel

prices

on the optimal

speed

40

39

38

I-

Ir

37

P-

36

b-

0
44
.
a

35

34

33

32

.-

18.55 Knots

W-

0-

IIIIII1III
15

18

21

Speed in Knots

375

24

Fig. I4. I5

40

39

Effect
of increase of crew costs on optimal speed
(Relative
escalation
of crew costs per annum)
(Assumption A)

I-

; 38
to

I---

43
t%D
.,-I
G)

37

.
M 36

35

-...

17.15 Knots

--

I
34

33

IIIIIiiiiI
15

21

18
Speed in Knots

376

Fig.

42

I4.16.

of higher
(Assumption
A)

discount

Effect

rate

on optimal

speed

W-

41

40

0-

39

cX 38

41

a
+x
rto
37

Q, 36

a4)

35

._

34

7.20 Knots
X12296

33

Q7.25 Knots
iIO%
II

15

i-

IIIIII

18

21

Speed

in

377

Knots

24

Fig.

46

44

42

40

14.17

Effeot

of higher

Shipbuilding

cost

on optimal

speed

I--

._

W.
-

38

36

17 15 Knots
azm

34
b-

. 32

...

30

--

28

27

II11
15

18
Speed in Knots

378

21

-1

24

14.2.4.

Effect
The

first

cost

increased

was
effect
is

by
the

on

25%

(excluding

ship
50%

and

optimal

decreased

and
is

speed

the
by

in

shown

containers)
50%.

Fig.

The

14.17

it

and

Analysis

Sensitivity

the

In
or

earlier

Computer

to

out

carry

II

in

terms

optimum

design

carried

out

14.3.1.

Merit

of

has
using

known

items

or

design

items.

was

increased

was

measured

The
analysis

the

be

more
the
is

computer

model

incremental

II.

are

Freight

accurately

inherent

changes

which

Required

at

usually
Rate

the

variability

in

as

listed

in

as

items

preliminary
the

over

the

four

life

of
The

years.

terms

of

changing

the

item

II

at

to

three

different

weights.

14.1

gives

the

ranking

each

was

in

used

container

379

in

RFR

such

these

of

containers

these

of

14.2

out

the

and

carry
1500

capacity

merit

each

Table

items

from

the

time.

for

of

carrying

change

container

weight

for

ship

of

ships

14.1,

influence

percentage

one

Table

improvement

on

average

or

those

are

Model

Table

model

analysis

making

computer

21 knots

optimum

Once

sensitivity
model

on

A 10%
and

by

RFR by

basic

identified

were

assumed

was

time.

and

items

their

of

analysis.

sensitivity
items

costs

estimated

items

major

14.3

Table

was

an

vessel.

Nineteen
and

to

main

be

because

the

found

influence

cannot

which

of

it

involves

The

major

stage

life

since

computer

analysis

have

to

computer

generate

Ranking

main

some

to

selected

either

Sensitivity
to

preferred

to

Model

computer

is

computer

been

how

shown

used

II

studies

was

be

could

model

such

economic

it

sections

Model

computer

design.

with

the

of

cost

small.

14.3.

of

first

higher

of

for
14

out

sensitivity

Teu

and

tonnes.

containership
Similarly

speed

h0

-4-)
..,
P

C1

ri

N
t-

cn

00

0\

C\

'r'1

00

t--

11C

cd
E

a)
.,
Cd
0

U
U
Cd
a)
4-i
0

0
p

4-4
W
a
.a
4-+
4-4
m

m
a

4-)
4
4D
.,

H
H
H

t."

4d

Cl

\D

'r _:t

Cl)

00

c''1

O\

O\

t-

1-1 0

t`
0

-:I,
N

tr1

Cl

O\

.:T

I-q
00

00

.
00

.
00

00
N

.
00

t-

m
U

t--

O\

C1

r-q

"

"

t`
\1D

00

00

O1\

t`-

r-i

0o

t-

-11
"

.
00

t`
N

.
00

R
,p

\D
.

WW

t`
N

cn

t`
N

o
U

\D

C\

qm
cd
PQ

t-

Cl

"

.d'
.
00

r-I

C"1

t-

a+

OG
-7

OG

.
CO

E-r

U)

.b
O

0
E
a
0
E

D\

..

r\

,iy
I
.

Cd m
"ri (L)
-4j 0

C100
O\ 00
""
00

u1 O
I

"ri r-f

00 00
""

OO

0'rl

\1D C\

V)

a)

+,

r-I

"ri

r-

lop-

"ri

E
Jv

00

C1

c1
N

tr\

\D
t 0 QD
--:
N
t-" 00 'rl

O\
N

000
000

C?
) t -t
'rl --.
'r100

ri

r1

00

t`

t.00
N

00

Cl

C\

Cl
r-I

:t
N

'r,

00
00
'rl

C1
N

'n
o\

r-i
Cn

Cd

+)
L+" a)
0>

td

Cd

a) \

r-i

\E

wa

crd

0
ir.,

m
>,

m
4

O u1
r-i

wd

A \DO E
m
"ri
4-3

0
0

r-I "..

fy"
0

+'

wd

Pa wa

4-

W
H

a
ri

0
+)

cd

'
,z,

-
U)

acd

r4

O
ri

"rl

"ri

ri

10

a)

(d

d
(
>,
0

>

-a

0
a

cr1

r_

-N
m

cT4
b(d

40

+'

m
0

0
0

a)
fl0

(d

i-)

10
4

a)
p

0) a
"ri
rX4 a)
E

i,

0m
00

4w
rl
U

a)

+) da) m 40

4-) (
>,

UU

"ri
00
,o
U) a>

.-:I-

'r,

\D

380

U)
a)

V)

0
U

a)

rl

rI

10

"ri
4
(n

t`

a
rU

a)

ri
H

$mf
0

a)

+'
m

+)

40

0)

fx

r-I

a)
40

-H

n 0 r-i
a)
0

>
Q

m +)
C 0
H (-a

P
O 4-0)

00

0\

r-i

'""I

r-1

a)

n --!t

oO

CO; \,'r1O r-

.D

--:T C1

"0N

O
Cl

a)
C
Cd

Ei

r-i

\O n

r.

ri

000

4
m

Cd

.,
.,
.,on

"

a\
"
H

\D \D
t- C\

>

.,
a

rn

.: t

0\ -t
00
zm

.,

ri

'r\

+ac
,
.

10
(1)

rt

00

Ol

O\

tr1

c
U

rl

00

0
F-4

4-4
4.a
4- trz

C1
N
r-q

r
N
O

tr1
00
t`

. z-

r`

00

r`
N

N
\D
C1

Qv

t`

. Q'

{-

\O

\D

C1

---I.
Cl

C1

pb
o0
P4

44-

cv

a)
E

4-

0H
0

+'
cd

()

a0

r-1

-7

1r,
N

\D

a1

t-

1r1

tr1

00

00

00

1r1
.

r`

ri

r-1

Ol
.

c>;+-)
0

ra
N
(\t

co
N

r-I

O\

00
00
N
N

00
r`
N
N

wa
,

.
F-I

r-i

-4-)

EE10 -4-1
oN - 10
00
0 >, (/)a)OD- ai
C1 )

r-1

,y
(d 0
r- rq
"ri (

(s, >

1f1 Q t
" r Cl

"N

r-i

C1
Cl

C1

N ,--1 ..

0
.a

cn Ei
U)

a
a
Ei
3
\D
r-i
"
N

Cl
O\
00
"

r-1

i-

00

cd
Cl NN
r-{
((j

-i"

Cl

""

"
N

r-1 OO

H
E-4

to

O
U

w
rn

Q
vl
N

1r1
N
"

\D
00

r-I
r-i

r-1

cn N

N
Ol

"

+)
U)

a)

fd
H
4-)
S,

4-)
4
hD
.r.{
a)

+-)
F4
0.

z4-)

a,

cd

N
'-I

ri) r-1 c',

0 cd "
0po
x 4-1

N
_-r
0
r-q

O
0

Cl
H

L')

r
"
N

1-:
t

rn
m

w.

00

U) a)

MM
Vl

D
X

.M6

E
{.,,
{.

4-)

M
VI

"
1
F+

, +

ii+

0
1Tl

O
1

]
H, 0

T,

Cd

II

+)

$a

r-I

U)

4D

0
U

wE

U
aip
U

p
a)

.a

"rl

"ri
(
-P

d)

r.

U+-)

4)
U)
4-'

(d

iP
40 -P
-a) 0

r-i

U)

0
U

U)

ry

C1
r-I

I,
.:
1-4

rl
r-i

\D
r-i

381

Elr

II

+)
cd 0U
C 0
d
rCO
U
tlU"

Cd

0 Q)

0
U

+) oW
0
0 4-)
U ri
.
.I3p C\I

4-

an

(1)
E
Z

a)

ad

CV
II

"ri i-

aa)
r 3

0-a

v)

ao

O\

r-i

1-1

4"=

sr

o"r

"ri (L.
--1 E
'C A
rcd "
/

, 14
rl

C\t

v) a
cd >

4"4

U)

a) C\i
13D

Q)

cd E

Ul

r-

"
U1
1-1 a)
Q)

00

Q) cd rn

"

a)
Cd

v)
4-1 V,
oO

-i-)
0)

"ri

cd F

9) cd
Z

r-i
CT
C\I

()
"rl

.Q

U
!r
"rl

rA

0)
a) )

rl

"r"I

4-)
(d

Q)+
(-

O r-I
O
II
tr1
"0
r-i
Q)

?, 0

4F

ri)
U)
ti
cd
a)

'0 3
a)
a)

zo

a)

+"

cm OU

11

F-4

4-)

"

P-{

r"i

-11"1

E
U

11

a
PQ

cd ..]

"

4" o
o

"ri

4-)

Q) U
4-1 a)
"ri

C!)

14.2

Table

Table

and

with

containerships
10.5

14.3

and

In

these

all

gross

average

7 tonnes

tonnes

the

gives

merit

for

ranking

weight

of

each

container

respectively.
B as

assumption

cases

in

given

A was

Table

applicable.
14.4

Table
for

analysis

the

homogenous

Normal
13

load

container

Each

these

of
in

necessarily

order

due

parameters

to

to

sensitive

are

72% to

is

its

on

deck

the

and

ships

74%

of

the

++ Actual

tend

to

The
in

changes
in

(174j

Langenberg

ranking.

each

not
figures

the

in

various

these

of

tonnes

higher

use

merit

to

10

with

below

high

items.

the

the

among

of
is
when

additional
the

original

figures

containers.

centroid

First

Cost.

of

may be less.

382

weight

the

steel

able

to

of

each

costs

be

carried

if

the

container

centroid

steel

weight

is

cargo

deadweight

However
containers

steel

containerships

the

above

found

weight

container,
In

lightship

was

in

change

very
in

the

weight
Also

each

was

of

steel

constant.

Consequently

service

of

containers

displacement

steelweight

containers

weight

GM remain

because

weight.

the

of
of

Rate

fraction

ship's

number

Freight

the

lightship

distribution

of

is

considered

average

weight.

the

ships

considered.

tonnes

discussed

This

of

the

on

centroid

at

10

more,

Required

feature

homogeneous

distributed

even

percentage

the

the

part

and

constant

between

be

are

relatively

the

effect

steel

it

interesting

displacement
with

their

weight.

important

One

items

of

that

is

For

an

or

the

steel

containerships

to-be

tonnes

will

owners

10% improvement

found

was

weight.

ship

containerships

tonnes

their

each

(WS)

weight
It

German

major

indicate

brackets

Steel

13

of

weights

average

the

whilst

of

that

rare

are

design

shipowner

sensitivity

weights

is

of

loads

container

Danish

tonnes.

it

loading

container

the

of

average

however,

practice

homogenous

with

results

different

three

In

container.

the

summarises

to
would

the

of
reduced
can be

distribute
reduce

the

at

td)
d'

rl ,)g
mg

Cr)

Co

ri

t-

in

r1

CD

tr

rl

0
i

w p
Wm
ri

t"

rl

Imm
d
be A

"
q

O
\
ka,
aW

Mi

00

In

IIi

F)

(n

h
d'

00

P")

a)

C)
td'

7-1

. -I

r-1

M
O
N

O
d'
H

N
C)
N

M
N
07

0
00

M
CO
IA

O
d'

O)
M

O
d'

O
d'

O
M

C)
M

00

C)
tC)

00
ri

r1

0
00
C)

d'

d'
d'

rl

. -i
t`

C)
0

t`

N
d'
N

rl

N
r1
C)

O
d'

00
N)

00
M

(3)
M

O
M

O
M

O
m

C)

00

r1

rt

1A

rl
O
:9
v

"
8A

4.)

93
o
m
q Co UO
mm

> 93
oa
94 +.o3
a
0
ge

+J
aq
m
,4
m
.

m
0)
.-1 O
Cd

G4i

aa

V1
] r-i

Aw

IA
M 00 0 1[)
1 0 00
9
0
OO
Co M

.,.I . -4

d
p `s
,

Cl

cti

UUUU

0
M

C)
00

M
IA
00
M

0
0

ri

ra
.-1

C)
d'

. -a
N

ti

000
ti 0 0
N
001 A
d' d' t-

0
N

d'
00
N

0
N

"
M
ri

000
000

d'

Co

ti

mNO
m0

1c)

"

IN.
ca

t+

, -I

+)

Co

.a
m

>U

ja

w
d

aa
O

rd

c4

O"

W
U 1+

"

Aa

00

.wrf
m

m
>s

tr

Co

1y
" "
CI., 00 "
Co w

"

q0
,1>
+")

>,

r1
P.4
m

a d rf "
'O W
d
a
'ti "+a+3m 4-3
F+
q
Z$ T+
ym
r1

,+

'd

o, + 0
ab Q

l e)

d'

+ -

O Il)
00 I

OO

C) t0 t1t) NNM
M
-1 r1 OO

"

.aa wd

,
W

60

"

14
U
m

d
tc
1y "

00

Co

O
a
r1
r-1
Co F+ r1 m

+
m

"

)-+

ao

Q)

"-I
0

m
,i

+
iM

b"

"

+)

+a m

M"
md

U+)
+i

rt
00

ma
Oa

r1

wo,i

"to

ti O
0oU C9+

r,

383

"

.>y
p
,
.Q

,r

0O a >
00U
.a0
w9 4 0] e
IC)

"

ka

9r1

d' M
1n
In
-0MM
0a
NM
m N
rf
M
N
r-1 1f) d rt ri OO

"d'

aU

MO

"

q +a
mO

O
.-1
p
d
F

D+QI
4J
M
-rl
DO

4-)
,4A
00

CV
4

p
LL

02

0 w
000 00
M

O oc r)

aGG

"). fs+
LL-I -f+i
,

O t0 M

W.

ri

Co m
,40
+a O

r1
"m

+.3

a0
w o

,a
Om
"a

ao
OU

r,

rr

eo
m
cd
fY

"

d'

0
, -1 Co
-+

. -+

W
t
0

o
94

`~

. GC

4.1
w
r 1 rl

W
Co
E4 p

Co)
N

N
O

le

ti

"

Lf)

rI

p
a
M

4-b
C

'.

O
Ci
N M

O N

t-

v
+'
el

m
a
a
o

gig
D4 W

M
1-1

1-1
tO

r1

c;
d'

cD 00
M tM "dl

00
td'

CD
tO

d' M

"

06
M

Co
+

a
U

r-,

z
-cy u

3 E-

U 8

?4

0
.-1

OD
N

M
N

e0 W

m
0

N
rl

r- 1
ra-i >

d'

tD

Ey

to

a
A

>b

4)

q
q W W
W t0 +%

r l
v

Dms

94
d

m
eo
op

'
O

.,.4
m

vi
14
m

+
.g

+'
a
.eo
+ o
W
O

sM

V W

rl
m

W
m

4-t a 4+
m

12 W+a
+1

a
a'id

m +a
4

WZ1 ma Va

Co

t-

it
t)

WO
b
_H

vE

384

d'

eo

$
V

a
O
rl

*'1

ad
Q. m
Co
U
4
mM

'a

0
UQ

CO1
a
.-4

m+

CH

93

AWW

ad 00
q
II
0

W
9"
a0

rl

ir

Om
0AM

Co

rl

!'!

O
-
OWO

O
t` eM O
N
' A
-1 N

ca
Co

'd
+

t1

W-mO

NaM
O

W.

m
ad O
a r+
G4 >

z
a

to

II

I.

mM

eo Ma

p, tWr N
c
mc

+"1

ar)

.Q>

.mO
N

Wm

W .-1

Co Co

4.)

Co
ma
+

TI

"r1

eo

II

ti

mmm
LL 4+
i14 . a ++


.)4
q

cq

M
.-1

7-1

et)

O
N
M

N
00
d'

t'')
O

rl

r-I

0
O
A

eN
N

OD

t`
C)
O

ti
M
ti

Co
0

0
CD

t`

Co

7"1

it)

N
tf)
d'
M

tti
Lo

00
M
0

0)
t+)
C)

Lt)
tD

it)
C)

tD

N
M
cD

00
le
M

IH

"

IH m
.,4 .,.1
q
A

a2

0
f0

0
\

tD

u+

m
O

H
-4-
K

0
:9
v

[
m

tD
cD

Qa aw

tD
cD

ri

t
cD

CD
00

7-1

C)
O

to
M

er)

e!)
0
M

ri

00
rl

M
r-e

et)

d'
N
h

00
0

ti
tD

0
0

cD

en

r!
00
Co

pC

re

3
(s W

0
Q

WA2
;D (A

E
(y

rn

"

Mm

O A"7-1

01N'OIO

rJrJ

m0

Wr

4-)
m

as
0

14
a0

4'
ti
eu
V-4a

+)
,a,. 1

as

as A
0
..mv

es 7
q ri
.M >
G4

, e ,-i

M 00 O to
C) Co 0 d
OO
OO
(D M

1 et) O tO M
00 00 00 tD
tiM

O0

tD M

it)
d'

rl
N

i`

"
M

0
't)

"
N
ri

d'
"
t")
"-i

Do
le
N

0
N

o
Co tD
00 et)
d' l-

00
00
eNst'

in

00

ti
M

C)

t`
r1

C)
0

0
1-4

O
N

N
d'

GNG
C)

V.-4

ee) d'

in 00

0ei'tD
00 ri in d '

enCD c+! M
r4 r1 NM
N
"
74 ri OO

C) tp ti
et) NNM
M"
ri i O0

m
41
rl

De

ID

1-4

Aw

x
W

5
m

m
Le

>b

Co

'q

CJ
W

Co

+>

9.4
0.

t W

>0
, 4-)

93

F7
G

A
m

+)

gg
b0

s;e

m eo
C ++
Qa O
A it

ir

VA
0
. -1

z
E+

NMN
N p.l

tD

.-I .C
as 0

M
O d M

l-

a
.
10
in

o
v

ae
~

Co

emo
esi
sa+ t+

p
q

b
,+
e
0A
ab
."

m
0

1.
"

4"

0.4

Cr l +- 'd a+

0. u
tD tr
eti
m a, Tl
o
A
m
"
0
pp
43.0

0d m
m

g
r,. g mo ai +
d'

w a~
c >
Cn <s
t-

385

Co

m
+b

'd

o
-+

ti
0

aQ F+ r-1 0
+3 m

wO

T+

to

09

Co+-)0m
Ic 4.) in
0 $ H
b-1 ,
0

44
+)

l
vm

v
i

cq

rt

'n

ri

t)

, -1 ,'0
d4

ri

r1

Za

CO O
r-i

O
1-1

r1

tD

0
m

"

F,
w

q.;

w m
-1
qm

a4

M
CC
Q)
O

tD

r-1

a'

tD
d'

00

q
0

Pd
V
v-1

pW
W
pC

t-

M
M

. -1 N
OG N

ti

d
N

CD

CD

p
LO tD t

to

T-1

P p
A

le,

00
CD
ti

,.

cD

E+

U) E+

O
pp
3

f
W

v1

JO

f+
0
x

mO

11

rgi c8
94 7

O
rd
N 0
1-1 ri

O
cD

tD

O
N

O
N
N

N
ri

4)

4
.V.

+> 0
1-4lr i

a Cd
-ti

.44

tD.

IN

0,

'd
m

11

mq

le
0
0
l.`" sr
M ri In
.-1 N N

ic!
"
N

00

O
m q
m q

kq
g 0 \
W at +-, W
O

_A

A
O

\
W

ov

cd

ec
g

.
cd
$4
m

Co td

aa

d"

p,

m v
0

ml r1
0 (P 43
0 0 m
4-3
4.3 0

m
Am4.

+3
00O

02U) U zm

r1

. -

tD

tir1 ao
.

o)

rf

Co
) 0)
44
r1
C)

Co
41
g
0

au

"rl

p,
+1

a
r1
Ni
m
q
T1
4.3

386

-e

4-4

NW

td

94

u
oD m
m

.C
ho

. -1

1-1
Dr
C

a
1

01
i<

"
Mm

.C

Oo
ei

144

1<

V.4

.CM00
m0N
e
m

11

0
4)

o
N

40.1
+)

0
ed

E+

VO

em
0
w

t;

p, a-Vm
00
a6 0

m
41 g wg
V q+
O TI
O fr O

"C

.,
tD
Oo

11

+-1 el
V
ed

m
ia

\
W

11

0
Oh

Am

ri

...

E+ OAd.

"
d

't7

m
".
m q
q

Ce)

UA

r1

ei c
W cd

a : i+"
a
aaM

ri
4)
ia

Table

14.4.

Summary of Sensitivity
of each container.
% Diff.
from
basis
RFR

Item

Average
Weight of
Container

Merit
Ranking

Analysis

% Diff.
from
basis
RFR

14

Basis RFR
/tonne

for

Merit
Ranking

different

% Diff.
from
basis
RFR

10.5

28.867

average

Merit
Ranking

40.447

68.427

Load Facto

3.772

3.627

3.452

Round Voyage distance

4.223

4.285

4.577

Container
handling
cost

2.938

2.979

3.038

Ship's
First

1.939

11

1.918

11

1.939

11

3.267

3.308

3.512

1.330

13

1.315

13

1.328

13

Average
crew wages

0.471

15

0.479

15

0.482

15

Installed
power

2.865

3.219

3.931

0.374

16

0.383

16

0.386

16

Gross Register
tonnage

0.297

17

0.306

17

0.305

17

Fuel oil
costs

1.548

12

1.476

12

1.336

12

sumption

2.123

10

2.185

10

2.489

Labour
wage rate

0.921

14

0.929

14

0.963

14

5.785

5.771

5.685

Cost

weight

Port-time

per

round

voyage
lif

Ship's

Total
costs

port

Specific
fuel
con-

Operating
costs
Steel

wt.

7.874

10.493

18.437

Steel

cost

0.277

18

0.274

18

0.297

18

2.362

2.396

2.464

10

of contain
ers

2.362

2.396

2.464

10

Life
of
container

3.346

3.389

3.487

Cost of
Container
No. of

set

387

GM.

if

Consequently

of

containers

their

displacement
the

above

centroid

although

This
the

of

weight

is

reduction

deadweight

to
in

change

of

number

reduce

each

container

for

14.0,10.5

weight

steel

In

the

of

number
for

ships

tonnes

to

on
of

first

cost

the

the

the

ratio
fraction

the

on

which

of

container

for

10%

shows
of

reduction

average
of

to

change

deadweight

14.4

the

l0q

containers

is

subject

able

considered

consider

selective

to

steelweight
by

reduce

2,3

stability

considerations.

and

the

weight

of

8.07

tonnes

respectively.

by

causes

14,10.5

by

rises
in

reduction
ship

in

container

therefore

The
the

10%

deck

of

and

annum

of

not

of

allows

21% respectively.

that

to

stowage

is

attain

smaller

RFR
as

and

each

because

per

and

development.

14.92,11.41

carried

cargo

Table

in

change

program

deadweight

rise

average

stability

weight

respectively

additional

weights

containers
of

generally

compared

for

a reduction

program

will

impact

increases

further

without

stowage

larger

Selective

The

13.2.

Section

the

Consequently,

ship.

the

improving

of

than

be

in

tonnes

where

that

Therefore

illustrated

reduces.

in

result

less

will

progressively

weight

container

can

7.0

and

drafts

containerships

is

ships

ships

board.

have

designed

ships

weight

limited

limited

This

below

steelweight

in

most

stability.

at

will

in

steel

free

deadweight

ships.

that

the

the
to

weight

stability

to

deadweight

limited

in

geometric

steelweight

cargo

the

the

deadweight

cargo

compared

to

reduced

present

requirements

by

allowable

21

be

generally

and

are

deadweight

their

not
is

cargo

Containerships

in

average

the

and

both

increase

in

the

characteristic

centroid

steel

in

must

maintained

increase.

will

of

deck

is

3%.

steel

each

7.0
The

container

7.8%,

The
11% and

weight

Therefore

and

also

the

value

reduces
of

RFR reduces.
The
shows

also
in

sensitivity

this

estimation

of
better

that

thesis

need

method

RFR with
estimating

to

be

developed

equations

developed.
by

388

in

reduction

Chapman

The
in

steelweight
than

those

used

steelweight
1969

results

in

higher

Moreover

containerships.
when

for

approached

10%

around
the

dimensions
It

shipyards.
and

and

depend

the

shipyard
them

translate

to

depends

very

To

much

a basis

the

either
as

proposed

in

single

6 per

the

much

some
of

the

hull

guidance

of

choice

obtained

difficult

was

computer

programs.

steelweight

of

structure
was

it
for

suitable

weight

formulae

simple

graphs,

value

estimation
(see
Section

of

to

different

that

individual

on

form
form

into

built

at

shipyard

put

gravity
ranging

were

specification

method

that

by

the

6.1

weight

in

Costs

Operating
The

associated

and

;d

whose

such

as

were

t?z_is

studied,

K with

the

the

value

be

achieved

by

considering

trunk

type

structure

be

type

of

weight

of

hull

expected

to

be

structure
'Design

e. g.

for

two

or three
be achieved,

adopted

structure
about

4 percent
(36).

about

skin

is

the

The

could

steel

lower
A more

production'
percent

reduction
if

especially

(202).

(TRCOS)

cost

operating

costs

trunk

and

weight

tensile

deri\

be

ship

speed

and

or

can

design

displacement

higher

can

double
to

the

study

size

rationalise

construction

steel

lightship

ship

to

available.

conventional

save

For

structure
(36, ).
Langenberg

and

to

closer

skin

approach

might

of

K has

of

estimated.

steel

lower

cent

be

was

in

value

dimensions

of

to

single

the

method

possible

skin

careful.

cost

range

Reduction

voyage

to

wide

data

limited

more

the

to

has

not

was

in

in

on

ship

a very

where

than

be

which

Although

this

apply

steelweight

it

by

of

8).

method

from

found

centre

Voss

and

discrepancies

weight

same

Blohm

and

containerships

& Gilfillan's

Watson

weight

and

built

recently

shipbuilder,

that

very

practice.

shipyard

from

on

cannot

gravity

these

because

also

was

of

centre

on

for

case

German

guidance

found

were

main

same

the

confirmed

containerships

of

is

than

weight

steel

includes

container
with

the

handling
the

operating

389

daily
costs
required

costs,

running
but

excludes
sets

of

the
containers.

The

influence

RFR due

on

to

improvement

10%

since

attainable
the

operating

Round

The

bill

room

in
1.3

in

increase

port

increases

which

the

per

carried

to

easy

annum

in

increase

influences
The

are

of

ports

be

suboptimum

when
also

reduce

(9%)

time
Increase

in

the

reduction

fuel

costs

in
(2%).

half

this

time

spent

at

2% but

there

is

costs

by

about

6% due

time
to

to

It

is
is

Some

weather

routing.

unless

Cargo

the

It

annum.

taken.

necessary

(5%)

costs
(2.5%).

parameter.

attention
be

distance.

the
by

and

less

a
improvement
Great

weather

it.

this
an

feature

indicates
but

advantage

a part

as
serving

that

that
of

a reduction

advantage

the

wider
by

a country

could
transport

one

port

the

port

ALFI)
load

decreases

port

miles

time.

the

and

n.

per

this
and

encourages

(ALFO,

Increasing

6770

trips

in

to

be

main

was

handling

by

round

considered

coasting

factor

Load

of

against

may

reduced

container

increases

of

call

It

system.

operating

shown

importance

of

total

close

much

of
by

reduced

and

travelled

is

sailing

circle

are

a reduction

by

achieved

or

reduces

costs

number

possible

be

to

costs

also

distance

of

be

the

propose

mixture

to

Fuel

(DIST)

distance

voyage

days.

be

ENDUR)

decrease
by

over

automation.

endurance

Round

selection

consumption

(DIST,

distance

readily

control

might

by

fuel

trip
distance
round
(ENDUR)
was assumed

may

is

cost

more

direct

more

improvement

fuel

specific

is

costs

has

10%

engine

voyage

operating

shipowner

the

lower

with

manning

reducing

of

engine

in

costs.

by

either

an

operating

significant.

quite

sea

in

reduction

time
the
The

factor
the

by

number

increases
number
increase

10% increases
of

the
of

port

round
in

390

round

load

costs

trips/annum
factor

(4%).

trips/annum
(1.6%)
reduces
increases

and
the
the

handling

container
however

cost

(5.2%)

which

increased

due

to

the

the

of

to

by

but

Another
or

to

ports

more

in

increase

the

to

be

Life

of

container

an

into
to
life

came

into

Moreover
as

to

if

container
the

that

fact

between

of
is

life

one

the

may

is

present

containers

every

economic

judgement.

life

was

policy
5 years

of

as

Section

is

show

less

12
built

than

the

extended

yet

to

12

the
is

This

(1968-1980)

life.

expected

so

refurbishing

than
years.

to refurbish
shipowners
(Section
is based
11.3)

391

12

of

on what

years

8 years,

earlier

life

Since

containers.

occurs

came

containerships

major

every

a reasonable

11.5).

nearly

purpose

added

flow

cash

negative

the

have

indication
(see

be

to

containerships
to

undertake

of

containers

thought

thought

it

generation

the

of

at

attendant

incurred

built

clear
be

usually

of

the

with

was

is

should

shipowners

amount

that

no

which

set

(130).

calls

costs

purpose

operation

a new

the

the

first

extend

co-ordinated

achievable

the

it

is

a container

the

since

factor

competition

under

A trade-off

first

There

to

supply

steamed.

8 years

Presently

due

open

additional

but

extra

load

of

choice.

of

the

when

of

mainly

and

life

years.

make

leg

one

realistic

under

be

legs

(LIFEC)

service.
15

to

cargo

more

economic

A container
assumption

might

is

gained

this

85%

of

distance

revenue

extra

factor

and

inbound

on

of

either

overall

routes.

demand

is

and

the

of

improvement

an

cargo

68%

annum

effect

outbound

be

load

per

This

on

would
of

get

in

impact

possibility

carried

life

real

certain

the

detrimental

increasing

factor

load

competition

Increasing

achievable.

less

balancing

better

In

operating

cargo

the

cargo

on

load

of

of

whereby

overtonnage

assumption

amount

of

have

will

2.5%o.

rarely

flow

overall

merely

RFR.

is

voyage

The

offsets

on

uneven

round

due

or

time
factor

journey

the

than

more
port

load

the

increases

also

on

by

increases

factor

10%

(5-3%).

costs

in

the

model

a large
it

would
indicates

This
steel
on

sound

Port

time

(DIP)

The

proportion

is

governed

ships
of

of

ports

call
The

unloaded.
it

is

of

its
the
in

ship

the

number

the
at

in

(5%)

costs

are

port

reduced

and

route

and

and

unloads

leg.

sea

number

loaded

short

roughly

This

all
means

time

equal

at

sea

will

of

the

operating

Thus

Section
handling
and

as

hardly

costs
40'

change

much

any
for

10.9,

of
in
to

rebates,

empty

cannot

container

costs
costs

change

significant

are

this

forms

cost

handling

costs

for

time

daily
the

and
costs

trips/annum
(5%)

annum

which

operation.

of

routes

be

will

port

time

type

of

to

sea

ship.

are

in
by

5%.

more

route

in

or

by

either

a reduction

392

container

a few

by
of

bring

not

A 20'

costs.

Therefore

containers.
achieved

40'

uniform
will

handling

except

be

less

or

container
as

total

the
handling

container

container

handle

50% of

nearly

A 10% improvement

Container

container

proportion

Port

round

longer

on

handling

(CHANDL)

handling

reduces

of

of

This

operating

per

cost

lower

cost

cost.

the

carried

time

port

appreciably

Container

worldwide.

cargo

the

since

(5%).

port

number

increased

the

handling

operating

2%:

increased

be

Container

by

the

importance

time

shorter

3% but

The

pronounced

of

reduced

offsets

less

fuel

of

distance

per
annum
(3%),
costs
container
(590.
and exit
costs

entry
(5%) because

amount

trip

round

trips

round

are

than

the

like

costs

the

increases

time

the

and

by

increase

there

is

the

of

container
the

containers

loads

spends

of

number

port

overall

about

end

of

distance,

containership

port

increases

turn

costs

of
Route

each

time

sea

voyage

Atlantic

considered

the

costs

20'

and

to

port.

increases

more

round

North

Reduction

in

the

containers

that
and

by

that

assumed

time

port

of

ports

and
(see
in

reduction
a

cargo

the

load

mix
factor.

of

However

sophisticated

more

themselves

may

Installed
10%

to

manner

designed
7t-

The

0.8

t,

the

and

are

with

average

by

of

the

3,5

each

each

cost

In

for

14,10.5

is
is

and

to

able

by

rise
in

reduction

(1.5%)

labour

containers

containership

There

of

similar

of

container

container

machinery

number
8

and

of

the

reduces

(8.5%).

fuel

respectively.

(3.5%),

insurance

cost

increases

annum

1% to
in

Improvements
to

unlikely
frictional

achieve

and

may

indicate

cost

of

ship

the

installed

from

time
look

time

be

also

to

maintain

at

diesel

Number

Sets

of
The

cost

life

of

the

wide

are

of

propeller

and

reducing

is

always

it

may

to

continuous

dockings
polishing

in

power

design

engine

extend
service

required

be

necessary

overload
power

(SETCNT)

and

lesser

less

more

probable
or

less

the

number

impact

containers.
is

containers

reserve

reduce
Practical

dry

measures

schedules

containers
have

will

containers

and

these

of

Containers

of
of

fruition.

frequent

of

to

advantage.
(COSCNT),

Container

of

per

but

steady

methods

reach

afloat

definition

an

carried

are

unless

costs

However

Standard

the

(10%)

costs

deadweight

power

the

advantage

carefully

running.

installed

polishing

power.
to

Cargo

in

reduction

2%.

between

the

to

maintenance

substantially,

hull

underwater

2% due

break-through

studies

off

Cost

the

resistance

trade

would

machinery
(2.5%).

of

by

by

reduced

costs
(7.59),

costs

oil

and

world

preferred.

weight

weight

1.4

and
cost

fuel

of

steel

weight

Operating

the

Ports

(2.59%"

by

to

containers

empties.

power

of

reduced

average

material

or

weight
of

deck

1t

of
be

installed

in

reduction

the

from

to

are

of

(SHP)

reduction

(7-8%)

weight

control

carriage

labour

of

power

the

minimise

flexibility

with

routing

reduction
since

uniform

393

on

the
ate

of

sets

RFR

than

of

10%

cost
2500

of
per

of
extending

in

the

cost

containers
container

(1980
the

number

With

the

of

level).

cost

number

of

time.

turnaround
sets

of

Specific

fuel

in
(10%)

and

in

steelweight

in

of

fuel

deck

Its

effect

in

fuel

in

in

engines

low

very
low

The

Container
Cost

the

below
by

bankruptcy

Cost
ensure

must
that

being

they

fuel

are

but
or

include

fuel

of

that

is
by

diesel

diesel

relatively

bore

machinery.

engine

and

long

the

present

engines

with
from

efficiency
fuel

not

cheaper

diesel

with

of

the

steam

relatively
by

propeller

aspect

from

replaced

consumption

in

to

reduction

consumption

being

among

scavenged

the

ensured

compared

have

relatively

economy.

such
become
first
very

unnecessary

purchase

circumstances
a

394

subsidy
Practical

cost.

items

values

scrutiny
are

omitted,

In

vessels.
may

correct
and

be

themselves

thus
in

reduction
of

First

of

price

either

permanent

careful

high

very

sophisticated
the

circumstances

cost

has

is

made

the
reduces
(10%%).
Similar

deadweight.

cargo

outweighed

usually

a lower

essentially

number

(CAPCOS)

economic

unusual

sets
box

required

containers

benefit

quite

when

ships

because

higher

important

an

fuel

of

costs

benefits

Cost

First

Ship's

3.5

the

and

power,

the

on

The

uniflow

RPM remain

loss

and

is

reduce

towards
RPM.

installed

vessels

is
to

is

and

ones.

effort

manufacturers

of

in

consumption

Great

trend

new

engines

fuel

cost

inherently

existing

steam

higher

to

probable.

the

operating

its

fitted

being

more

number

ship

the

consumption

effect
on

with

machinery

in

11.1).

the

service

fuel

results

negligible

with

of

is

ship

specific

reduction
weight

per

in

consumption

fuel

of

sets

1.8

found

Fig.

13,

of

reductions

per

A reduction
weight

(see

annum

frequency

Therefore

containers

per

from

the

on

is

variation

required

trips

vary

can

depending

larger

containers

round

of
sets

ship

of

sets

of

container

per

However

First
to

specifications
value

is

obtained

for

items

necessary

or

cost

items

of
is

reduction
pressures

and
Cost

First

are

exploited.

of

exploiting

that

breakthroughs

any

and

The

reduces

risk

other

to

the

intervention.

state

in

it

limits

materials

main

full

Also

as

new

of

competitive

the

source

in

reduction
amount

immediate

of

investment.

Fuel

Oil
Fuel

oil

a 10%

and
by

(COFUEL,

Costs

CLUBSY,

27% of

about
in

reduction

fuel

cost

CLUBSY)

total

will

operating
reduce

cost

operating

cost

2-5%Between

by

1973

factor

fuel

that

times

as

result

costs

capital

on
to

liable

very
be

might

fuel

of
by

oil

increase

a factor

in

considered.

The

from

speed

lower

tonne

mile
it

as

increase

basis.

would

important

to

these

possible

demand

Since

be

premature

slow

8.5.

of

previously

increased

has

oil

results

increase

otherwise

price

usually

insensitive

as

the

diesel

and
price

speed

economic

1980

and

7.7

of

Substantial

to

is

cost

CDESL,

lower

longer

voyage

crew

costs

fuel

prices

for

the

increases

and
are
design

which

steaming,

has

little

competitive

disadvantage.
(LIFES)

of

Ship

An

extension

Life

that

high

in

the

rates

now

little

influence.

they

twenty

aged
are

If

change.

hull

and

as

a means

of

an

is

to

securing

be

expected

change
but

depend

re-equipping

re-engining

in

this

in

shapes

change,

much

future

are

effectively
the

area

technological

395

for

beyond

on
not

as

with

a weakness

more

service

on

twenty

for

observation,
long

as

technological
influenced

profoundly
may

new
of

effect

RFR,

is

accurate

kept

must

does

as
a

and

by

Certainly

an

are

Much
sizes

worth
common

than

today

profitable.

ship

Perhaps

merit

of

the

of

interest

measure

vessels

life
present

has

years

the

uses

a comparison
the

to

become

ship

machinery
obsolescence

commonplace,
low

at
and

cost.

equipment

may

very

well

the

overwhelm
to

be

age

whole

beyond

preserved

may

in

increase

it

labour

wage
by

with

new

vessel

wage

with

is

ship
for

old

consequent

for

so

by

labour

will

have

many

labour

by
for

costs

can

have

the

ship.

wage

shipbuilder
significant

Improvements

effect

of

overhead

his

placing

and

the

legislation,

rates

of

the

5.0%.

improvement
wage

in

decreases

rates
cost

economics

labour

government

allowance

the

(WR)

lower

with

overall

but

more

capital

here

choice

productivity

rate

years

labour

a decrease

the

of

the

the

and

country

on

effects

life

Rates

in

101

that

shows

in

by

has
in

order

Wage

improvement

costs

shipowner

in

the

Cost.

Labour

10%

labour

twenty

made

Capital

Shipbuilding
A

be

to

need

If

vessel.

dictated

costs

rates

the

reducing

liable

are

to

increase.

Wages

Crew,

of
Crew

costs

can

costs,

Petty

legal

or

if

costs.

about

only

hull

little

vary

in

a similar

each

or

by

and

in

by

either

reducing
promoting

more

costs

standard

employing
number

interchangeability

ship.

396

of

from

attendant

crew

brings

costs

maintenance

and

stores

magnitude
of

seeks
lower
where
of

crew

and
other

flag
of

with
crew

of

any

level

usually
crew

the

or
him,

costs,

ships

shipowner

the

crew

the

costs.

insurance

similar

in

WOFF)

achieve

him,

with

operating

machinery,

to

constrain

world

are

WPO,

running
different

under

allows

longer

the

daily

scope

improvement

costs

assuming

the

ships

climate
no

crew

Therefore
costs

has

a 10%

between
trade

efficiency.

possible

and

8 for

developing

operating

Excluding

will

demands

the

1% reduction

repairs,

crew

political

However

provisions.

in

the

(WCREW,

Officers
57%% of

of

shipowner

from

daily

The

factor

boundaries

crew

lower

and

normally

national

selecting

and

by

vary

10% reduction

is

which

Therefore

flags.

Officers

costs

engaged

operating
a reduction
wage
this

is

within

not

Port

(CPORT)

Costs
Port
basis

the

the
port

to

ports

of

call.

port

Large

factor

even

will

have

little

costs

except

which

are

by

omitting

of

lower

loss

showing

in

this

thesis

simpler

(6.5%)

the

gained

significance
1969

on

the

by

be

may

achieved

benefit

be

traded

off
the

on

than

authorities

port

significance

equations

port

those

in

the

program

of

net

registered

RFR

developed
e. g.
tonnage.

the

decrease

great

port

There

since

port

is

thereby

costs
little
have

costs
is

change

GRT,

of

the

(0.5%o).
GRT

No

a function

made

expected

little
with

in

cost

(3%)

cost
insurance

hull

the

the

same

of

total

the

and

but

amount

the

and

has

tonne

war

steel

of
cost

risk

reduces
the

of

ship

insurance

effect

negligible

on

the

costs.

operating

Containerships
areas

the

certain

must

shipowner

regulations.

reduction

The

reduces

possible,
a

attendant

this

GRT will

RFR.

material

(1.5%).

with

The

costs

reducing

are

of

(STLCOS)

10%

total

call

were

operating

tonnage

Costs

Steel

in

in

number

costs

by

vary

(GRT)

costs

port

the

saving

a function

as

upon

costs

will

Although

given

incorporated

Tonnage

total

and

be

be

may

10%- reduction

the

that

Registered

fore

the

earnings.

costs

directly

But

of

expressed

costs

of

distance.

steaming

The

rebates

port

Port

10.7).

influencing

ports

in

port

A considerable

certain

low,

Gross

in

negotiable.

is

in

Section

by

perhaps

any

depend

for

costs

improvement

variations
(see

operating

0.650.

also

choice

against

to

10

of

by

will

and

the

of

10%

costs

operating

from

6.5%

nearly

Therefore

ship.

reduces

port

form

costs

need

require

attention

to

such

vessels

consequently
market

surplus

within

the

steel

of

mild
industry

some

the

notch
cannot

high

toughness
take

Ultimately

steel.
may

397

tensile

particularly

great

steel

and

the

steel,

of

advantage
greater
benefit

some

of

efficiency
container-

Steel

ships.
sizes

and

by

in

reduction
14.3.2.

steel

Teu

ships

3 knots.

of

size
the

number

with

Fig.

14.20
the

of

ports

ship

size

the

of

Rate

is

linear.

The

speeds

is

apparent

from

ship

rate

of

change

the

higher

of

1500

Teu

and

increasing
The

knots

speed

step

increasing

of
Freight

on

the

number

the

Required
of

the

changing

Rate

shows

the

speed

the

of

14.19

2000

the

with

effect

Freight

ports

of

ship's

speed

ports

carry

call.

size

and

number

operating
Freight

and
(Fig.

knots

of

slopes

ship

of

increasing

size

the

lines

14.20)

has

speed

compared

to

the

speeds

of

27

higher

at

the

ships

1500

ports
27

of

larger

per

and

lower

ships

for

the

cargo

scale

of

above

knots

1850

Teu

Rate.

speeds

call

number

14.18).

bigger

Rate

higher

more

Required

21

Freight

of

the

of

RFR with

of

call

to

increasing

with
economy

Freight

up

At

14.20).

to

Teu,

increasing

(Fig.

size

Required

Required

RFR

of

effect
on
(Fig.
14.19)

speeds

of

speed.

Fig.

with

call

able

lower

effect

of

number

and

Required

and

change

a lower

Fig.

size

call.

ships
.smaller
4 and 8 ports
for

lower

ship

the

the

ship's
size

ship

27

speed.

of

For

secure

Rate.
to

on

and

Freight

pronounced

show

to

of

shows

call

the

shows

The
less

14.18

of

increasing

with

Fig.

rate

all

construction

able

effect

knots

The
ports

be

Freight

15

changing

of

in

care

1000

the

from

ports

Required

on

ports,

study

increasing

of

,effect
Rate

at

of

changing

with

of

Required

on

varied

were

may

capacity

to

Ports

of

scrap

number

container

selected

number

by

amount,

1)

of

were

builder

of

costs.
in

(Case

function

complicated

minimising

Variation

Ships

The

quantity.

and

methods

is

pricing

annum

capital

Rate.

398

Teu
of

knots

ship
call
and

ships

above

which

more

costs

and

shows
a
(Fig.
14.19,
increasing
1850

than

therefore

Teu

are

offsets
show

Fig.

14.18

60

(Number

in

Variation
of

number

ports

of

versus

ports

ship

Required

size
Freight

and speed.
Rate)

56

54

50

uR

46

114

42

2000 Teu

38

------

1500 Teu
11000 Teu

36

341

1IIIII

24

Nu*ber of ports
399

IO

12

Fig.

I4.19

Variation
(ship

58

in

speed

number of

versus

ports,

Required

ship

Frieght

size

and speed.

Rate)

56
.

I494Tpu
1500 Teu

54

50

48

a-

46

44

a
42

40

33

36

34

15

18

21
Speed in Knots

400

24

27

14.20

Fig.

Variation
in number of ports,
and
speed. (ship
size versus

ship size
RFR. )

58

56

I--

15

54

52

50

48

-----

46

44

42

40

38

36

x2,-

34

I000

I
IyoO
Container capacity
401

-P

op

I
2000

in Teu

in

Variation

14.3.3.

of

The

effect

Rate

was

studied

and

speed

as

associated

above

the

required

ship

size

port

on

of

the

in

(Case

speed

Required

capacity
The

section.
delay

of

Delays

port.

l).

Freight

container

type

any

time

the

similar

previous

with

and

delay

caused

of

to

one

in

over

and

five

days

introduced.

were

Figure

14.21

Figure

It

in

delay

no

for

berthing/unberthing
14.23

the

on

Like
is

size

of

ship
(Fig.

sizes

for

than

24

With

(Fig.

14.22)
increases

the

penalty

higher
where

the

delays
there

required

the

ship.
the

ship

values

of

1900

if

to

could

time
not

the
be

decrease
higher
used.

402

of

5 days

increase

at

than
port

much
the

proportion

speeds

higher

costs

cost

1500

Teu

per

tonne

time
of

ship.

increase,
optimal

away
port

Required

the

tend

operated
in

3 days

the

affect

other

of

a lower

give

the

over

delays

therefore,
is

ship

for

14.23)

factors,

the

advantage

Teu

increases

However
due

Fig.

Required

of

rate

ship

14.21).

knots

3 and

of

it

these

paid

27

lines

This

(Fig.

in

scale

of

the

delay.

a clear

does

port

in

speed

of

to

port

although

speeds

slopes

show

delays

in

in

speed.

optimal

economy

linear

up

speeds

spent

and

is

Teu

increase

time

on

time

changing

the

in

above
ships
(Fig.
14.22,

Rate

Freight

but

1500

For

knots,

with

speed

that

increasing

of

Rate

lower

delay

14.22).

effect

speed.

and

14.1

port

the

increase

with

Ships

the

above

on

and

size

Section

loading/unloading

Freight

the

RFR with

the

ship

and

sections

by

Rate

Freight

in

delay

size

increasing

of

changing

and

shows

previous
shown

ship

in

delays.

and

speed

ships

changing

assumed

over

Required

increase

effect

with

was

port

was

Figure

the

Rate

Freight

of

effect
with

shows

5 days.

3 and

size

Rate

14.22

Required

the

the

shows

Freight

Required

the

in

ships
in

given

was

in

delays

for

port,

of

delays,

to
from

speed
mile

accentuate
its

encourages
sea

time

Fig.

I4.2I.

Effect

of delays

(Delay

on ship

Rrequired

versus

size,

speed

Freight

and Required

Freight

Rate

Rate)

1000 Teu
I 500 Te.P
-

2.OQD_.
Tha

52

50

48

,v

45

2
0

u1
41
v

42
t
:3
cr

...
lr

,
/

//

36

3-

i,
"

_i

-
s

"

i-

//

ii _

%-

38 ,...

i.

,i

/,,
, -

__

34
33

IIIII
0I2
Delay in days

403

Fig. I4.22

In ship size speed and delays.

Variation
(ship speed versus Required Freight Rate)

1000 Teu
1500 Teu

54

52

50

48

c.'46
u
+3
xto

.,u44

42

40

38

36

34
I111

15

21

18
ship

speed in Knots

404

24

27

Fig. I4.23

Variation
(ship

in ship size

size

versus

speed and delays

Required Freight
Rate)
15 Knots

\
_54

18 Knots
21 Knots

24 Knnt. s
27 Knots

52

50

. 0*

48
0

46
()

,ca
-)

_-

+ 4

--

"r

a)
$4
Cs

..
C

L40

3`

36

34
I
1500
Container capacity

405

in Teu

Variation

14.3.4.

(Case

A
21

ship

knots
and

the

optimal

of

on

life

of

the

14.24

is

there

24

beyond
the

life

Lowering
has

Large

75%

to

Tax

Free

part

as

of

therefore
may

investment

the

ship's
the

remain

less

grants

value

of

determine

life

of
to

at

those

values

the

ship

10% extends
levels
will

of
be

not

Tax

Rate

from
effect

10% to

is

assumed

in

to

write
as

profits

Tax
to

advantage
as

pay

a part

406

RFR

than

which

not

if
the

pay

some
any

less

substantial
tax

means

allowances
For

RFR is

on

of

Tax

position

capital

does

tax

tax

the

thesis

permit.

Rate

Rate

20%.

his

off

than

on

the

shipowner

of

no

Discount

or

Rate

from

life

Rate

52% Tax,

and

money

Freight

pronounced

quickly

exist

Discount

various

shipowner

Rate

influence
an

of

building.

in

allowed

profit

against

and

Rate
but

the

Required

depreciation
is

the

29 years

the

the

Discount

speed

Freight

for

Rate

Discount

income)

new

have

Rate

life

extending

the

raising
on

Rate

shipowner

Life

Rate.

in

variations

the

doubling

It

or

effect

more

Rate.

in

of

Required

15% Discount

at

implied

invest

to

the

on

Discount

beyond

ship

and

variation

Freight

ship's

Lowering

(or

profitability
willing

effect

advantage

the

Teu

of

Required

the

ship

years.
of

Ship's

and

ship.

and

basis

little

effect

decreasing

Rate

the

the

shows
or

Tax

For

Tax

1500

of

the

study

Tax

Income

of

to

used

increasing

with

Income

capacity

container

Income

Fig.

Rate,

Discount

1).

was

Rate

in

system.

taxes

pronounced.

I
1
i

Hl

-.

i
IIi

II
IiI

_. cV

1,

iIII

i
I
AI

. rl

II
ii

I1

92

$4
d

II
(

---

Cl
N

'

I
I
/

40

AL.

0
H

////A
li

I
F-1

//

I.

/
/
/

1/
/1

f/I

IIIIIIIIIII

IIII
:9

ci

cr1

auuo-4/ 9,4eil ju8jaaj

407

paslnbag

..
a1

l.

d
4-+

P.

Hl
I

-.

II

I
I
I

N
l'1

O
cr*%

CHAPTER
EVALUATION

OF RISK

IN

15

MARINE

15.0

INTRODUCTION

15.1

APPROXIMATE
15.1.1.

CAPITAL

ESTIMATE

SENSITIVITY

INVESTMENT

OF RISK
ANALYSIS

DETERMINISTIC
15.1.2.

SENSITIVITY

15.2.

RANKING

ANALYSIS

IN

THE

APPROACH

OF INFLUENCING

APPROACH

PROBABILISTIC

THE

APPROACH

PROBABILISTIC
15.1.3.

IN

15.2.1.

ANALYTICAL

15.2.2.

OTHER METHODS

15.2.3.

MONTE CARLO

15.2.4.

DEFINING

VARIABLES

TO RISK

ANALYSIS

APPROACH

SIMULATION

DISTRIBUTION

OF UNCERTAIN

VARIABLES
15.2.5.

15.3.

DEALING

APPLICATION

OF

WITH
RISK

DEPENDENCIES
ANALYSIS

TO

CAPITAL

INVESTMENT
15.3.1.

COMPUTER

ALGORITHMS

15.3.2.

PROGRAM

STRUCTURE

15.3.3.

REQUIRED

FREIGHT

& INPUT/OUTPUT
RATE

ASSUMING

RATE

ASSUMING

NO DEPENDENCIES
15.3.4.

REQUIRED

FREIGHT

DEPENDENCIES

15.0

INTRODUCTION
the

In

last

identify

the

Required

Freight

was

variables

the

of

variables

identified

by

explained

that

better

and

variables

on

new

and

the

of

the

This

the

RFR

variables

The
is

the

of

their

the

Computer

III

be

sensitivity

in

as

These
of

variation

are

Computer
I.

each

III

shows

also

capital
Computer

by

in
of

used

Model

It

identifies
of

needs

representing

assessed

also

user

'optimistic'

undertaking
can

than

estimates.

ranking.

in

a variable

Model

these

of

introduced.

The

possible

merit

is

a variable,

uncertainty

estimates

the

an
variables

but,

Monte

be

of
together

simulation
generating
with

ascertained.

408

how

best

estimate
description

complete

distribution

Carlo

usefulness

for

an

provide
the

surrounding

variable

by

indicated
can

'optimistic'

a probability

derived

IV.

and

contribution

a particular

is

other

these

of

each

out

of

two

for

and

uncertainty,

Model
the

of

for

estimate

Model

the

'Pessimistic'

made

risk.

overall

indication

estimates.

containerships

way,

approximate

was

rather

technique

possible

II,

some

variation,

carrying

involved

Computer

III.

Model

it

significant

of

involves

also

to

risk
in

investment

the

of

getting

had

influence

a new

values

III

extension
total

the

how

in

expended

possible

best

three

Model

an

some

was
and

which

estimate

uncertainty
computer

of

variables

variables

the

Model

and

These

forms

to

the

'pessimistic'

variable.

be

It

importance

surrounding

on

three

on

Model

the

to

assess

based

besides

supply,

computer

by

to

technique

based

analysis

improvement

pre-

purpose.

The

variables

10% variation,

This

the

uncertainty

also
RFR,

arbitrary

the

for

account

variables

are

those

10%

RFR.

on

To

of

needs

of

this

these

of

ranking

effort

the

for

for

possible.

each

merit

estimate

influence

to

be

surrounding

used

to

used

on

analysis

life

real

not

may

uncertainty

an

in

that

was

was

influence

most

sensitivity

10%

of

out,

pointed

Rate.

analysis

had

which

improvement

defined

sensitivity

chapter

is

Computer

using
a risk

required.

profile

dependencies

of
between

15.1.

APPROXIMATE
There

are

various

deterministic
A

few

MEASURE

them

are

evaluate

mentioned

here.

Pay

(b)

Risk

(c)

Making

(d)

Raising

the

(e)

Running

Multiple

The

various

disadvantages

by

these

In

outcome

is

less

of

is

input

other

was

containers

the

the
Further

true

most

common

Rate,

discussed

which

briefly

by

rate
felt

uncertainty

below.

minimum
the

the

values

or

herein

and

of

of

the

of

lies

return.
the

rate

subjective

inherent

risk

of

greater

acceptable

a matter

the

investment
rate

specification

becomes

to

return

this

at

data

the

of

about

discounting

investment

ANALYSIS

in

the

the

nature

principal

the

variables

such
best

by

load

as

had

the

then

409

spent

Model

and

and

most

Model

items

of

of

getting

better

sets

uncertainty
to

analysis
influence

II.

and

number

degree

sensitivity

in

in

applied

weight

Some

out

APPROACH

was

factors

estimates.

which
is

which

items,

cost

carrying

variables

DETERMINISTIC

Computer

using
of

were

THE

approach

estimates

effort

IN

traditional
stage

incorporated

identify
RFR.

the

The

not

technique.

deterministic
of

the

obscure

acceptable

clarifying

SENSITIVITY
This

of

the

do

e)

Discount

is

given

risk

the

rate

are

d),

c),

thereby

and

investment

capital

a),

adjusted

consequence,

without

weakness

Most

risk

higher

interest

judgement

Return

of

investment.

for

of

the

appropriate

the

the

the

values

methods

methods
and

incorporated

As

return.

data

these

explicitly

certain

15.1.1.

rate

capital

is

degree

involved

the

acceptable

the

technique

this
the

of

to

discounting

reflect

risk

the

risk

Subjectively

designs.

alternative

adjustment

explicitly

in

for

Rate

of

All

methods

accounts

in

cases.

risk

involved

The

minimum

(204).

for

risk

Discount

conservative

Klausner

Risk

Method

adjusted

account

of

Period

for

account

to

(a)

back

to

ways

approach

of

OF RISK

on

the

of

estimates

analyses

sensitivity
best

estimates

The

basic

very

little

idea

likely

of

the

estimate

change

in

RFR

is

being

made.

as

of

way

the

RFR

if

10%

goes

by

in

changes

the

For

in

the

It

is

also

effects
variables

are
on

a new

the
is,

method
to
(The

a time.
to

assumed
RFR

of

therefore,

will

be

at

combinations

410

of

the

call
how

only
variables
'best'

operating
10%

not

be

this
analysis.
changes
in

in

sensitivity
The

estimates).

in
changes
(4).
ignored
of

may

sensitivity

consider
other

largely

whereas

show
of

in

that

be

not

may

a 10% change

ports

is

analysis

reasonable,

section

customary

at

variable

analysis

by

overcome

estimates,

realistic

estimates

example,

between

next

idea

this

of

sensitivity

likely

quite

distance
The

achievable.
be

be

might

estimate

an

analysis.

of
most

and

give

may

more

sensitivity

instead

pessimistic

probability

of

as

uncertainty,
Using

the

is

such

estimate

example,

but

disadvantage

comparable.

change

for

it

that

statistic

'best'

regarded
which

is

include

probability

evaluate

some

obtained.

wrong,

the

major

directly
cost

be

all

to

hard

model

well

decision

variables

this

can

may

be

can

if
the

investment

of

risk

factors,

variable

investment.

formally

all

in

the

not

accuracy

change

of

does

for

or

The

one

value

the

on

large

the

used
as the
(mean)
(205).

decision

hand,

the

if

has

other

those

occurs

values.

investment

analysis

risk

is

mode

of

occurrence,

the

the

On the

when

identifying

replacing

extent

produces

such

a variable

the

variable.

which

model

estimates

great

disadvantage

or

ideas

crude

any

sensitivity

to

expected
The

the

Thus

bias,

median

then

several

optimistic
in

surrounding

quickly

to

subject

that

or

RFR,
to

by

out

a change

consideration

first

The

can

depend

estimate

most

addition

carried

if

the

on

significant

contribute

is

simple:

In

pessimistic

uncertainty

of

is

the

be

of

their

of

the

then

the

by

to

not

be

can

effect

is

items.

these

only

different

only

A methodological
there

when

arises
because

then

in

one

only

difficulty
is

it

is

variable

ideas

The
by

Hull

of

merit

in

this

Required

objective
RFR

is

THE

consider

changes

PROBABILISTIC

section

Freight

X1,

uncertain

variables.

is

= f(Xl,

X2,

function

X2,

for

calculates

X3

APPROACH

developed

were

Rate

the

was

then

expressed

X3.....

Xn)

measure

E2, ...

Eq.

dependent

and

the

of

are

variables

analysis

15.1

generally

j:

variable
( Ei

Ej-l'

as

independent

of

Xn.
Some
....
A sensitivity

a certain

f(El,

function

a non-linear

variables

RFR

IN

presented

to

variables,

selected.

The

ANALYSIS

analysis

two

correct
(4).

time

sensitivity

between

strictly
at

(4).

'80

which

a dependence

not

SENSITIVITY

15.1.2.

with

+ ,a EJ

En)
E..

...

f(El,

Eq.
is

Ei

where

in

change

the
the

value

deterministic
as

a 10%

is

directly

comparable

that

is

conceivable
the
approach
other

variable

in

user

inputs,

estimates.

These

10%

distance

it

besides

the
the

are

is
say

in
is

an

not

operating

operating
In

not.
likely

most

taken

such

distance

improvement

the

a 10%

with

in

a
in

usually
as

difficulty

whereas

is

such

in

is

analysis

10% improvement

E.

and

15.2.

pessimistic

costs

this

new

estimate
the

and

estimates.

optimistic
15.1.

to

X.

Ei

of

improvement

because

primarily

Variable

value
the

of

of

sensitivity

A methodological

approach

Table

For

the

percentage

improvement.

two

estimate

E.
Ei

of

approach

a fixed

costs

likely

most

E2. .E

Sensitivity
Most
Likely
Estimate

Analysis,
Optimistic
estimate

Computer

Pessimistic
estimate

411

Model

RFR for
optimistic
estimate
RFR1

III.
RFR for
pessimistic
estimate
RFR2

(RFR
1RFR
2
Range
of
RFR

For

each

(a)

The

values

optimistic

of

likely

most
The

values

(c)

Range

and

col.

likely

final

to

estimate

be
be

to

necessary

it

thesis

of

the

optimistic

to

the

lower

variable

is

for

Where

Si
f(E

S.
S=

provides

some

conceivable'
in

the

that

U.

set

of

as

use
is

E.
+l

be

L.

...

'best

It

is

to

In
higher

the

Li

and

is
for

true.
to

referred

sensitivity

equal

estimate
is

reverse
is

however

terms.

pessimistic

the

is

pessimistic

estimate

its

and

the

the

the

of
equal

costs

U.

and
It

value.

than

between

for

optimistic

higher

to

estimates,

The

such

EU,
-1

col.

estimate'

and

j and Si is
the
variable
(j
can be defined
= l, n)
12,E...

to

consideration.

variable

two.

variables

its

equal

in

estimate

pessimistic

always

not

table

RFR

of

terms'optimistic

the

assumed

the

to

equal
being

values

optimistic

and

to

equal

comparable.

'worst

difference

The
of

is

its

6).

this

consistent

of

example

range

the

is

variables

deserve

for

to

equal

being

variable

of

the

the

value

conceivable'

the

difference

of

for

is

5).

other

in

shows,

variables

(col.

estimate'

necessary

variable

directly

are

'pessimistic

the

when
all

definition

The

this

RFR

column

which

numbers

15.1

other
(col.

values

RFR,

of
6.

The

not

all

estimate,
most

Table

RFR when

values
of

pessimistic
their

variables

estimate,

their
(b)

the

of

as

coefficient.

as
E

)n1

f(E

,EE.29

-1 ,

L., E,
E

+1 ..
n
Eq.

and

be

can

importance
A

of

the

can

be

RFR

an

indication

of

the

15.3

relative

variables.

Model

RFR

is

expressed
f(X1v

provide

different

linear

simple
If

it

to

used

the

X2....

to

considered
as
Xn)

be

a linear

ai

XJ

Model,

then

n
_2
j-1

412

Eq.

15.4

as

where
is

are

constant
in

appropriate

where

However,

cash.

it

because
true

Xi
it

is

a wide

It

is

of

for

which

or

the

examining

that

be

example

outflow

of

in

detail

model

might

the

approximately

implies

model

)
- Li

a(Ui

Further

inflow

model

situations.

see

This

situations,

an

results

to

easy

simple

worth

range

independent.

are

represents

suggests

in

xis

relatively

the

of

each

and

Eq.

15.5

Eq.

15.6

Eq.

15.7

n
aui

'RFR j-l
and

n
,

62j

a2

R
j=1
l

where

of

RFR

of

Xi .

6_RFR

and

RFR

ui

and

and

6'J

all

it

of
and

from

then

6-

be

RFR can
estimates

15.8

contribution
if
that
one
another

result

of

it

for

is

variable

which

variable

variable

that
Eq.

has
then

that

shows

15.8

it

that

assumed

is,

that

is

half
its

in

to
the

the

K.

square

2
6-RFR

estimate

is

standard
to

effect

its

deviation
range,

the

of

sensitivity

determines

Therefore

sensitivity

contribution

413

an

coefficients

proportional

that

variable

15.7

eq.

sensitivity

j,

all

implies

the

it

the

approximately

of

and
S

as

from
If

constant

coefficient

of

deviation

standard

and

j=l

K. s.

is

15.5
Kj2

obtained

of

a variable
Eqn.

deviation

standard

mean

eq.

2=

interesting

an

approximately
of

and

er
UJ_LJ

RFR

is

the

are

follows
61

This

mean

Defining
KJ

for

the

are

the

it

implies

coefficient
to

62

RFR will

be

as

one-quarter

All

the

linear

to

One

non-linear.

be

RFR

would

be

an

Approximate

value

of

standard

models

highly

Eq.

is

one

linear

case

studies.

which

were

also

non-linear;

which

cannot

term

to

deviation

(206).

use
the

of

even

'Highly

segments.

appropriate

The

non-linear.

15.1

but

of

non-linear'

flow
was

by

given

applied

documented

cash

series

technique

well

models

variables

uncertainty.

this

problem,

by

approximated

sensitive

overall

four

these

of

non-linear

simple

the

involved

function

objective
not

model
studies

case

to

less

developed

Hull
above

that

and

little
very
(4)
1980 who

contribute

the

much

Required

Frei.,

Rate

The

first

key

result

67RFR
j-1
Application
by

(4)

Hull
15.9

Eq.

this

of

deviation

an
the

of

the

(b)

estimate

if

U3,

KJ

Estimating

to

corresponds
fractile

form

this

stage
to

fractile

of

combine

variables,

the

standard

to

necessary

each

each

variable

provide

and
J.

variable

Assuming

and

value

the

K.

of

of

risk

by

(Dr RFR

Ui

that
to

corresponds

is

0.30

for

L.
0.95

a normal

usual

the

of

that

to
best

together

mean
as

approach,
design,

involved
can

in

be

investment

a capital
by

evaluated

using

analysis.

sensitivity
value

the

total

defined

as

Approximate
The

models

(4).

Therefore
ships

is

straightforward.

0.05

15"9

L.

a reasonable

distribution

in

not

was

independent,

of

for

for

is

E.

and

U.
U-L

non-linear

are

it

5RFR

Li

model

merit.

estimate

estimates

the

measure

of

linear

Eq.

variables

measure

Kj

to

approximate

to

Therefore
(a)

that

the

S.

relationship

showed

gives

for

produced
2
K.
JJ

of

applied

obtain
estimates

is

414

the

the

Required
in

the

best
of

Freight
deterministic

estimate
the

Rate

individual

of

RFR

is

ht

Eq.
El,

where

E2...

its

and

mode
is

function

of

the

be

the

following

from

This

were

modified

ship

design

the

of

estimate

best

of

estimates

for

calculating

Eq.

15.11

the

best

Rate.
is

variables
often

+ 4Ej

in

used

then

PERT

derived

applications

+ Uj

Eq.

for

adopted

the

calculating

in

and

of

computer

the

input

Main

15.12

expected

are
carried
15.2.

The

overall

I.

SENPAR,

was

for

SENVIT

functions

is
this

and

The

analysis.

CONSTR

of

the

as

phase.

main

three

read

shown

SORT were

and

1980.

These

preliminary

deterministic

to

modified

1980.

program
of

values
sub-

various

below.

This

out.

the

above

structure

FUNCTN

(4)

Hull

The

discussed

input

in

the

written

subprograms

from

adopted

Model

program

II

(4)

Hull
of

were

Model

variables.

and

requirements

the

out

by

the

subprogram

program.

carrying

subroutines

computer

Model

are

programs

suit

subroutine

subroutine

for

developed

were

Two

the

modified

Fig.

15.10

codes

problem.

are

be

is

computer

to

developed

to

best

RFR.

15.1.

Fig.

variable

the

corresponds

it

individual

analysis

sensitivity

Model

skewed.

Model

FORTRAN

a)

serious

of

Computer

These

to

a variable

Also

11
2.....

Eq.

1/6(Lj

lead

variables.

are

function

Freight

the

the

Therefore,
9

to

approach

value

mean

the

always
(207.
(Ili

of

mean.

formula

=
j=l,

The

to

its

can

of

distributions

not

of

uj

this

estimate

Required

mean

that

best

=f

The

shown

the

preferred
of

estimate

estimates

some

variables

should

best

when

not

}L RFR

in

has

because

is

This

the

are

particularly

errors

(4)

Hull

However

to

En

15.10

II9
for

program
except
which

A sample

is
that

the

same

three

the

sensitivity

input

data

415

as

in

computer

estimates

of

analysis
list

is

shown

each
is
in

w
4-)

9
E

+)

" o
"
+ o
"r-l b

Cd

a>

4- .,

H E-+

HaCf)
cv

:sm

oa)

o cn

i4 "
Cd $4
0 fC

0
..

a>
N

"ri
(1)

Z
Cd "rl
44
(t

Ha
-

ozC\?
aorl
U

'd
rai

.r.,
CH
0

v)
C)
+

4a 0)
Oa)
'
E
(1)

"a m Cd
"ri 'U

a
v)

4- cd r-i

i"i
ad msA
cr1
a) F-i > a) "rl cd rn
+0
C\t
p
"ri
"ri
a)
(.) ,r.' A- CDP1 Fi ,C)
rd cd +) :j a)
a3
cd1 oPas4 P
C
a)cd
py +"ri+4i

+j HH\O
ycn 1
F-9-1

F+ W

-'
p U)`.

H Z

a>
4-"
cd
U
.,
.ti
9
.{
W
4.)
a)

a
Cd
q

Ul L~
td

E "r1
CO4-3
EiDrl

rn

C"C\l
1
W....

En

a
E"
-0

tw
0

C)

ai

",
'
..

o cd a
0 rz
cd "ri

oz-.

awv

Cl)

u-i
ri

.,

40
.rj
W

416

Fig.

15.2.

Input

data,

sensitivity

2250 Teu and speed

analysis,
of

capacity

18 Knots

SENSITIVITY

36NVAR
OVHEAD
WR
STLCOS
SINDI-- X
PROFIT
CHAN!)L
CLUB,-' Y
CLUBS Y
CDESL
COFU -L
WOFF
WPO
WCREW
PCINT
YRLOAN
STEELF
OUFITF
SLIFE
DISCNT
ALFO
ALFI
CLIf =
SETCNT
CPINT
COSCNT
PCFD
PCFF
PECFD
PECFF
RLABF
RLABD
OFF
PO
CREW
TAXPCT
DELAY

container

ANALYSIS

1Go . 10ti
90. G0 G 2CC. 000
2.40_
2.000
3.000
214.00C"
270.030
253.000
1E9.3C'
150.000,2Cr,
. Ci: 0
1:. Gi: 23.0_C'
5. '- r,,0
,
53.3C'_
f, '_
40.0: G
.
563 QGJ 5117.00 0
E33. CJ0
.
47O. LC:;
4; J. 00C
5[G .: 10
145. JC;.
18G. C'Gt
125. Ck:
EO. DC..
60.0C4
10C". GOO
400 CC bCJ J. 0'210DO ED 0
.
5403.000
50i3. OCC 70; '. IGG
5300.? 0.: 50: -3. C0 600C,. "j)0
12.0 0:2
1G. 0 0!,
15. C0
7.0 0
8.00
9. GC
0.113-7
3.029
G. t35
0.32:
3 . 3r. C,
0.340
2. ri G
25015.
'00
15. Coc,
12.300
16.; O0
0. b5;;. 750
'J. G'_
3.850
0 . 7'vC
10.00^
8.300'
6.000
2.5%:,
1.80u
3. i, 00
9.000:
10.001112.000
2500.0G3
2270.00
30C`. 000
2.70-"
1: 50
3.300
2.10(:
1.500
3.300
3.6? O
7.60v
11.6GC
11.605
3.6CIO,
11.600
0.39D
0.280
0.500
0.68D
0.500
0.920
12.000
10.000
15.000
6.00:
6.000
6.000
2.9 0018.000
24.!
;?0
.
52.003
53.300
55.030
1.00::
7.000
2.000

VALUES AS READ IN THE DATA FILE

INPUT
3383. C`ENDUR
6766. CDIST
18.00V
1. OPORTF 1.:, PORTD
2250.000NT
0.03
0.00A3A.
LST
f.
4NCLPH
"GMRG
13. OFTIER
0.550SCE
0.700FCP
1G. '-'ROWS 13. 'TIERS
9. ^SROWS 1. GFKOWS 11. STI=R
O. jvV-/L
1.5GV-/L
6. CGL/B 9.00L/P
IO. OJL/DMIN14.5C+L/DMAX
2.255/T
3.75E/T
EVLD2IBAL.
S 1IPMC
2ISTcEL
120. OREVSIN2IF:
0. 0ACINS
0.03A. CCNT 0.00ACMANT
O.
GAQPOV G. CASTOP. E
O.
OACnEW
O. OAWAGES
O.
O;, ADMIN O. C'f1RMANT
O.
OAWNINS
D. OAPIINS
O. OAPO RT 0.0A FU ---L 0.0AH AN DL

417

Subroutine

b)

function,

objective
is

the

c)

Subroutine

same

as

seakeeping
d)

and

and

others

are

SENVIT.

This

the

by

standard

deviation
to

used

e)

Subroutine

the

on
in

out

carried

iterative
the

RFR,

design

other

in

shown

and

such

Model

Computer

of

the

main
was

changed.

carry

out

the

These

items

Items

such

nature

are

major

items

II

subroutine

15-3-

to

used

the

store
is

analysis

uses

order

to

to

be

straightforward
of

influence

are
in

on

subject

to

to

be

the

more

basic

crew

wage

Model

items
by

fuel

rates,

First

Cost

and

cost

41P

this

from

of

and

list

the

by

fuel.

since

these

their

very

influence

operating

sensitivity
wage

III.

variability.

The
or

to

chosen
model

and

structure

deterministic

were

stage

labour

the

inherent

from

variation.

of

The

consumption,

much

variables

of

purpose

computer

their

of

determined

in

input

design

initial

ships

of

phase

analysis.

excluded

the

the

for

specific

as

left

deterministic

written

because

such

RFR were

for

VARIABLES

six

were

not

weights,

developed

as

the

analysis

distance,

at

the

calculate,

sensitivity

Thirty

chosen

were

on

steel,

This

Fig.

is

in

computer

sensitivity

known

in

sensitivity

those

was
of

of

power

be

will

as

Model

type

program

phase

installed

RFR.

of

subroutine

the

calculates

shown

arranging

program

as

also

value
as

sensitivity

13.10.

this

out

mean

OF INFLUENCING

A computer
carrying

the

out

parameters

and

Fig.

RANKING

15.1.3.

configuration

variables.

various

and

given
freeboard,

stability,

subroutine

for

Subroutines,
costs

any

W(I).

This

procedure

for

and

the

which

SORT.

Subroutine

f)

if

checks

carries

This

array

an

and

violated.

results

SENPAR.

variables

rows,

tax

after

II.

dimensions

the

and

output

Model

technique

above

Rate

subprogram

minimum

tiers

analysis

is

as

hold

Subroutine

input

This

the

calculates

Freight

Computer

in

used

such

midship

subprogram

Required

CONSTR.

constraints
of

This

FUNCTN.

of
costs

analysis

rates,

cost

of

It

felt

that

was

9
?9
41
0

rx, y
rrM..:
"""""",
Nrrr
rr

Zs
L.

U
s

Co

N
wN

Na

u:.

M1Mt\.

N Lr "r"nv
YIM:
rM :.. K.` `= Ni r
""""r"""""""
7
_G
rre-G,

r a. .x 119YM'
MNr,
rL. ) C7 c[.:
.3O.:

C-

OC !

r
, r

rL
"..- CC"

-,

.:, 0

PO
tti

'MoD
M1 [
u\

M
; /\

{/\

K:
N
'
{NMNNC..

>G UN NP

"

Co

V1

V\

JMMNN
:

-!

(M

-G
LL

=G

-C..

C)

. 7C1

G
G

IIIIIII

7 COC0GCJv0O.

GGOOOOGOOiCGOGOJOG0

ao
cr u
M
N

..c, -T _J0,
MM

(r

O1u'% M": PJ
_, r" uc rJ O

IIIIIIIIIII,

i
li:

w
E
0
V.
(V'

rr!

L Uao

.
P+

C), r-.:, t"

r

0".

.,.

l7
Z
QS

t.

LL

N t, ) 0`0,
V1J
0, t. j -OCC PM1NOPM1"-N1a0.7
Mt1A"-1AfN. v.
--0J1`
4), LO4n.
'Or'r.t 01 f. l21
107N0,00
'O1IJMMNPu
"--"OM111`1N1"""""""""""""""
C'
C=
Nt NNNN
e- "- 000_?
f .f r'M
"-
.:

U"-Ol1J
OP Q C.7: =

MJO'n
OX
PV
JCVAJ
OOr-NNe-"-e-OJCG
-

C_1 -.. .C

."C

M1

a
ad
x

'. O

-"

.-

J
w
M

xw

J
UN

JJ:

43

, r-l

"r

NN

..

`(I)

1-a
'

C)

. f'4
rl

"p0
7C "^ NN
- "p ON

7nfvJO.
tNJM1P
O` NOO OC f- U1 N
NO
MC
JO
JN

NN

""""""""""""""""""""""""""

N77G
p. N
rv .H

J'J:.;.
n n JO

.tJO

MMMCNNaUO
v J tn

tn J

.tdJ

vl

e 1OO0OPNaVITM
JNdMNO
10 IO M (%j r -i IT N
oC v7 NNJG.
p LT NJ
" NN

VNNtCNr-e-"-
V t
0 O

0O

10

ne-f
t O It

00

JC

00 VN NPJ
v, p, NNN
Co v
n1 MNNNC
OD
f

00J

NZ

O
V7
T .tJJ

'rn
aC.
1+1

h-dc

On

Ua
vJ
",40i

:"

p-

-C

aa

U1 .t

:nMJ0

.nth

.t

CD InC11n"4D
tN00OP0
CD OMOPrt>DC1P

tJO1`sCr"7e-Cn:.
.t d1 .t
O 00C

n1..

v1

ddtt

O "0

. OJMPPPV1NLni
aC)N
OM
e"-NNNNQ
^.
O .10

1_ 1`

1_

1.0"O.Ov1n
21

.ttJ4

. OO
CC7OOG

GC)

CD

C:) C-- C
Cr =1 0In
t

-vO.:
- :)=
"-""""""""""""""""""""""""
MOaCN=O'0'OtnV00-"7N:

t-

(D C) 0000000000000
0
COO`4
J.

JC.

--i

OpM

;_:

GOOOO
+.:

]ONC>OCO:
"I

CPM

On

7Mn0Md0

"n_:.

c
0N

1
w

r-.

c:
IV

.-

kr.
rv

1n

00000
70_+00M

L70

,p

.G1:

[.

"-

2
0

:':?
>">

_,

f"
-(
L

4
xM
ry

FVi
WW

Vf
WO

r1
r
v+
..
L-0
.+

F-

LL

Q.
OSrc

uJ

SN
-

LV1

J
J
4

OC

YY

1-y

Li

WH

00'

xx2

F-

I-

ov,

.?
.7

.. r

I-

M
o_,
CO 'J ^

t/f
..
WrYW

FM

fV
e-

zr
`

OG7

Q'

IH

ILLI

"

JJJh
2

r
J

1:

.i
2

"'
G
o

Y
H

>

a.
4:; '

-.
rCr
-

=0000000O
0 0.
0
D J'7vl
OOC,
ooCD
(m oonoc*)
C% C

NN0Q0

vl
NN

C) OO
rO:
J
oo.

::!, O^.
o ooc,

Vl
"-

f-

NO

O'
000
:7-,
3':
ncnUnoU

w7. O l7
1/A

OO
OOO
-
In ac
4lQON.
G
l7
e- -N

OO
n

O[70

OOOqOO
]OD
77:
=. JO.::
ocooo0000'71

7N

Ul N1 a

0"J

M'O

tT

0oaa WW
22
NNNJO

: _I O 7C
'= L :=7c

JJJoa
LL
C4QN

S)

J.
r

4aL

..

Nr
"
M

V)

11
Nr
LL'
F4
O
y
1tr
r
urv.
Ji
.

.1/)
ti{

f- HJ
Mj0
MMaO100 N POtiJCC
J
P7JG.
P17.
"""""""""""""""
C)tiCCMPN,
"7P.

1- . t0"ONO1nco
N. t, tn. tPMM
00N"-00a01O.
CN1Gh00OCIG
-NZ

"J>

.NLL'

-I!

1J

H,

r-t/)

.:. r

>>>az
=% OO
CD 0=0OoOCCo0oG
c in000OONG"'Ca00Ja
pcC
K; NI^OP.
JOaoCOCCCCC
:O

_pgCp
pp
CJ

-_
GO

O1Oe-1..

1CD

u"7O
O, OC]
CO
MC.
OCCC

C7
C.,

^. OOUM
C71CCr7-

.:

"""""""""""""""""""""""""",
.l

"-

G.

."-".

X"CCO.

_'

:NNN

'

:"

h.

..

LL

-..

222
uO

S2S4
33i

W"t

w
J
G Y. 7
<_
r+<

M- IZ-"
UUUW2
1-4
W
+
N03UOU0Q

LL

JJJ
JJJ
44Q.

Jx

/-

HcJ
2"

>

N=<
G>

Sw

n. 1 U. 0

U.

LL O LL
JJJUJOaO
aC

o-g M

0.

Q. 1-I Z1

LL
N

LL
41

Z
N0

F-

LL

MJ
LL
ah-U6JLi
tJ Vf
0.

Z>>
3mNU.

m LL
Xc
I-

419

LL
p.'

a.

LL
U.
0u

U.

W{.
7 J
W-c
at
JG
WKW
00 0
y>

L%

U.

oc

000a
O.

O.

:D
O:

'Y

Y
O.'

:i

1L

1l

o0orr
WWWS=

l
JJ!

333UUN

LL
J
CD W

[C

JJJHr
Q`sNN
9>>WW

(n

Y.
J

Y.

C
. .

lV

..

UJ

LL

it

is

to

easier

the

'pessimistic'
of

or-labour

wages

the

ship's

First

assess

the

To

the

require
life

or

in

Therefore

are

and

judgement

an

thirty

this

items

in

the

Cost

4)

Material

5)

Shipyard's

profit

6)

Container

handling

7)

Cost

of

luboil

for

cylinder

8)

Cost

of

luboil

for

system

9)

Cost

of

diesel

oil

(CDESL)

10)

Cost

of

main

engine

11)

Average

wage

of

officers

12)

Average

wage

of

Petty

14)

this

would

In

real

design
type

of
be

would

possible.

incorporate

the

variability

could

the

Computer
in

Fig.

list

Model

III

15.2.

percentage
/hr

/tonne

(PROFIT)

as

a percentage

(CHANDL)

cost

(CLUBSY)

lift

per

/tonne
/tonne

/tonne
oil

(COFUEL)

(WOFF)

/tonne

/annum
(WPO)

officers
(WCREW)
on

Teu

per
(CLUBCY)

fuel

ratings

interest

in

(SINDEX)

index

of

included

were

as a
(WR) in

wage
rate
(STLCOS)
in

price

Percentage

costs,

shipyard

would

shown

3)

wage

costs

expert.

team

sequence

Shipyard

Average

using

2)

13)

of

(OVHEAD)

overhead

steel

an

analysis

Shipyard's

of

of

where

which

1)

labour

operating

operating

technique
costs

sensitivity
below

listed

values

expert.

six

out

carry

the

departments

operating

by

provided

say,

design

different
life

like

than

environment

shipowner's

real

items

The
to

of

between

co-operation

major

variability

the

'optimistic'

the

rates

the

objectively

Cost.

within
with

or
and

wage

expertise

working

office

subjectively

'most-likely'

crew

and

be

estimate

/annum

/annum

assuming
20

assuming

loan

shipbuilding

12

assuming

(POINT)

officers
6

PO's

ratings

in

percentage/annum
15)

Number

16)

Steel

of
factor

(Section
17)

18)

Ship's

6.1)
factor

Outfit
the

years

outfit
life

of

repayment
of
(STEELF),
if
steel
was used
(OUFITF),

as the

(see

Section

weight
(LIFES)

in

used

years

420

(YRLOAN)

loan
weight

estimation

method

option
as

an
6.2)

input

data

for

calculating

19)

Discount

Rate

(DISCNT)

20)

Outbound

load

factor

21)

load

Inbound

22)

Life

23)

Number

24)

Interest

of

of

percent

in

(CLIFE)

sets

in

(ALFI)

factor

on

percent/annum

(ALFO)

container
of

in

percent

in

years
(SETCNT)

containers

(CPINT)

financing

container

(COSCNT)

25)

Cost

of

26)

Port

daily

cost

factor

(PCFD)

home

27)

Port

daily

cost

factor

(PCFF)

foreign

28)

Port

entry

and

a container

(Section
Port

29)

(Section

(PECFD)

home

and

exit

cost

factor

(PECFF)

foreign

foreign

31)

Labour

ratio

(RLABD)

domestic

32)

Number

of

officers

33)

Number

of

Petty

34)

Number

of

ratings

35)

Tax

36)

Delay

in

The

above

the

the
be

not

in

an

10.7)

(Section

ports

10.7)

to

which
user

this

a
in

18

of

Computer

can

Besides

estimates

the
is

user

list.

three

15.2

speed

the

input

supply

Fig.

as

list,

require
must

and

same

days.

exhaustive

studied.
Teu

(Section

ports

percent

variables

the

are

in

(DELAY)

values

2250

values

is

more

to

capacity

ports

(PO)

officers
(CREW)

ports

15.2,

ship

ports

(OFF)

(TAXPCT)

Rate

Fig.

10.7)

10.7)
(RLABF)

in

10.7)

(Section

ports

factor

ratio

input

(Section

ports

cost

Labour

these

/Teu

exit

30)

add

percent/annum

10.7)
entry

easily

in

in

main
for

knots.
Model

as

shown

dimensions

of

ship

of

Other
I

container

input

Computer

or

Model

II.
The
analysis
as

in

three

estimates

using

computer

computer

The
Rate

for

computer
a

Model

Models

estimates

optimistic

particular

to

required

I
of

Model

III
II

and
these

III
item

carry

are

and

the

the

out
best

the

sensitivity

estimate

pessimistic

and

the

items.

then
with

421

the

calculates
the

value

of

the

Required
optimistic

Freight

their

best

the
is

the

of

estimate

items

followed
of

estimate
6.

the

the

items
range

and

the

of

estimate

of

estimate

is

true.

an

item

which

estimate

and

15.3)
The

is
RFR

of

values

value

of

the

the

optimistic

RFR

the

as

by
in

the

this

an

range

This

is

produced

can

is

in

costs

pessimistic
do

can
each

the

pessimistic

depending
3 and

col.

be

optimistic

7 of

The

the

on
4

col.

the

by

termed

8 Fig.
item

assumption

is

the

consideration
sensitive

most
Fig.

15.3

variance

different
of

15.3

9 of

the

of

the

pessimistic

the

col.

the

varying

under

of

final

the

by

the

is

It

and

the

percentage
for

is

produced

coefficient

accounted
on

15.3

col.

col.

of

estimate
is

as

for

out

earlier.

coefficient

SETCNT.

case

which

higher

always

estimate

7 Fig.

its

sensitivity

RFR

estimate.

such

estimates

explained

between

coefficient

divided

the

pessimistic

not

sorts

them

col.

RFR which

of
items

sensitivity

lists

and

15.3,

output.
of

The

estimate.

III

two

is

variables

Model

final

coefficient

range

shows

which

range

sensitivity

item,

the

as

column

computer

of

the

of

value

Fig.

the
putting
optimistic
(Fig.
15.2)
and the
(Fig.
15.2)
the
user

of

column

in

The

variable

(Fig.

item

an

reverse.

the

Instead
in

is

for

pessimistic

optimistic

variable

estimate,

in

the

the

with
a

the

with

with

all

procedure

before

calculated

for

for

similar

shown

defined

calculated

pessimistic

reverse

the

RFR

as

as

RFR

estimate

optimistic
its

the

Rate

calculated

at

repeated

15.3).

Freight

RFR

of

between

estimate

than

Required

kept

are

is

(Fig.

is

items

other

procedure

column

and

the

all

This

in

The

difference

The

while

estimates.

other

column

item

the

of

variables.

linearity

as

described

earlier.
The
equal

to
by

either
Fig.
the
their

of

their

best

computer

of

optimistic

RFR when

Model

RFR when

or

Model

the

next

two

all

the

estimates

all
is

estimates,

Similarly

15.3.
value

the

value

and

422

the
the

variables
same

II,
lines

variables
pessimistic

and

as
is

are
that

put
produced

shown

in

of

Fig.

15.3

is

are

put

equal

to

estimates

These

respectively.
RFR

of

Required

Freight

deviation

under
the

of

value
The

highly

are

and

Rate

deviation

The
type

can

mean

is

estimate

Rate

takes

and

in

based

ranking
the

on

the

variation

The

ranking

of
also

for

accounted
DISCNT,
RFR by

in
the
five

an

shows

also

each

each

of

/tonne
Freight

the

of

36

Freight

This

to

Rate

be

will

expected

variable

takes

into

be

the

achieved

The

contribution

the

variables

are

in

15.3

the

by

the

of

shown

effort
items

and

3 8% variability
of

the

OVHEAD

be

on

and

98% of

the

the

list.

the

to

the

in

expended
be

left

It

the

uncertain

is

of

RFR.

Assessing

the

standard

deviation

of

Risk
the

the

gives

of

elements

that

most

the
the

involves
PER.

be

of

This

shows

14.

SETCNT,

variation

say

will

can

list;

improving

what

423

Chapter

importance

RFR.

variation

RFR

of

items

assessing

in

as

five

on

reduces

achievable

variation

items

relation

should

the

is

denominator.

common

account

first

of

Fig.
therefore

and
to

the

of

fifteen

in

given

10% variation

arbitrary
62%
that

first

list

the

variables

each

a measure

user

knowledge

RFR.

coefficient

COSCNT,

WR,
the

the

of

sensitivity

than

rather

the

RFR by

the

the

the

on

Required

Required

expected

uncertainty.

in

based

This
of

be

0.3

38.31

of

variability

can

figure

/tonne

II.

of

= 0.3

estimates

9.

col.
The

It

of

earlier.

user.

value

Model

that

mean

assumption

38.88

the

estimate

Rate

of

variability

than

the

standard

this

of

The

the

RFR of

the

best

conditions

under

by

of

Freight

Required

changed

reflects

the

than

rather

be

computer

account

variables

15.1.2.

the

of

of the
variable
and pessimistic

Section

by

values

the

with

the

on

in

greater

calculated

based

of

value

described

was

optimistic

estimate

mean

extreme

derivation

deviation

Standard
between

equation

above

The

Freight

are

together

shown

is

RFR

of

The

15.3.

described

also

is

Fig.

Difference

values

unlikely.

Required

standard

and

two

first
remaining
the

of

PERT

The

deviation

standard

using

the

Monte

Carlo

check

the

value

of

by
of

6-=

3.317

value

6"=

of

computer

Model

inherent

in
This

15.12)

3.73

calculated

III

the

of
of

the

value

this

of

the

as

used
Watson

and

ranking

of

for

steel

is

chosen

shown

the

1st

in
the

0-032

for

In-actual

those

change.

sets

of

Edmond

and

Box/slot
For

For

Wright
is

the

the

the

as

hence

it

is

the

shows
Gilfillan's

value

of

method

the

29 as

0.0

merit

the

pessimistic

estimate.

factor

is

ranked

is

quite

of

more

detailed

in

variation

Box/slot

significance

pronounced.

424

is

knowledge
than

realistic

therefore

the

merit

the

number

influence

11.1,

on

ranking

which
the
ratio
on

shows

box

of
This

RFR.

developed

model

on

shows

significant.

help

significant

factor

steel

RFR which

be

by

estimation

the

dependent

its

factor

steel

of

the

15.4

Chapman's

variance

the

the

Fig.

column

on a theoretical
(134),
see Fig.
highly

weight

last

thesis,

steel

the

will

example

program

surrounding

and

weight
and

with

this

15.5

the

because

estimate,

variable

company
and

risk

knots.

using

Watson

ranking

has

based

particular

total

(35).

weight

Fig.

steel

variables
in

of

list

steel

best

the

this

the

ratio

variability

for

0-035

and

practice,

is

Therefore

for

18

The

the

where

the

as

of

containers

variation

in

using

order

considered

will

last

only

15.5

by

of

III.
the

speed

variables

method.

percentage

range

be

and

estimation.

estimation,

merit

accounted

the

to

variables

Fig.

the

the

out

Gilfillan

the

weight

data

weight

in

to

was uncertainty
(STEELF)
in
the

and

of

steel

estimate,

As

Watson

Gilfillan's

as

carried

to

a value

assess

estimation

factor

ranking

input

optimistic

that

by

shown

an

gives

Model

also

IV,

calculated

close

to

Teu

There

steel

for

is

very

also

weight

study.

merit

(46)

method
(STEELF)

1500

steel

method
the

shows

was

analysis

of

in

estimation

IV

computer

used

capacity

methods

used

were

3.73

of

is

by

Model

computer

Model

which

calculated

project.

type

two

was

deviation

be

may

RFR

in

Computer

III.

(Fig.

containership
The

Technique

standard

Model

computer

the

of

by
that

turnaround

may
RFR will

have

time.
less

be

the

less

r.
0

.r.

.,
t
N _-:
a)

.r4 G)
Zd

`. 1

.rJ!

y1"

..

MANW

O"

Vl..:

J]

NW

Nt

1..

PIn
t_r .

OV

.:

rr'
J:

NNh.
C"

C_
1

1""""11_1/1"r"1"""""1"

Q"""""""

w`

Lx

1Nh.

-2AV'

-r-1---

l..

OC

tCJ

...

LL:
m
0.
.
Qr

"y,

..

: _:
Z

/'1 ti
; a.

r"

""""1I"""""""""""""_""""1""
CiG
"
l7

LL
I""

JC
AAAA

-?

ac
"U

:=MNR:
"'v

(J

C)

V'

N
Jr,
'T
MNN=

W',

r% C,

V'.,,

0`

OC

']

.:..

"..

'A
-

"O

_Ol.

L]

6"1
O
7

tiO1..

MMMN

!J

"_

. I

r-.

IJ

'

...

CC)
H,
&7
J

19
p
p/
((!

.
Vi
LL C

r
N

MLnNuunoo,
/l. O
NO
1'r1 P

rnJJ
1. T N VlN`
!
MM
in: x; i/ln

M1V1J

LnV
'OM
NG

.---

.--::

v, u\70
'o -t
MJ
J

v oa"r
aGDv1`?
MMMMNNN.

.
M1 1

-n

ti
M1.
P CUVIJJ
"
r'r-

v
u
-n
O

M1 nu
O C.,
C. 70

NI

....................................

.bs
D

Qi

-_=7'--=0

<_ '

".

-. .__

"FQ,
V+
,,

1Tv
r. ,p

N'
ut

v` O ac MJ
:+0 J
.
C'A
WroG
V, n 1 O
r"
nuC!

""""""""""""""""".
ti
.OPN.
vJ
'n
n

JL ::
V\

JM

r` NNMI,
0' ti
CPPPr
ac: r
PMJOr
T

PNrM.
JJ

V
d'

J1

v\

- V MM
MoGr
f NV1dPN
(V JJ
1J

V1

I
u9

fn N
L':
f

""""""""""""""""""
1`
r
-

O PPC
PJINJ7O
N-O

V\

VN

O r
CPC
LV'
1
V1 V\

A
uY

t`
V\

Nn
1'D
N
JN'OaG
I. rn J
V dNNr

't

t"
V7

N.

to

JMM

rn

.tJ

fV

Ol

-U
0,

Jl

ry
N
t
t

.tJ.

hl
(Y

"
v,
MW

"r
NN

fT
JrP-G
M
7C. -_
, 0ry a. -t C Yl 0"

L"

p.

r+

,tt

"""""""""""""
AMO
Myt

r, o', fV fV P r- f'- 00 0O 0> C 0. CO n OG O rLn

tti o, s, Orvti
tiMOG
OMV1.
MV
f`o:
0, .0 00 M 0' r!1 0 fV .T O K1 D M" 0 ::
CC
1 -4

OC V% tie
MM-t.

u-,

fV

dG

v11V

-T

N1
JJ

M
V1

fl.
W1

Q
J

ti

f-

kn

"n

`O O fV
1Aw1t

M 0> CT
Nl vi OG NG
t`WN
rOPrra00,
u1 - ry 11
O n JO 70
.
10 10
Y1uY

1O 10
V1%

MM
fUm JJ

J.

K1
f

UN 0"

ur

10CP
fV fV "
N(V
x -}.

d
t

Ua
r
.
^c

.:.

pOC

Jj

Cl

CCJJ0CC0C

L7,0

y=O0C
1-

r_,

`"

O"n

qC4Q-;

0O

C3 G0O

JvGUOJGVNG-;
=C-JMGO
s

,-)
un

C.

,V

. r1

a"1

O 1-

an
Lr.

"c
F- E

L7 OOC?

=:

Ma-

V)

=C
G

i+l

O-.;;

C7 C

Cn

00

Nul

NNN

_
MCp

"

GO
O c=,

'1

=J

M1

=C
'b
Vl

GO
CCCGu
~OOu
_
CO
7
2
O
0;
00
r-. --:
-- aJO0O
r, OCC
:: - "`-" CC
, (vC

aS-:
. r,
NNC
C
p

....................................

=n^JCC
JCD
CCCD
CCZZ
CCl
M^
CO
'7 M
CG
i
cai7
--- MO
CD +'l O-,
tn V1 VN 0 NO

: )CD

CCO

.nCd

rv

KJCDCCO

_r

CZJ
....

J-^O77Oq
-=
r-7L
C dG aC ,^00

C WC
_ in

=
77C
0_

rOOOC=
C. - ,-", G
rn MCCC
JS

'ti

"..
-.7" ONV-V,

"...

-"

-0

1l1li

73

fl-

Ad q
CC

"..

MOr/1

lJ
1

`C
tn

[L
M
LW
2S2N
1-

h-

V"
.iu
LC

c
Jr

`r

J)

dyJ
C

C.

b)

LL

1tS
1
Iti
FF

'

IL
F-

uJ

FM

F'

.rr

a
WW

Or

C.

--

w
NNNOO

cJ OJOO00r
.=L.
.; vZ_G
C r.- i

:.
^,

'a

^CCD
CD O C.
D000
:..,.
J, '-.
MO
CCCCC.
'O
"....

JJJoc

_",

"N
G_

"

JJJzr
JJJ

"....
n-

vAC-v
Ui

Lr%
N

04

V-

00PC3
-

4,

L
NMh=N
F`
N
y

>>u:
J`
"i

GC'P
0_".

"^
N
=C

>>>aa
^
rj

f'

F-

LL

dKQ=
4Q

Mr

1*

JJJ

ID

>a

u`

"""""""""""""""""""""

CD CCO

11
1cC
1
"r
FNC

VNWW
1W=C

r
NHN
1J
uJ

>b
41
's
,ir

LL
2
1--

nC

...

r1

IM
.V<

II
N

.N

W LL.

Q
U

"fJ

V^,
WQ

"J>

1-

Q)

VJ

`..

E"

-p

= LIZ C.

[C

'J

"r-1

N .-

,n1.

z az

r
:
`"X,
HQ

rn .., -

,n-

."-.

r-

_"
.
1C..

.-NY
co

__
rn J
6N N

'.
pP.
U1 Iz

r"

z.

xx=ao
33

:f1

E'

sn

: a+

rrrJarJX
2Z2>Q.:
UuJ..
J `Z
n J<
r`n
O: u=
tJti
tJ
N in 3U0

"a: 0
Su
J
O

:-...
_
. -,
J Ja. OZWGZ
O+
W N..
ZW
0UJN
cK J
Q tJ VdNNOUO

rZW
n
JJ=:
Ij
34GMN
JR W<
.- WJW
dr
H 2d
UJC
Vf Vr
IL Ix
1-

wwy=Y
>>7
JJJ

/KKNN

>>>Wy

': 25

o0or
_: : .c3":
-.J
1L JJ. mWO
LL wm
in LW
1J u_ V<
U
J00 0>>
w
Uw
JwOOCO
Ua
JJr
333U
41 dd2G.
d>
Li Vl

18

4)
a
E

0
.f-4

.
4)

G)

Ni

v. l

'"^

ML'

ti

ti

1l

e-

"

JdJG

Ir
av

e.^e JM

"-

h"

ao.....

l. + .
--.

CJ

vu-,

r'nhN-e-.

GJ".

C.

C:

1_

c,

:iOe...

" C-J_U

L'

'--

W)

00ti"O

NP+n
r

.J:

2w
cC
mv

.-

,v

. r...

Kl

PMMO
""""""""""""""

"-

""""""""""""'""""r
000Gr,

rr

=J1Irr

0000tnGJ
NNNf..

"-

VtnJ

'C

.t

MMMNN

"_

._`CC

C" COCUGOOGOJJUOGC

q:

J:

r JOJ.:

7 G

fV

,p u MA
MP:
na
'n _ rnr-P

N
W

JI I- I- M
MapJ"
ON 00 tiM

O, 1MP
1
P1-

N. -

Ux

M1. p K1 .r
T C7 (T N -<)C
-
PQ
MfVf-"ON1NL--.
JJ
NN
-0
e-.

,CN.
01 -4
v1fV0.

--rMMM

"IIIIIIIII

-3
`K1

IIIIIIIII"III.

co
H

JN
nJx

1 co e- V` 'r
v"^OOOMMN
3O`U.
NN

LZ

1
LL

lid

Qz
J

d
._
{. l

[-
O
O`^

X_

G~
'1
2

a)
"

"
4.
_

V
f
f.
"

. tM.

OC30?
n1 H. M u1 fY1In
MA tiI

N
fN
l:
3-

NC
.tv,

00
N1 .t

""

"""

K1 f u1u1Na'1.00
In M Nl .t r+- .t

dCd
V1 C M
"70% W

Nn 0M.
tNMIr, rM4:
) MMM1N(NJLn In PPMM-M
V1 M'0
u, N CC In CtO,
J.
t. VN70G1J()1P..
C. M. t. tuG.
OfO
W1 dMM.

n00
I+1 In

r-C
-"
v1 In v,

.t

r'N
H1 wI

"""'.,

u10- -i
Pn In In

.fL""
rn ul

ul. N
u1M1l

rl

U)1-01 ";. M f- AU
10v1u1

t/f N
Q.

JJl!
'
'n -C w M)CP
p. MU\N'!

".
uM
v1J

7N
PN
MJU%MM

J.
J aOfn
xC`0`CMI
TNUtiMvaOGMPUI

P!
0,

n"r
cc MP
viJ"
-"-V:
""""""""""""". "
NC
JJ
MJ
-4 MJ

NC"-JMPMV:
C`JN.
rPJOJ
C JNOONJ

-1/'`J
1ON-

JOTJPI`.
MMMMMJ

-JO'-JGvi00
&" 1'. W' Wi ii
I/'%

TP
`e-.
nu1

M1u1ul!

MOO
Q
:. =NIf,
OV1uN
"""
GNOOUA
VN
--I el M M11+1 M

rdN,

II
rn
w

II
n'N
t.
I
dV
t

NHFS
F-

CC

CCC
COO0
O C) If, 7: J GOG

OJG

""""""""""""""""""""

"L
=

-n

-G

=7

MOZ.

nj

vOOO00
J-7

'.
ry":

J1O

C)

NC

In

^00OOOOG7pC
C-, OCNC000.:
JM?
=O
f+` O
J1
r'

:nCCN
r

r--

M':

"1
N.

OMC:
Yl

) ac, r

Hl

"f-

.J

ac

NN-CCC:

G.

_-C+00:

pOC:

CpOC"COp0

'z :
CC

00

CCr,

Op

CO

O0OOOO

v%

v17

000O;:
,7

in

0r,

Cil
Q0C

C3

.43 NOO:.

000O=
r-- a: . 7=

"

0=.

`hC

+vC

-:

NC
.,: p
, '.,.

Ni

G
- -C_-

1 I-n

04

-7
-', .
7
Vl
rJ =X

:O
. =C

7v

00
=GC

=: '70
"'
CC`:

)
4.

_.

ti

-.

_000t_r:
NOO
rnCC1

-"U,

vf

Cl.

^J

.,..

a,

NAL
L

-J
4C

Lr
H

..

Wrr

1-1

=
--1

JJJH

:n
"l

"i
.

7OOd
.UU

0t7

IJ

V1

tA

OO

Il.
Q

V:

a2L
R,

JJJJ=
l

"..
v

(I-

N".

"V

00
0
"O C:

l.
'vVJ
L.
L'

17 07C
-, 07G
= -D 7G0

CL
fY
W

Or]
O^
0
".

"".
SV.

'_

JJJYJJJ

"

r,

ZZZ

.GN
r-

r.

v>

ul

rCP

0CD
0O"?
'=
C_
CO
C "P
M
-C
-C Z:; CO

"""".

if.
uf

rn.

-h__:

""..

...

. _x"C.

V1

rh

rV

W~

F-

"UC

nCCCC!

J-i!

v'.

..

ZSS

00
GG

"UC

'r

_-0
-F-

U.

O h

I--

.wiu.

Cc

'_" '= CO
-.7 C t. '..+ UO

0
'7G ": 3 _: OC
C_--" :C
10

MO

Li

"1
lU
LC

w0ar

00000
J G)00
O u "G C

N1
FZC

-+

Y
J

V;

rr

N
'_J

cd

VJ

II
1-

N4
..

NN

"Q
U

1)

.'v!

11
-
1!

4l

nr

fW

I.-

r>

in
W

1;

""O""

Ou1
c
In 1n M M1 M N1 r! 1 rn

C
rn

0yC
U

to
.F4
ra

P
O
.J7

-e

r
. r4

,
() . qd
CNP1T
I/-. J Ju1V
"""""!

.: J
1.

+p
.;-i

r\

'i

" rNN

NM

d'
VN .n

Z
"

.t

Txx
sZs"

.itz

:_0'

v'
H
40
"ri
w

sCi

LL

'

+ aL

LL F-

uuuc
JHN

f-

V) J
0w
c:
NNau3uQ04a

'J

F-

JXW

F-

zLL
uOLL
'Ell . +z
LL S
O rr WH
"' Z
J
=J>
JOJH=
ti
1..i dNN0v0
z...

4? F

U.

V7

o
omsa0m
..
u,
,n
J2
O=
-L .JXJWW000U.
UJUC!
u dJJ
- VC
. uJWOO(r.
a
U F- V) CL (..1 a oc G Q. 3>
31 3 t)

1-

OOC

ZYY

WW{.

tJ

Q
iiWW

4NV

=1

15.2.

APPROACH

PROBABILISTIC
'Pessimisticl.

indication

of

for

made

The
under

the

of

curve

risk

of

Required

Freight

as

its

'risk

carried

out

It

of

in

the

in

order

The

next

for

the

into

Analytical

(b)

Other

methods

(c)

Monte

Carlo

to

method
(a)

Analytical
In

the

are,
(i)

Hillier's

(ii)

Taylor
Hillier's

further

of

by

RFR

importance

step

is

then

concerned
of

merit.

earlier

provides

in

capital

investment.

derive

the

the

merit

mean
ranking
to

contributors

the

production

of

analysis

can

the

the

investment.

capital

broad

been

out

and

as

been

to

risk

be

categories,

Risk

Analysis

Simulation.
methods

on Monte-Carlo

emphasis

to

to

approach

these

of

the

of

risk

III

approach
three

(a)

Each

Model

of

probabilistic

subdivided

of

has

which

measure

pointed

probability
One way

referred

has

the

area

distribution

work

of

analysis

deviation

points.

analysis

as

computer

standard

The

risk

the

the

sometimes

the

of

profile'

in

step

profile

of

'risk

using

risk.

risk

area

to

a probability
is

required.

that

equal
two

this

and

analysis

first

variables

of

Much

the

involves

total

Rate

sensitivity

the

means

profile'.

deriving

and

by

description

is
such

is

those

estimate

a complete

a curve

points

between

is

defining

a useful

two

lying

variable

15.2.1.

distribution

of

with

is

between

for

an

best

distribution

aprobability

probability
the

but

provide
the

surrounding

variable,

uncertainty,

ANALYSIS
estimates

uncertainty

a particular

that

of

RISK

'optimistic'

and
the

TO

evaluate

the

discussed

are

in

simulation,
risk

in

turn

which
marine

with
was

more

chosen

as

the

investment.

capital

approach
analytical

Model
Series

approach

the

two

most

popular

methods

(217)
Approach

(211)

model
was developed
(218)
Wagle
in
1967
and

427

in
Zinn

1963
and

and

modified
(219)
Lesso

1977"

The

Hillier

for

distribution,
two

of

mean

risk

deal

cannot

the

sum

flows

in

Series

Approach

Taylor

Series

Approach

by

design

compared

to

of
here

density

one

NPV

mean

and

is

that

it

of

only

with

of

the

merit

in

cash
marine

non-linearities,

function
is

by

out

be

the

Monte

hand

Carlo

calculation

Carlo

simulation.

to

formulated

increases,

simulation

becomes

be

Carlo

approach

based

latest

analytical

(217)
be

in

found

the

However

design

ship

task.

the

Transform

techniques

developed

A complete
exposition
(220)
Barnes
and is mentioned

review.
depend

approaches
precise

the

economic
since
in

Integral

on

1963.
in

and

are

that

argues

Theory

illusory

operate

than

arduous

above

of

better

Monte

applied

Wolfram

an

of

mathematical

1979"

formulate

can

these

successfully

to

model

of

been

because

completeness

preciseness
they
which

year.

encountered

deals

measure

Monte

the

of

technique
for

calculation

based

can

Hillier's

Most
highly

is

analytical

is

the

the

problem

Transform

Integral

since

the

analytically

theory

model

carried

based
of

This

The

each

Model

The

has
(211)
is

be

can

computer

necessary.

(iii)

it

computer

to

problem

for

the

generally

products,

approach

complexity

recourse

flows

and

Wolfram

series
since

the

estimated

of

only

Hillier

economic

Taylor

approach

as

the

etc.

Taylor

the

the

involve

generally

ship

of
cash

(205)
the

discontinuities,

to

of

calculating

investment

(ii)

and

variables

of

from

distribution

calculates

investment.

capital

marine

distribution

IRR.

types

with

statistical

flows

cash

it

disadvantage

major

IRR

and

complete

profile,

NPV

of

variance
The

in

the

NPV

producing

of

probability

individual

the

of

properties
the

of

criteria

of

or

the

on

derivation

variance

and

IRR

the

based

profitability

Instead
or

is

model

most

428

formulation
measure
the
cases

cost

derivation

on
of
of

the

approximate

probability
Such

merit.

data

of

estimates
values.

on

15.2.2.

(b)

Other
Each

to

already
(a)

is

the

than

be

values

Model

III

the

two

the

economic

the

it

economic

the

and

is

which
is

assumes

that

measure

of

to

a formal

in

maker

This
There

review.

of

probability
flows,

one

investment
The

of

are

the

these

each

mean

uncertain
and

variance

density

is

distribution

a normal

Risk

Preference
the

Carlo

Derivation

of

methods

which

flows

technique
The

decision
preference
on

to

subjective

complete
for

account
timing

and

by

given

profile'

the

risk

here

mentioned

by

value'.

based

is

maker

cash

'risk

equivalent
of

the

the

of these
(228)
for

Krappinger

(227).

analysis

simulation

preference

is

function

Theory

risk
The

'certainty
risk

is

the

to

Monte

other

future

of

technique.

method

is

variance

independent.

on

a decision

of

assessment.

merit

manner.

characteristics

computer

probability

extension

the

incorporates

method

assumes

the

and

method

Knowledge

variance

the

are

the

calculate

This

in

mean

deals

merit.

simulation
by

it

involved

distribution.

based
an

because

It

as

the

and

simulation

calculator.

calculate

of

generated

used

to

one

forms

Carlo

Monte

the

mean

Carlo

entirety.

variables

variables

technique

Davidson

and

named

their

triangular

Analysis

Risk

suit

distributions

variables

Monte

so

desk

measure

uncertain

(b)
This

these

allows

However
of

by

parameters,

then

extensions

to

Cooper

probability

uncertain

assuming

variable
of

for

is

in

undertaken

and

calculated

the

distribution

the

the

method

of

by

of

parameter

of

either

modifications

developed

simplification

the

easily

three

of

are

problem.

parameters

rather

or

method,

The

technique.

can

of

Parameter

1976

with

techniques

type

below

mentioned

methods

existing

particular
(216)

the

of

Analysis

Risk

of

methods

cash
marine

problems.
advantages

disadvantages

and

the

techniques

to

evaluate

investment

is

given

by

summarised

in

Table

15.2.

risk

Bonini

429

of
(205)

of
an

the

different

individual

and

some

capital
of

these

are

HH

P4
EN O

a)

-H

'd-4

U)a n '

0d
r

'D

i-

0
A
H

4)

9
P 4-1

4i

a)
O(d

" A
F.

o cd Eo

mm "H "ri "ri

m:r'qj U
0 +)
1 14+)
rr+ CdmO

a)

++

p '

p '

"+0 H

() "ri
A3rl 4-I

-H

OO

"

+)

a) -H

A3rl

>+
4i
4-) 4-4 m

+3 4H

&

ti

"ri

U ari A > a)"ri

'
a
FiE
O O.

"

a3 4-I

c>i

p 4-)
O
o m
oEEb
"ri

ti
0 E
m
0 3
Z
m r

a)
-P

Cd

"ri

ti

L)

a)

4-)

ai :Jri
UArd

Cd :j "ri

cd

UA'C

U)

a)

.,q
O
U)

cd

0
$,

r-4

h. i

04

cd

cd
U)

mm
E a)
Cd
ri
0 rq

cd
r-l

0
.,

y
0

a
c,n
cd
+D
r.
cd
>

.,b
b
0
cd
m
a

cd

0.
ni

10
cd
H

a)

E O

-N
r-i "ri

cdE

rd

"
cd ra al
m

," rl"

>`,I
w+
y

m

O
+)
U

"H
$4
U
m

0wcd
H

+Z
F

+)

"rl

H
O

mm
aP4i -H b.0
% >. A 11 4.1
O-i-) m "ri O
"ri
0,
-P
mO
-P
cd :J "rl
0
0
c
0 4
r-i
a 14
4UE
$4
a3a)
0>
s`+ a)
U
H00

r-i

m
a3

4-11U

430

fIbm

U3

v) rd o

E
rl

4-)
U

a)
cd 9p
-P
ai m -P
cd"ri r-i"rl 0p
O a) 09r-l
A
cn cd E
o0

4-I 4-I

b
H

"rloa)

U)

m
d

ri

"r+
r 4-1
U 4-1

Hb

Cd

a) U

r-l

ro

u) 0 u) u)a)Cd-H
a. >,
+) cd
r-I

E
+) 9

Um

U)

Cd
E
-

E "rl
O O-P "rl m
F'
ia
O
(i0 -H
ai
41 F+
4-I a)
"ri
4-)

4J 4) m "rl
., A U>
m
"rl E iJ "rl "ri
a3
af 4-) m

"r l

U)

+1

"ri

>.

ri

"

"

rU

rl

r -H

U)
O

i")
rl

EU

0
s
~ "

)
sO

Cd ,

,4

: cd

.>~

>>

:1

v)

a
F-i

"ri

4-I 4-) ri

"ri

4i+b

m
"
"r'1 cd u) a) m
4i
a a)

co a)
OO co

U)

cd
i"I

F+

ul O

a)
E
0

4-)
O

a-' > In, E 'L1

rd
a)

a)
>y+J
Cd
>P Cd

OO
Ua

4D

"ri

-N OU
U pm
O (1) a)
ri

rq
`d E
Ic ia i
a)"ri aro
(1)p
o
+0 cd
.rl+-)
H
b

?
r-i r-ia ) i
x > 4H
o
41 ai
0o -P

Uq

p.
Cd10

g0

-H

'O 4"a I"I Cd O O

4H > 0 U
0

"rim r,

C)

()
0

i"+'' a)

UOOp

4J

(D

cd "ri

OO

'd "ri m
0 -4j "ri "ri
r-1 Cd r-i +4
U r-1 -N Ip

E U) A g z
Cd a) 4H
E"ri

a)
p

a ?,

(1)r-l
p

4-)

O o

"

010

zU

ri

Cd

)
r -lE-H

0)

4J

"ri

g +)
"ri U

s;
"I"rla
a)

a"rq

m4
m

m ,r~ cd E

"rlm>cd
c' m
cd

4-)rl

U)

a) 0'c!
+) a)"rl O

a3 r 10 "rf
i"+

-. H -4-3-N
C\t a) W -H

D.

m Cd-F)
"ri
4J "ri >ti a)

cd a)
'n
-N
140

"ri "ri

E-+4.)

Cd

r-i

C"1 a)

-t

L3 -H

cd r"i

"
+

10 r
,q
oU, E
'ti m +1

N >

E-

"_

cd cd "ri
mo

"rl

r~
+>

$4r -I
QD U

3 o m
0m
+) "ri
oEE
rq
10
10 010
m
cd OE
a) Uz
U r-I Cd 0 m ri +)
4H PP q A Cd4"4
4H O CdEO
"ri "rl "rI 4D-P p -P 0
0 Como
o
" Ucdriq
a"ri "Q > U"ri

0
$4

"ri H
Cd "ri

U>.

-i

mU

F+ "rl + ) o "r l
r'{ "ri
0

0 o"ri
UN

Oa

U0
"
L,

U"rl

"

"

0a Cdo
U
i, a
iJ 0)

-+-)
Cd cd

-H

1-4

14

cd
cd
UU

H cd ;> 4 O 10
a) +) F'.
'do
Cd

ri

10

r'"i

"ri a) a)

m+) U+J
U cd U. rjP4

r-I r-I

r- IUp

C1' r"i

r-I

(D cd A

cd cd

>.

"

cd
4-)

A"

PC ;4
O
c

>, P-

0AU>

r. 1
r1

0 -P
0 Cd
UIri ri
r-q
-I "J
,
a Cd U

"ri E +4) "ri "ri

cd
Cd+, M
E, i
ri m

(D-P
U(D %'
m

E r-I rl
"ri :S cd

0
a)

El) U

(1)En

cdm

0q

a)
10
0
E

"a
IL)
)
U

ti

V)

"-"

UEIp>
O1

0
"

r-1

I.-,

431

a) "rl "ri -,q

m+ m
Cl
0 "ri >+
40 a a) m ri

iN

r-I
a
EgOE
j.. Cd
O iC (D 0
ri Op
cd
rn "ri aUUm

OU
U f

>,10

rrf rl

U
'd
"rl
r-i
a) "ri
Cd Cd a)

b
0

a)

:JQ 4i

-P

4J
+-) Cu m"ri

"

" ti

0 ti
0
+J

"rl

P Li +' Cd
"ri +-) O41
>' -4 cd 4) P.
'd

>

14
10 4H P Cd U U
4i > 9 U
o

r-q 4-1

r-i

cd O Fc r-I
Ui,
P4Cd

U0o

E
Cd10
UO

-P +)U cd

)
Cd
r4 :3

rq

U
"rq m9
ri ,l+ 4Dm
Uti G

a
+.) EC
Cd o 4)
,

O f"I a)
QO
r-I

UU

4-)
Cd .Q

m
a) + 'r1
UU Cd a,
Fa
P +) F+
cd
"ri

10

Cd cd

ri

i4 a'

-P,
CH Cd
"r"I ri (d

a0

U) EVU

U r-I
"ri
CH

cd Cd

Cd

0
;4 $4

.Q

"ri

+-) O
r-I +J
rG +)

ri

rl

F4 U)

UE
+> cd

hD
UE
> cd a) F' a) 4.4 F+

rQ "rl -I0'

:4

aCd

E >, 0 :j Fc
a 4D
E0
o0 >o ok
U
Ua
ri
a
E+3 a)

[n

0m ,x0C
U "rl
(d
4)
U
P4 Cd>

a
i.
'b
p
+'

U
QDcd
Cd r i

15.2.3.

Carlo

Monte

simulation

(207)

Quigley

and

SIMULATION

MONTE CARLO

in

1964,1968,

his

classical

in

1963

paper

description
complete
(207),
(208),
(204),

Use

this

of

found

extensively

(210).

in

but

far,

so

by

popular

in

application
in

be

found

found

in

and
(205),

in

industries

other

(211).

has

problems

literature,

the

Review.

advantages

be

in

analysis

can

investment

ship

(208,209)

Business

The
can

Hess

Hertz

Risk

technique

technique

technique

limited

made

the

of
(209),

this

of

and

by

proposed

the
coined
also
word
(208)
in
the
Harvard

who

disadvantages

first

was

been
be

can
in

particularly

oil

(212),
commerical
projects
manganese
nodule
mining
recovery
industry.
One of the
(213)
chemical
earliest
papers
and the
(204)
technique
this
1970
for
was by Klausner
advocating
(211)
Wolfram
in 1979
investments.
proposed
shipbuilding
Application
to container
approach.
shipping
an analytic
have

problems
Other

type

decision

of

in

problems

the

case

RFR, and

would

include

Sorting

the
The

independent
the

and

all

the

are

known.

steps

in

al

for

the

container

1968

strategy

allocation

is

be

will

how

to

variables
The

obvious
the

in

outlined

discussed

measure

in

turn.

as

designer

should

be

deal

them.

with

of

but
made

Groups

identified

in

the

previous

groups.

The

first

group

and
second

for

parameters
group

includes

432

which
all

the

this

dependent
too

worry

dependencies

later

into

any

These

as
not

in

merit,
it.

well

variables,

of

point

affect

variables

will

two

starting

which

between

variables

into

the

reference

variables

out

et

technique

variables

dependency

on

Woodward

in

as

define

the

all

important

sorted

is

step

Initially

section

such

these

analysis:

about

technique

(210).

1970

Variables

quantitative

variables.

Carlo

simulation

of

initial

This

much

Carlo

Each

by

in

shipping.

container

15.6.

Defining

Monte
making

Monte

The
Fig.

the

Webster

(214)

as

such

of

use

by

mentioned

references

mention

are

been

in

the

step

are

consists
exact

the

of

values

variables

and

Fig.

Monte

15.6.

1.

Carlo

Simulation

Technique.

Define
all
variables
the measure
RFR, NPV or
Specify
of merit
the
it.
variables
affecting
and all
described
The variables
in
terms
are
of
density
function
the
probability

2.

Transform
density
probability

Generate
uniformly
0 and 1,
generator

the
into

each1of
functions
scale

probabilitycumulative

numbers
random
distributed
between
by a random
number

N
Repeat
for
times
set
second
different
of
random
numbers

for
by setting
Sample
each
variable,
to the
numerically
equivalent
equal
and the
corresponding
percentile
of the
random
variable
value

5.

For

each

IRR

set

of

the

random

values

variables,
of the uncertain
Rate
Freight
the
Required

calculate

6.

Store

pass

Compute
deviation

the

results

the
of

mean
the

from

and
RFR

each

standard
for
N passes

8.

deviation
Is
the
mean and
standard
the
two
separate
of RFR from
of random
numbers
streams
If
close.
not
sufficiently
increase
the
of
number
passes

9.

Store
the
RFR into
values
of the
the
frequency
classes,
and output
result
as a histogram
of probability
distribution
of RFR,
or cumulative
distribution,
which
probability
RFR
is the
of
risk
profile

433

Repeat
N
times
for
first
set
of random
numbers

for

parameters

Most

values.
but

as

be

variables

in

which

might

In

some

uncertainty

fall

into

the

this

they

case

DISTRIBUTIONS

DEFINING

second

category
the

variables,

maximum

in

change

RFR,

to

amounted

FOR THE

their

about

the

those

only

produces

considered.

15.2.4.

is

earlier,

out

pointed

change

there

which

36

UNKNOWN9

need

variables.
RANDOM

VARIABLES
This
judgement

is

the

of

a designer

important

most

and

be

observed

(a)

will

may

defining

(b)

The

knowledgeable
(c)
based
historical
(d)
of

be

for

tried

the

that

In
to

opinions

of

result

be

rare
and

(216)
that

design
used

such

the

assessed

on

the

the

one
(see

log

and
discrete
another,
Section
be

not

the

form.

or

be

need

15.2.5).

defined
staff

various

consulted.
either

objectively

the

variable

nature,

various

or

past

types

of

most
Table

the

are

variables.

15.3.

Some

the
the

434

minimum,
at

analysis.
found

may

be

are

found
These
(215)

writers
that

position

known

triangular

variables.

Carlo

it

the

taken
than

a variable

Monte

distribution

of

shape

combinations

analysis,
critical.

in

the

of

form,

range,

possible

run

be

not

have

therefore

to

defined.

of

sensitivity

other
of

should

normal
can

be

the

complete

simulation

maximum

describe

then

listed

values

to

as

describe

are

as

of

nature

vary

four

to

known

subjectively.

program

stages,
to

be

may

adequate

the

may

each

variable

distributions
(4)

a variable

or

distribution

the

can
As

the

be

expertise

data,

is

distribution

range

related

the

record,

If

are

but

experimental

on

such

must

can

the

it

guidelines

shape,

distribution

distribution

The

any

the

about

that

following

about

person,

then

distribution

relationship

distribution
independent

are

(211)

of

The

final

the

on

the

of

distribution.

be

variables

judgement

a single

the

used.

one

distribution,

The

and

The

variables

distributions
be

is

depend

all

normal.

can

If

dependency

by

when

continuous.

the

This

theorem

be

not

if

expertise

analyses.

a normal

also

statistical

normal

whole

limit

distribution

The

Standard

or

by

central

RFR

the

is:

represented

of

involved.

generally

that

variables

are
the

from

in

professional

is

RFR will

of

the

where

steps

distribution
of

step

most
the

distribution

it

is

likely

preliminary
can

be

Table

15.3.

types

Different

of

distribution.

Meaning

Integer
1

Variable
a single

is to be
estimate

described
provided

2.

Variable

is

described

PERT

to

estimate

on optimistic,
by
provided

be
of

the

its

pessimistic
user.

mean

in
the
simulation
by the
user.
in

the

which

and

by

simulation
will

best

by

be

based

estimates

is
to be described
Variable
in
the
simulation
distribution.
by a triangular
The mean and
deviation
triangular
distribution
standard
of the
to
the
be equal
PERT estimates
will
of the
mean
deviation
and standard
These
of the
variable.
be based
on optimistic,
will
pessimistic
and
best
by the user.
estimates
provided

is
to be described
Variable
in
the
simulation
histogram
be
by the user
a
which
will
provided
as a pair
of data
values
and the
probability
associated
with
such a value.

435

by

Indeed

a uniform
in

adequate

to

for

(a)

The

costs

by

shown

be

would
type

normal

of

(204)

Klausner

difficult

are

subjectively.

estimate

Some

distribution

circumstances.

most

distribution

triangular

and

in

errors

triangular

defining

Frequently

is

there

maximum.

To

following

set

an

illustrate
of

in

error

the

data

of

distributions
defining

problem,

minimum

suppose

random

and

have

we

the

X:

variable

10,11,12,12,12,12,16,17,19,24
If

this

set

10

then

is

15.7"

But

now

suppose,

is

the

triangular

likely

most

triangular

distribution,

distribution

instead,

that

the

is

24

and

be

would

data

available

the
as

of

X is:

variable

random

12

resulting

Fig.

by

represented

minimum,

in

shown

the

the
The

maximum.

is

data

of

10,10,10,11,11,12,12,12,12,12,14,17,18,20,23,24
10

Again

is

24

and

is
the

so

same,

be
is

here

shown

that

when
is

and

closer
The

of

which

can

distribution
(c)

Triangular

representation

mentioned,

to

the

or

need

minimum

not

distribution
of

not

highly

side
be

them

whole

by

are

not

the

same

representation
to

point

a triangular

for

which

the

probability

implied

is
the

as

ranges

considered.
the

the

most

range

i.

midpoint

of

probable
e.

the

value,
triangular

symmetrical.
generally
skewed

436

remember

of

necessarily

of

data

of

value

are

but

with

maximum

are

limits

is

either

on

zero

up

rationale

The

values
to

estimate

maximum
be

and

end

of

a more

frequently

most

sets

both

15.8.

minimum

closer

best

range

Fig.

may

two

Thus
in

occurs

we

represent

vanishes

occurrence

(b)

cannot

as

distribution
of

we

and
These

distribution.

triangular
would

value

maximum

12

value,

minimum

distribution.

triangular
the

the

data,

give
see

very
Fig.

poor
15.9"

the

Fig.

4
15.8.

fx

10

Fig.

15.9.

Triangular
to highly

original

16

14

12

18

20

distribution
as
distribution
skewed

distribution

22

an

approximation

triangular
dist.
as an approx.

f(y)

437

a better
approx.

15.2.5.
Two
value

other.

and

'salvage

the

ship's

life

value

is

the
On the

dependent.

are

value

salvage

when

they

from

the

are

on

precise

to

provide

on

the

to

indicate

One
the

distribution

(b)

the

distribution

defined

as

X and

Y are

equal
(1-K)th

to

its

positive

is

RFR

assuming

total

to
the

what

is

be

the

the

of

coefficient
taken

review
is

in

of
this

its
if

negative

of

other

more
by

Hull

438

to

calculate

Y is

to

its

equal

Kth

fractile.

to

a value
its

distributions
then

total
p is

i.

RFR

and

X takes

correlation

total

of
of

Kth

a value

program,

mean

X and

to

shape

or

given

the

equal

independent
same

used

dependence.

a value

Y takes

be

is,

variables

equal

used

a dependence

dependence;

dependent

fractile,

dependence

dependencies

X takes

a value

When

that

A brief
with

of

negatively

Kth

Y happen

This

no

takes

fractile.

implies

assuming

two

be

distribution

of

when

totally

on

RFR

the

it.

cannot

dependencies

analysing

between

positive
Y also

fractile,

and

of

from

depending

of

it

the

of

variables.

cases,

effect
But

independently

sample

from

dependence

characteristic

dependence

Total

the

of

way

(a)

RFR.

of

because,

appropriate

many

the

of

independent.

then,

an

in

of

sample

sample

can,

indication

effect

other

useful

choose

variables

different

and

and

two

to

first

zero.
salvage

simulation

the

ship

value

deviation

the

any

the

for

will

are

correct

ship"

is

estimate

risk

should

analysis

rough

the

of

obtained,

sensitivity

then

they

in

of

value

the

for

estimates

years,

if

not

of

salvage

standard

or

life

value

is

best

15

then

simulation

the

for

The

yes,

distribution
the

distribution

RFR

it

probability

of

the

to

problems

present,

distribution

salvage

unchanged

cause

Theoretically,

for

hand

other

remains

Dependencies

is

answer

"life

the

changed

the

of
made

variables

and

and

is

life

if

change,

ship

20 years

ship's

knowledge

estimates

two

are
the

of

if

influence

there

value'

the

dependent

would

Suppose

the

if

them

of

one

DEPENDENCIES

are

variables

of

Now

WITH

DEALING

e.

of
dependence,
+1

or

-1.

total

either

dependence.
sophisticated
(4).

ways

to

deal

(4).

15.3.

APPLICATION
Monte

The

Carlo

probability

density

The

various

subroutine

can

also

is

be

for

the

and

15.3.1.

COMPUTER

these

about

these

are

by

Department

of

The

programs

were

documented
b)

A general

The

source

program

is

This
the

not

well

difficult

was

to

are
its

show

discussion

is
but

general

is

purpose

simulation

are
(222)

Lubin

and

contacted.

Many

sophisticated
Therefore
because

on
of

and

therefore

three

general

their

of

give

Based

packages.

were

Risk

low

not

is

it

had

cost

Monte

FORTRAN,

could

operating

not

be

system
and

unscramble

University.

to

rewritten

be

is

Carlo
and

developed

State

It

accepted.

in

documented
to

Package
Iowa

meant

purpose

package
VME/B

Analysis

which
was

(224).

program

The

subroutines

tested,

Engineering,

ERRCAL

with

RFR.

containership,

program

selected

PL/l,

inexpensive.

2976

logic

in

and

ICL

used

implement.

Industrial

and

CDC 6600.

is

IV

below.

therefore

for

section
Model

the

of

the

Fliescher

highly

Generalized

GRASP

this

Computer

of

Carlo

sources

and

given

a)

FORTRAN

Monte

and

were

(222).

and

are

acquire

algorithms

purpose

RFR.

of

types.

various

packages

to

expensive

The

The

ship

out

various

program

IV

the

in

curve

output

developed

these

information

this

profile

in

other

carrying
(221)
Berger

information

risk

Model

for

available.

the

derive

ALGORITHMS

well

algorithms

to

situations.

to

applicable

used

types.

investment

capital

Generally

and

certain

equally

was

profile

computer

in
about

mainly

risk

input

applicability

in

the

INVESTMENT

developed

ship

other

generate

discussed

of

TO CAPITAL

subprograms

structure,

program

and

simulation
function

used

to

used

ANALYSIS

OF RISK

well

program.

was

developed

implemented

on

because

therefore
for

errors

For

the

the

the

the

source

program

during

compilation.
c)
This

UPFAR

(225).

package

A Utility
'could

not

Program
be

acquired

439

because

Analysis
copyrights

of

Risk.
had

not

been

This

established.
the

generate
of

the

an

extension

program

risk

decision

the

if

and

Preference

based

curve

profile
maker,

to

Risk

uses

the

on
in

available

computer

Theory

function

utility
future

form

could

developed

algorithm

to

in

this

to

carry

thesis.
A

literature
Monte

the

out

Carlo

(226).

PLADE

l)

survey

for

be

to

to

have
on

be

where

a single

others

where

That

made.

such

the

as

Woodward

problems
(214).
et al.

but

will

need

for

marine

allocation

2)

and

data

can

user

variables

chosen

The

functions

documented
needed

the

out

minor

by

Hull

container
by

documented
it

can

be

applied

in

AND

in

2976

marine

VME/B

with

INPUT/OUTPUT
of
is

Model
of

types

of
in

shown

II

was

in

Fig.

uncertain

were

also

input

variables.
for

15.3.

15.10.
to

modified

distribution

IV

Model

shown

the

Table

15.1.3.

Computer

The

the
thirty

six

for

used

analysis.

of the
various
subroutines
(4)
1980.
Some of these

modifications,

made

to

modification

ICL

Analysis

Section

Risk

suited

University.

distribution

as

well

little

the

structure

four

is

usually

on

computer

assign

variables

time

given

well

program

fairly

needed

Risk

of

uncertain

carrying

of

decisions

of

the

the

of

in

as

is

decisions

of

making

before

suite

program
out

values

a period

program

Glasgow

at

program

main

over

decisions

several

shipping

implemented

carries

which

The

This

It

overall

have

investment

decision

of

PROGRAM STRUCTURE
The

made

both

analysis,
decision

where

container

type

system

15.3.2.

The

(4)

therefore

operating

Risk

out

modifications

investment.
was

be

most

investment.

capital

accept/reject

capital

the

accept/reject

This

certain

RISKANAL2

the

in

carry

sequential

type

strategy

is

situations

to

were:

programs

to

is

have

investment

an

of

found

and

made

suite

package

situations

algorithms

These

simulation.

This

comprehensive

two

revealed

others

440

which

were

are

well

subroutines
developed

for

4,
r--I
I

Cd
0
H
w
N

+-)
C)
E
0
4--)
cd

.,
m

cd

0
E

.,

+a -1
C\1
0 U)C1t

.,
00
4DO
c'1
Cl

0H

r1
Ei

p 'd
O
O Fa
+ G)
4-)

a)

Cde
AO
aQ

U
.,i
.
+>

N ri
"rl rl
4q
r-I
"ri 0

F+

Caa
x
a)

p,, "rq

z "0

a> 4-1
pO

14

Cd

_
40 10 U $4 0 `,a%r-I
0
cd O 4i r-i -zt
F4 Fl. 1 A
co ONFi--
, "rI (Z 4-1 0R
rn

A
o Cl%-..,
U

"r0i

cd

cdaar-

'Lj r-1

cd

.r4
. -.

!I

-P fx g, O
[-aiUr'1

kzzw
CO -

, vv
Cn

H CM
.Q Cl) H
Cl)

Q5

IQ Q-t
r-I
ii r-d
P., C1
nt

P4

`.

a>
.,

a)
.H
+)

a
pz-:

C)

. -.
ti

w:i U)

A
4-)

N U)N
,fl H
Cl)

m
a

_:I
.H

oa

IM
tiorU`.

,G

Cl)

'ci

a>
.,

owoo
X e

oUJ
HHc\t

,aa

G)

. r1
-N Z . --,
h1--i 4j
N
d

u2

.,

0v

Ii)

h0

E
Cd
p
4D
0
p
a

cn

tN- i

T1v;
Ir

+ td
0) Fa
(P

Z.--,
+3

acr1
,0 G4ul

"H
-'ila", ^Aa

UO

O
r'1

C)
N
"r.l
V1

:jH

U)

$4

S.

S+

r-I
U
it
C)

.,+
-1

En

U
ia ri
',
O +-)
4.a m cd -4
ul
"rl +) "ri

ri
.ti

tn

(1)

.,
UC\t
00

4D

4 zcm
Aon
0 U

'000U

hD
O

0
U

",

. -.

C)

C)
cd

a)
r:
.

cd o

. r{

'ti sb
A
(d
,
C`J+

mz

Un'

N
O

rl

G)

Iz0
.Gy
ri

441

this

thesis

RANDOM

are
This

from

routine

depends

0-1

Model

FUNCTN

& CONSTR

from
A and

A to

Jth

of

IV

III
is

of

that

no

the

mean

are
15.2

for

developed

as

K characters
Ith

costs,

are

as

in

character

weights

and

developed

in

Monte

in

made
runs

as

the

Carlo

therefore
had

of

that
of

value

Freight

Rate

be

shown
of

the

one

the
the

is

of

thirty

six

technique

usually

minimum

number

determined.
below,

An
indicates

deviation

standard

in

given

type

the

to

analysis

15.11.
to

each

time,
be

Fig.

similar

with

a Risk

out

except

by

number

Required

obtained

or
4000

after

runs.

how
rule

same

the

in

shown

values

to

there

Unfortunately

of

is

computer

improvement

simulation

exactly

the

carrying

associated

the

of

for

Fig.

runs

of

developed

the

at

values

analysis

simulation

analysis

as

copying

calculate

Model

Model

lot

used.

B.

data

variables.
Simulation
takes

for

B starting

input

data

distribution

is

used

economic

input

The

NAg

I.

sample

Computer

is

in

and

Computer

with

same

subroutine

which

Model

Computer

the

and

Standard
was

sub-

II.

character

design

This

array

Subroutines
other

the

This

used

subroutine

is

subroutine

array

computer

language.

machine

pseudorandom

distributed.

of

Group)

Model

This

generate

III.

Computer

COPY -

type

subroutine

Computer

for

in

to

used

uniformly

the

on

This

is

and

is
program
source
(Numerical
Algorithm
-

is

subroutine

numbers

SENPAR

briefly.

mentioned

the

many

passes

above

are

no

prescribed
(215).
required

are

method

is

442

the

usual

rules

to

In

the

practice.

tell
absence

z
O
M

"p
f]

r. l
cc

N
H
A*

oa
0

yO
K

WW

M~

O
a

"

M1 CD
if%

(o

-s
"f

d)
E

CL

M
F

Id
0
10

"N
M

H"W

rn
COv
W
ZOY

_,
t

oImuN
Fo u+

C)

pc

-JM

co
1

=O

0dmN

N
N=

L.)

". m

o"
o
o
CD
CD 0

r
0c
.MWOP
rl

oc

Cd
tM
ryQI

"r'1
t

CL
0mJ
N"N..

I-

JH
ZM0N""M
OmZr

I"

61% CGi H

on

'Q
'0

dl
MWMO
tn =x.
H Ul

h'
-% ZZ
"1
"0
h-9cc
U. 00.
0 U9M
"O
M"

mV
"rI

ZcCOC
"r W0

Jf.
a
OC-.
Co W1N..

>V-

Zoe"

go

tOW
Wa 1"V'

i-A

-C

"OJ

4
"
H
HsNZ0N00

"

noxCO
on a

uj -K
mt
O
i- -C
v+ 0

=
+2

t"d.
JOJ-"O
.
Z1AU4),.

uiL
iw
;

O{2 +

. +NJ
y

ac+c

" 4 000

"
2000

rt

zv

i-NN
2W

r1N

0 GW
ac .
-10

"I

""""""""""1"""""""""""""""""""

NN

pppp

OaoO000r
pu1rr000
0
q-

P.

MOOOOOOOOOGOOOOOPO0000000000000000000
000000000000000
M10OOO00000000OOOOMtOO1-

i 000

ONOOOOOOinO0000a000WN
OinOO
P
NOOOO
000
v+d.

aC!
rr

0
In

NOCD OOrPOrnen

. raoOCJ7
W% -4 rf -f
o0in

r"or-%nolNr-

V"N
NL..

O000a000
r'

v1
ru

a0 W% 10%

Mr-

(I OOOOOOOOOa0000000
f00000
Vv'O'ONU00000

NOOOOO0000000000N00000000000000000000
I 000OOOOOOOOOOOHN00000000700P
NOItOM"
O0
00
00
0 00
000MO000a00dP"
"0 "
"" 911: 99""""""""""""""""""
0CD ONOOOONIOCD
OIn
00a0eN00cu
fn ON-fPin

x
Ie
<O

a013 r"3C? r3r5

-" OoM10
0 0000
"""""""""
ma r- POOnNOON

'-o

r"

M
In

r"

, , v,

in
N

in
In

2"
CL Fn
W. +J
ix S W. 0 NWMMMM
V 2m
on in G In

-c w.

0O000

00va0000M1NOK1"nrrOOV1
Nr
r
r0

I-fi
<
ac

M1 MM

N1 MMMMMMNNNMMMM

M1 MMMMMMMMMNNNMN

Z.

iSO

in

"O
" utD
0 zz
21-

pp

000M00Pa00000MM1O1OVO.

on

OCU%

0 tpMOC
u
.y0
i7dd

000

fV

yOtO

CD od4t2"ZC
"000OY1MOMt
""""
00'

"O

fn (V

SW

"<0
0"tC
800

-_,l G

""""

0
I-

O"

2037

p41
.ro
HOSH

0 0000

4N

IMF-

Nm

a0 iON
O 0
0
ao
H"N

MOOOO0

n
NMN

00
N
"
ZOZ

oalLN
2
393
GtZZ
F-O
J!
O>
N OC J>
tJ
OJ
V". O W or

>NOtONi0i

60

r-

h'

UfW
W1-

_
J
il!

ip

<O

"

OM
NUa0Fn
=
. p.

VfN
t.

aGi

pp
pp
pp
MOOOOOOMITSGV0I$ONBO
as

o
1
"

O'ON

"W

nOi+100000000000OK
0
r, ON'OO

OJW

_jO
C)

U.

1- tYOJ
4c F-c0

on

Uj

Na

()

n+

OC/"

"

M1

NWM
NJ

N2in
f 7
f- et M
(O
"O

W
l n=

44 ![ - J!.
O WMDUNJW
UG"Zcc
JZO
t

? oe H"+oe
M0=yyO.

YJ
mNOI"
Wm.

SJJ0000.
UaJ000Z

443

16 O

2
W
or

sZu.
U.
j- tJIWZ
ZOW.
rWUO"ru.
W"V
MNrW
MJ

uUac
37SYCA

-=

J.
"JJJW
a AC
0so

f"
WZ
Li
-.

b1-Z
"o
2Uda
1LWrmam
U. 1 UUt
"

-CU.

f.
v>
7d<
W sc J

WW JJM.
O. ODU
Oae
UHUUCL
IL IL el ocQOeLU-

<W
a

Table

A.

2250

Teu

No.
of
Simulation
Runs

Ship

= 18

speed

and

Computer
Time
in
secs.

knots.

Required

Freight

Mean

Rate

Standard

/tonne
deviation

500

116

38.627

3.203

1000

216

38.292

3.158

2000

408

38.054

3.079

4000

794

38.086

3.481

6000

1193

37.930

7000

1382

37.936

3.428
3.561

REQUIRED

15.3.3"

FREIGHT

Containerships
of

speed
involved

RATE
1500

of

Teu

18

Knots

were

selected

in

these

two

investment

the

risk

profile

the

1500

Teu

or
ship

distribution

the

of

RFR of

2250

for

assessing

Teu

both

with

the

decisions.

Fig.

5.13

2250

Teu

shows

RFR

of

the

shows

risk

distribution

15.12

the

NO DEPENDENCIES

and

probability
Fig.

and

ASSUMING

for

probability
The

ship.

results

are

below.

tabulated
B.

Table

k/tonne
1500

Teu

2250

Teu

RFR,

computer

Model

II

35.93

38.310

Mean

RFR,

computer

Model

III

36.46

38.880

Mean

RFR,

computer

Model

IV

35.713

38.136

Std.

dev.,

computer

Model

III

3.45

3.73

Std.

dev.,

computer

Model

IV

3.060

3.317

and

2000

For
calculated

the

1500
by

computer

models

by

computer

model

best

Model

computer

by

the

Teu

estimates

III
II

and
is

are

the

Teu

ship

the

is

less

than

those

value

of

IV
II.
lowest

made.

444

And

the
as

would

value

be

of

RFR

calculated
RFR

expected

calculated
when

Fig. 15. I2.

Output, Risk profile,

container

capacity

2250 Teu and speed 18 Knots

DISTRIEUTION
OF REQUIRED
NO DEPENDENCIES ASSUMED

MEAN= 3b. 136

RANGE
LESS THAN
25.0
TO
TO
25.5
TO
26.0
26.5
TO
27.0
TO
27.5
TO
TO
28.0
28.5
TO
29.0
TO
29.5
TO
30.0
TO
30.5
TO
TO
31.0
31.5
TO
32.0
TO
TO
32.5
TO
33.0
33.5
TO
34.0
TO
TO
34.5
TO
35.0
35.5
TO
TO
36.0
TO
36.5
TO
37.0
TO
37.5
TO
38.0
TO
38.5
TO
39.0
39.5
TO
TO
40.0
TO
40.5
41.0
TO
TO
41.5
TO
42.0
TO
42.5
43.0
TO
TO
43.5
TO
44.0
TO
44.5
45.0
TO
45.5
TO
TO
46.0
46.5
TO
TO
47.0
TO
47.5
TO
48.0
TO "
48.5
T
----49.0
49.5
TO
TO
50.0
TO
50.5
TO
51.0
GREATER THAN

S. D. =

FRIEGHT

3.317

PROS
25.0
25.5
26.0
26.5
27.0
27.5
28.0
28.5
29.0
29.5
30.0
30.5
31.0
31.5
32.0
32.5
33.0
33.5
34.0
34.5
35.0
35.5
36.0
36.5
37.0
37.5
38.0
38.5
39.0
39.5
40.0
40.5
41.0
41.5
42.0
42.5
43.0
43.5
44.0
44.5
45.0
45.5
46.0
46.5
47.0
47.5
48.0
48.5
49.0
49.5
50.0
50.5
51.0
51.5
52.0

0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
C. 0000
0.0000
C. 0002
0.0002
0.0005
0.0007
0.0025
0.0023
0.0033
0.0057
0.0080
0.0110
0.0173
0.0155
0.0240
0.0330
0.0345
0.0425
G. 0428
0.0560
0.0618
0.0595
0.0745
0.0580
0.0585
0.0535
0.0538
11.0538
0.0478
0.0375
0.0328
0.0230
0.0220
0.0153
0.0135
0.0080
0.0082
0.0047
0.0052
0.0020
0.0035
0.0007
0.0013
0.0000
0.0007
0.0002
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0002
0.0000

1
I
I
I

I
I
I
I
I
I
IXX
Ixx
IXX
IXxx
IXXxX
IXXXXXX
IxXXXXXXXx
Ixxxxxxxx
Ixxxxxxxxxxxx
IXXxXXXXXXXxxXXxXX
IXXXXXXXXXXxXXXXXX
IXXxXXxxXXxXXXXXXXxxxX
IXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
IxxXXXXxxxxXXXXXxxxXxxxxxXXXx
IXXXXXxXxxxXXXXXXXxxxXxxXXXXxxxx
IXxxXXXXXXxXXXxXXXxxXxxXxxXxxxx
IXXxXXXXxxXXXXXXXXXXXXxXXxXXXxxxxxxxXx
IxXXXXxXxXXXXXXXxXxXXxXXXXXXXx
Ixxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Ixxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Ixxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
IXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
IXXXXXXXXXXXXxXXXXXXXXXXX
IXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXxX
IXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
IXXXXXXXxXXXX
IXXXXXXXXXXX
Ixxxxxxxx
Ixxxxxxx
IXXXX
IXXXX
IXX
IXXX
IXX
IXX
I
IXX
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

445

PATE

Fig. 15.13.

Output

Risk profile

container

capacity

1500 Teu and speed 18 Knots

DIS TKIEUTION
OF
NC DEP _NDENCIsc

MEAN=

V.

Gf; C.

35.713

3 . D. -

ERIEGHT

^AT c

3.060

PROD

MANG
L. SS TH AN
4.0
TO
TO
? 4.5
? 5.0
TO
TO
2 5.5
TO
26.0
26.5
TO
%7.0
TO
TO
27.5
8.0
TO
_
%8.5
TO
TO
29.0
TO
29.5
TO
30.0
TO
'"0.5
TO
31 .0
TO
11.5
TO
32.0
TO
32.5
TO
33_C
3.5
TO
: 4. C TO
TO
= 4.5
C TO
5.
TO
75.5
TO
36. f,'
TO
6.5
TO
37.0
TO
37.5
.i8_0
TO
TO
32.5
C
TO
9.
TO
? 9.5
TO
,-0. e
TO
0.5
TO
=-1
, .0
TO
-1.5
C TO
__2.
TO
-2.5
TO
C
3.
TO
3.5
TO
:. 4.0
4i.;
TO
TO
5.
i0
5.5
TJ
C. 0

P. 'OUIR -D
AFSUMED

24.0
24.5
25.0
25.5
26.0
26.5
27.0

-J000
C. (.
u
L.. Olt. O
0. C-jo
0K),0
i. C'JO

27.5
28.0
28.5
29.0
29.5
30.0
30.5
31.0
31.5
32.0
32.5
33.0
33.5
34.0
34.5
35.1
3.. 5
36.0
36.5
37.0
?7.5
38.0
38.5
.
39.5
40.1
40.5

00:
'0
t.:,.3G13
0.0013
0.0018
0.00=7
0.000
0.0120
. 01-53
0.0220
0.0293
0 0433
.
0. 40 5
. 3583
0613
.
. 682
.:: 5c5
0.0695
;. Ch75
:. 0625
:. C508
t,. ; 88
1. C`15
. j4].
339-J
=243
.;;
.
0263
--.
. G1is8

41.0

41.5
'
G
uc.
42.5
43.0
43.5
44.0

115
. '~1: C
::. ,075
. 0O55
'. G033
3G18
.

t5.
. j.

1ii

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
IXX
IXX
IXX
IXX
IXXX
IXXXXXX
IXXXxXXXX*
IXXXXXXXXXXX
IXxXXXXXXXXXXXXX
ix XXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
ix XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

ix XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

ix xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxXxxXxxxxx

ix XXXxXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXxXXXXX
ix XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXX
IXXXXXXxXXXXXXXXXXXXXXxXXXXXXXXXXXXX
IXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
ix XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
ix xXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXxx
IxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxx
IXXi(XX XX XXXXXXXXX xXXXX XXXXX

ix xxxxxxxxxxxxxxXXxxxxxxx

ix XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
SXXXXXXXXXXXX
ix XXXXXXXXXXXX
IXXXXXXXXX
IXXXXXXXX
Ixxxxxx
IXXXXX
IXXXX

:;. 30%3
?O10

IXXX
IXX
IXX
IXX
IXX

_. IU3?

1 XX
T

7.

-7.

.2

44 5

However
have

variables

to

compared

ship

by

calculated
good

less

Table

C.

2250

both

computer
indicates

good

RFR

standard

Models

III

that

4000

simulation

4000

the

Value
of
Model

18 knots

35.929

3.174

35700

21 knots

36.707

3.122

36+600

24 knots

39.540

3.286

39.580

27 knots

45.841

3.901

45.750

an

analysis

value

expected

to

similar

the

Therefore

for

Computer

Model

total

risk
in

Change

with
the

a 1500

Teu

II

may

be

obtained

probabilistic
six
uniform

can

also

from

shown in
First
six
rectangular

Teu

1500

is

phase.
phase

a rough

Computer

the

phase

deterministic
And

Teu

that

showed

Model

Values

out

with
of

measure
III.

For

approach.
in

variables

the

input

The
mean

RFR and

standard

with

Fig.

Distribution

1500
15.11)

instead

are

as

shown

deviation.

of

18

Teu,

to
changed
distribution,

Type 2

447

Knots

were
a

below.
(RFR

in

RFR

as

15.11

variables
uniform

of

(Fig.

list

results

analysis

ship

distribution

rectangular

of

sensitivity

"RFR

Variables

/tonne)

deterministic

adequate.

carry

distribution.
D.

the

in

probabilistic

the

III

distribution

the

triangular

in

ship

be

the

in

are

risk.

RFR
II

speed

in

ILRFR,
calculated

one

user

first

RFR,

of

The

assigned

Table

can

increasing

with

IV
Model

(RFR

runs
6RFR

Teu

deviations

total

runs

1500

and

uRFR

Further

of

computer

to

approximation

for

RFR

on

The

ship.

the

surrounding

effect

Teu

the
This

fairly

gives

pronounced

agreement.

uncertainty

35.929

3.174

36.561

2.676

/tonne.

The
of

certain

Such
in

Table

above

has

variables

sensitivity
of
distribution

surrounding

these
by

there
be

is

the

this

Fig.
that

is

Also

value.

relatively

the
(Fig.

18

in

Fig.

this

speed

15.15.

the

as

2250

Teu

ship

is

1500

Teu

ship

and

At

their
in

involved
by

the

52.5%

chance

the

curves

show,

less

that
Rate

RFR

will

value

will

is

cumulative

15.12

the

RFR

Teu

2250

of

Fig.

exceed

of
the

that

under

REQUIRED
The

Computer
of

evaluation
independent.
The

following

(a)

positive
rate

is

Risk

the

and
Rate

shown
for

distribution

RFR will

be

less

investment

in

the

investment

in

the

greater
in

the

chance

are

similar

of

of

the

2250

RFR

the

Risk

case

expected

of
ships

achieving
Teu

indicated

as

curve.

FREIGHT
Model

RATE
IV

in

Dependencies

can

dependencies

were
between
and

ASSUMING

DEPENDENCIES

the

section

last

that

assuming

overheads

the

slightly

tonne

both

of

dependence
and

than

risky,

there

capital

respectivelevel

case

area

15.3.4.

the

from

from

35.713/tonne.

of

Similarly

is

RFR of L38136

expected

ship.

drawn

uRFR*

However

the

is

Required
Freight
expected
F3&13,6/tonne
and the
cumulative

there

that

shows

cumulative

Freight

probable

derived

was

the

be

can

shows

containership

change

The

is

ship

than

for

curve

knots

of

15.13).

O2

at

or

This

that

range

RFR

uncertainty

15.15

uRFR

a455%'

narrow

probability

Fig.

6-

and

whether

neglected

Required

RFR,

for

ascertain

15.13.

the

expected

there

Conversely

in

shown

uRFR

out

the
be

can

histogram

than

to

variables

a 54.5gchance

less

carried

distribution-Finally

simpler

probability

be

distribution
the

on

representing

curve,

probability

influence

can

variables

the

changing

some

other

probability

replaced

that

analysis

distribution

the

D shows

is

the

all
be

variables

tested

by

used

for

were

Computer

Model

IV.

checked.
labour

shipbuilding
shown

in

(b)

positive

dependence

between

Inbound

(c)

positive

dependence

between

steel

448

was

Fig.
and
cost

wage

15.14.
Outbound
and

Load

overheads.

factor.

Fig. 15. I4.

AD

CtJFF

Output Risk profile,

1500 Teu
container
capacity
(Assuming
18
Knots
dependency)
and speed

Uh'

P.

Tr. r:

:-;

_.

TO

c/.

T(i

!'..

T
T

_; -

2'..

TO
TO

,L

T C
TC
1C

=
1 ,''

TO
T.

Ci.
L.

Z.

.
.
C'..

IYX

iLi>.

? XX
X

: r

T\V
. /\. /y
/,

jL

11.
1.
.

'

XX?,

2
1 :;.

aXkX7.
>:X)7:. :a'

XX> X XXYXY
XXXaY>
>
XXX>. X Xk) kXxXaXik>. Y,
, XXX'X>'X> Y,>'>XXXX xkn
X.XXXXxX>. X>XxXX"}"XiX.
X>kkXXxXXXXkXyXXxxXY>.

J"

S'"_
1L"..

"

TO

:
7. '..
7.

-,

TO
TC'
T +"'

TTC

..
:!.

'-

27
1.
37.:

I C_.

T'
TO

[;

l
y

".;:

'x. xAx

"1
"1

? XXaXXXXx
.
xxfX
_,

1.

: 3...

TO
1-O

TC
TO
E. C TO
T3
6.5
7. G TO
T14.4N
k_FT"F

XXXXX
X x> x. >:Y"x>, x Xx>'x
x}xrXaYXXh

/
!

'

[. 7.

Xx}.
_):
XX
X
tX
X
xX
; 7X

_"

47 ._J
LS
....,

r. X>. XrX

XX}: XXY), XXaY"? 'xYXX>

?>xxxxxx>X>, x fxxY`";
?xxXxxx>: xx>.XYxx>, XXX>.

"

IU
TO

i}: XXY XXk;

XY.XXXXXXkXXX. XxXXX>; XXXY'XXXXX}XXXXYYXa

i >'XXXYXXi; XXXX)'XXYXX, XXYYi XXX), XXX
',: kXXx>'XYY">. XXxXXXXXXXxYY X}X>X), Y
? XXxXY xx xXX>. x" XXXX>: xXY>'x xX

"

Tv

"
"

?J

1
..
1.

3'XXXka: XX>: XXXxXXtXXXXXX),

XXXXkr:

TG
T C.
Y..
; '_+_

X>': XXXY, X
x>; X

JaXkX>
Y)"> XXXXXXi >:xXYXXXXYXXxX>.
>X
XX.XXX, XXXXXxXXXXXXxXXXiXY,
XYX> XXX: X1

:
IC)

`;

'aXx

-s

iL

- -j
`

_,

TC'
TO

TCl

:'C..

r: i

,n-

(7.,.
"7. C
7.

LY

;"

L f;. . c,

T '',,.

IT.. V

P".

"'_:

; ti1 .
LS

T.

I'T: Up
i, --_r. -

449

XXYx.

X>'

ii

o'

.+

-4
I.
J

C
L
C0
f
J

[
7

r
,r-

!F

'C

C. gtqC-

aw--,YTz=n:

450

mr

1500

Teu

18 knots,

ship,

2500

runs.

RFR

'LRFR

No

dependency

RFR1

/tonne

35.684

2.927

Dependency

(a)

RFR2

/tonne

36.113

3.052

Dependency

(b)

RFR3

/tonne

35.738

2.987

Dependency

(c)

RFR4

/tonne

35.671

2.856

The
on

two

only
the

mean

the

be

load

neglected

which

labour

wage

factors.

of
rate

Unit

each

significant

RFR1

of

showing
them

of

any

and

cost

overhead,

on
and

showed

deviation

standard

effect

significant
can

and
between

dependency
between

dependencies

sampled

the

are

overhead

positive
and

has

steel
that

this

from

effect

that

no
dependency

a different

distribution.
Therefore
be

ascertained

dependencies
with

the

between
use

of

451

any

Computer

two
Model

variables
IV.

can

CHAPTER
DISCUSSION,

CONCLUSION

16
AND FUTURE

DEVELOPMENTS

16.1.

GENERAL
The

and

application

operation

programs

over

programs

is

being
these

has

created

the

past

still

programs

for

cellular

containerships
to

be

risk

profile

overview

the

at

such

design

and

is

of
digital

operation
four

user

in

the

of

describes

the
or

for

is

It

was

not

programs

to

of

modes

of

The

sequence.

last

design.

out

stage

build

within
some
design

logic

design

in

the

various

an

acceptable

of

the

and

of

computer
Most

range

of

ship

were
had

they

give

size
to

available
to

for

acceptable

of

to

subprograms

subprograms

range

the

studies.

calculations,

requirements

containership

incorporated

as

the

preliminary
matching

certain
the

suit

out

aided

16.1.

to

Although

speed.

Fig.

difficult

results

reasonable

carry

in

involved

effort

computer

design

shown

carry

the

of

preliminary

thesis

this

to

thesis

offer

operation

development

design

which

use

preliminary
and

preliminary

individually

complete

design

and

This

the

and

DISCUSSION

16.2.

the

when

improvement

used

produces

mode

Since

design

ship

design

preliminary

commonplace

the

model

to

computer

decades.

required.

computer

operation

many

further

is

digital

two

not

out

carried

the

of

be

rewritten

containership

studies.
There
in

Fig.

was

the

the

batch

through
the
major
that

16.1,

for

batch

mode

in

limited

most

which

automated
could

be

be

changed

cards,

the

most

path

overridden.

452

It

cases.

mode

of

the

in

jobs

allowed
One

could

amounts

of

in

instances
the

of

computing

program

many

embedded

of

was

of

facility.

unnecessary
Secondly

One
other

submission

terminal

running

or

computer.

The

shown

as

the

interactive

the

generated.

or

control

in

of

the

logic

to

work

preferred

suppressed

decision

available,

terminal.

using

instances
This

might

job

amount
of

interrupted.

of

through

was

attractions

facilities

of

submission

terminal
a

types

through

mode
a

user

two

were

was
be

output
the

programs

the

Fig.

A complete
procedure.

16.1.

overview

of

the

Computer
Model

computer

Type
of
mode
possible

design

aided

Type
of
mode
p referable

Computer
time
including
compilation

Parametric
of
variation
dimensions
of
principal
large
number
of designs
and location
of optimum
design
manually.
May be possible
to
the
automate
search
by simple
procedure
sorting
routines.

I
cd

.
"r1

1500
secs
for
three
C
b values
in
of

steps
0.01

or

4a

a)

Optimisation
for
locating
design.

II

Technique
the
optimum

200 secs
for
three
Cb values

1
or
2

2
Sensitivity

analysis

II
p.,

III
"H
w
T-i

(d
A Iv

P-1

Sensitivity
with
an
to total
project

analysis
approximation
risk
of the

Generation
Profile
Freight

of Risk
Required

of
Rate

Batch
cards.

mode

2=

Batch
with

mode
limited

Computer

used:

with

ICL

2976,

through

through
of work
facility
and output

with
submission
interactive
with

453

VME/B

in
one

4000
simulation
1500
runs,
secs.
Initial
interactive
100 simulation
runs

work

varia-

or

of

secs

25 secs
for
one
ship
-

submission

18

1=

steps
0.01.

tion
only
value

1
or

in
of

for

or

or

Notes:

time

operating

job
a

control
terminal,
on a VDU.

system.

More

a decade

than

but

introduced

was

does

not

was

that

the

the

and

capacity
should

be

these

other

that

Freight
for

expressions

were:
(a)
An

attributes

Decision

rules,
seek

selecting

an

first

subject

was

profile

of

decision
human,
enter
thesis,
financial

how

shown

the

the

this

can

into

major

however,

we

policy

an

unknown

is

to

guide

must

this

thesis.

There

the

relative

analysis

or

alternatives.
Risk

of

into

criteria

making
less

given
be

into

capital

which

choice

it

measure

for

account

and
investment

concerned
does

lend

454

with
itself

been

On the

other

the
hand,
particularly

in

attention
the

and

Of

account

have

choices,

incorporated

generated.

take

are

to

for

strategic

any

if

discussion.

been
could

organisational,

a
to

in

use

rules

investment

policy

better

alternatives

economic
and

have

for

the

investment.

analysis

uncertainty,

on

subject

uncertainty

acceptable

component,

second

under

force

component,

much

of

to

was

influence

with

policy,

which

make

for

gravity.

concerned

investment

of

These

It

of

always

empirical

especially

need

incorporated

which

otherwise

the

investment

by

of

estimation.

investment

criteria

economic

is

of

parameters.

improved

centre

is

both

components

economic

The

and

among

choices

management's
two
embody

be

emphasising

it

An

environment.

design

cost

decision
and

number

a significant

steelweight

alternatives,

future

and

so

investment

Any

to

had

Rate

when

acceptability

large

the

need

weight

only

the

the

are

gravity

steel

Required

It

of

centre

weight,

container

containersliips

ability,

reduces

estimate

relationships

empirical

among

which

to

each

defined.

programs

used

relationships

the

Therefore

carrying

been

factors

design

preliminary

their

of

container

determine

can

It

vessel.

and

teu's

as

weight

height

under-

solely

the

of

to

many

average

draft.

have

the

of

of

designer

for

factors

for

size

value

associated

compared

One

the

given

containership

expressed

metacentric

procedure

stowing

the

the

since

difficult

still

identify

for

by

gone

capacity'

operational

container,

found

is

adequately

shown

(b)

it

'container

the

that

stand

has

course

no

the
risk

pre-established

considerations,

all
financial

that

decision.
the
to

be

typically
In

question

past.

of
formulated

this

quantitatively.
Such

a risk

management

would
Freight

Required
IV)

model

also

and

future

can

analyse

risk

profile

been

consistent.
be

can

based

analysis
prefer

to

Rate.

The

acts

as

capital
its

whether

the

more

consistent

not,

about

risk

reason

why

marine

capital

A major
in

accepted
large

number

of

is

typically

user

The

can

Therefore
thesis

for

risk

management

by

past

generation

of

decisions

past

have

decision

in

policy

has

investment

is

been

not

because

assessments
to

two

with

key

mind.

simulation

required

significant.

the

essence

to

widely
the

of

a designer

which

make

the

deterministic
to

and
expend

of

the

no

influence

undertake

such

which
on

difficulty

of
was

risk

in

of

computing

necessary
outlined

for

analyses

one
in

by

overcome

of

terms

Freight

assigning

A number

Fig.

or

been

cost
two

two

that

Rate

it

better

to
in

have
the

is

the
estimates

little

or
stage.
to

distributions.

simpler
it

since

such

analyses

455

that

previous

that

16.2.

of

distribution

cases

RFR

on

obviates

showed

competing

probabilistic

stages,

getting

found

this

advantage

the

in

in

influence

probability
assuming

the

at

significant

effort

Required

made

was

a risk

adopted

significant

probabilistic,

have

out

approach

into

process

carry

only

One

unnecessary

variables

variables

show

stage.
design

the

are

which

to

used

of

assessments

deterministic

the

time

be

variables

subdividing

is

The

designed

was

simulation

computer

that

was

stage

The

approach

probability

of

cost

simulation

need

analysing

analysis.

a risk

at

data

and

formulated.

observations

(b)

decisions.

determine

probabilistic

or

testing

of

(computer

model

investment

If

value

analysis
for

how

specifies

particular

past

own

and

risk

investment

The

(a)

attain

tool

then

policy

is

only.

not

wasteful
will
This

be
approach

Fig.

16.2.

Decision

Sensitivity

in

analysis

and

identification

User

provides

likely

of

influence

Sensitivity

analysis

of

each

each
on

these

variable

deterministic

stage

influencing

variables

and
found

variable
RFR

carried

values

to

to

total

the

Risk.

of

pessimistic

Risk
basis

the

major

for

significant

with

evaluation

optimistic,

estimates

stage

for

chart

in

the

out

in

evaluate

most
to

previous

have
stage.

the

probabilistic

the

contribution

risk.

simulation
carried
out
of assessment
made so

on
far

the

investment
basis
on the
`acceptable
the
distribution
of
of>RFR obtained
so far"-

Investment
accepted

Could
become
more
made

Investment
not
accepte

Is

thre

The invesimen
if
acceptable
assessments
are

I-Make more
assessment
such
studies
as, check
dependencies
and
change
of distribution

456

on

it

Finally
aided

to

overall

of

risk

risk

be

in

design

thesis

that

of

some

Explicit

significant.
project

form

must

computer

should

program

influence

since

can

this
design

containership

inherent

parameters

consideration
part

of

the

ports

of

call

programs.

CONCLUSIONS

16.3.
(1)

the

On
of

ship
of

16

to

other

(2)

Sensitivity
a

(3)

A sensitivity

may

be

in

adequate

risk

of

(4)

The

the

The

to

to

the

need

the

variables

such

program
scientific

the

variables.

to

approach
the

assess

total

procedure
a more

incorporate

should

decision

consistent

making

procedure
allow
on
in

effort
have

in

RFR

one

to

the

RFR.

found

the

to

previous

subdivided

identify

the

This

better

getting

been

be

should

important

obviates

estimates

have

of

little

stage

or
the

of

no
design.

DEVELOPMENT
from

demands
that

ensure
and

this

type

empirical

relationships
is

long

the

empirical

to

this

must

programs

extension

particular

the

of

circumstances

influence

accuracy
to

compared

approach

some

their

on

Results

probabilistic

on a probabilistic

which

which

FUTURE

16.4.

based

design

expend

significance

on

ranking

stages,
and

Rate

investments.

preliminary

various

speed

and

Freight

analysis

evolve

capital

variables

for

design

preliminary

for

policy

teu

decision.

capital

analysis

risk

1750

Required

based

measure

to

speeds.

and

analysis

better

two

teu

a lower

gives

sizes

ship

for

1500

capacity

knots

18

Route,

Atlantic

North

container

to

gives

and

in

shown

uncertainties

preliminary

into

been

preliminary

incorporate

(5)

has

many
are

of
by

required

as

tuning
more
for

457

be

as

period

accurate
of

as

tuning

possible
of

the

internal

relationships

both

accurate

as

An

is

the

complex
the

possible.

replacement
scientific

subroutines

of
ones.
concerned

simple
In
with

design,

structural

seakeeping

Sensitivity

analysis

improvement

but

must

be

also
The
well

be

carried

The
even

tonne

out

and

changes

supplant

to

and

transport

to

to

door

their

In
to

apply

subroutines
transport
and

its

fleets
can
studies,

gauge

the

benefit

to

studies

detail.

update

carefully

program

allowed

when

up

a great

deal

of

the

user

needs

to

be

program

viewed

output

as

an

transport

be

be

adjusted

is

also

link

one
link

extension

transport

to

of

useful

output.

this

and

container
of

takes

numerical

chain

be

would
be

cannot

in

a door

to

may

not

be

of

the

program

of

Other

valuable.

ignored

and

need

programs.
form

the

program

of

containerships.

be

applied

by

how
of

to

needs

themselves

Rate

ignores

incorporate

attracting

458

in

concerned

income
numerical

more

to

modification

However

those

especially

and finance.
propulsion
Freight
The Required
considering

the

Optimising

present

worth

Teu

per

of

in

experience

supplement

whole

computer

own

range

Graphical

can

modes

competitive

the

chain.
the

door

improvement

established

to

be

must

interaction.

more

to

wider

required

and

readily

benefit

be

computing

allows

A containership
door

of

future.

it

more

to

worthy

of

considered

interactive

time

permit

areas

possibility

ballasting

major
the

to

performance.

choose

must

enabling

effort

Although

applied

the

Rate

maintenance

considering

to

used

and

Freight

per

without

terminal

cost

service

considered.

Required
as

as

be

may

the

and

income.

many

the

of

separate

sea

with

and

resistance

it

routines

may

be
to

REFERENCES

1.

3.

'Optimization

design'

ship

aided
Aug.
2.

M. G.

Parsons,

R.

Hooke,

and

Computing

Machinery,

C.

'The

Edition

H.

Kummerman,
MacGregor

7-

8.

Pergamon

&J

1973,

PP"1-581.
K. M.

Johnson,

function

PP-308-313in

risk

R.

business

investment'

Oxford.

Transc.

SNAME,

'Ships

Cargo,

Cargo

Ships',

1979Systems'

Wiley

H. C.

& Garnett,
Allen

George

isation'.

for

'Containership'

acquinet,

'Container

E.

for

pp-305-45-

Publications,

Rath,

Assoc.

method

Press,

J. J.

of

pp. 212-229.

7,1964,
of

solution

J.

simple

J.,

& Karsch,
74,

Vol.

'A

evaluation

1980,

J. J.

Henry,

R.

& Mead,

search

problems'.
8,1961,

Vol.

Computer

J.

Hull,

1966,
6.

Symposium,

'Direct

statistical

J. A.

Neider,

T. A.

& Jeeves,

numerical

ist

5.

SNAME Star

use in computer
Washington,

26-29,1975-

minimistion'
4.

for

methods

'The

& Unwin

Interscience

Publications,

economics

Ltd.,

of

London,

container-

1971,

pp. 1-216.

9.

10.

'The

G. B.

Clarke,
ship'
1970,

Fall

Ebel,

F. G.

ation

system'

development

meeting

of

and

SNAME, Gulf

design

of

Section,

a container
Sept.

25,

PP-1-19M. S.

& Pennington,
No. 2.

Paper

'Unitized

cargo

SNAME Spring

Meeting

transport1968,

pp-1-1711.

'The

advance
67,
Nov.,
No.
(Shipping

1978,

'Port
in

developing

fully

sea,
PP. 1-76.

cellular

containershipping'.

Published

by

H. P.

Drewry

London.

Consultant),

12.

Development',

A handbook

UNCTAD,

countries'.

United

for

planners

Nations,

New

1978.

York,
13.

deep

of

Hoppe,

K.

'Modern

Cargo

development,

trends

by

ships

container

Internal

Report

and
and

Transport'.
design
ro-ro

1979.

4 59

A statement
aspects,

vessels'

in

cargo

Maierform

on
transport
News,

14.

Book

Year
15.

R. F.

Gibney,

1981'.,
I. L.,

Buxton,

16.
The

Bay'
17.

18.

Heavy

Industry

Meek,

M.

Mech.

Eng.

Meek,

M.

Vol.
20.

B.

'Structural

Rapo,

Mallorca,

Meek,

M.

'Structural
RINA

Design

Soc.

of

Nav.

S&

Proc.

last

Inst.

Transc.

Engineering

of

RINA

XV
8-12

of

OCL

of

June

Shipping,

1980.

Containership'Vol.

Containerships

SR Marine

'Cellular

Shipping
'On

114,

from

report
-a
International

Design

the

No.

66,

character

Akagi,

and

of

Lloyds

pp. 1-14.

of

& OE of

Bulletin

Conservation'.

Containerships'

Pub.

Architects

Seikan

Ishigai,

the

over

pp. 79-80.

I.

Nakamura,

249-263-

pp.

Register

and

O. M.,
of

Mitsubishi

pp. 241-92.

1972,

27,1970,

Register

MHI'

Containerships'

of

design

Register'

Clemmetsen,

Table

development

and

in

Lecture,

Naval

of

'Containers

Feb.

Ltd.,

pp. 1-41.

Lloyd's

de

Lloyd's

25.

1970,

Conference

Palma

design

OCL containerships'

Jan.

Spon

pp. 47-64.

194,1980,
first

Access

& F. N.

Merchantships
Gray

1982.

73-76.

pp.

1980,

Lowe

Thomas

No. 1,

22.

24.

in

112,

Transc.

23.

'Developments

'The

Technical

21.

March

London,

containerships'

containerships

News.

Vol.

E.

of

1978,

Ltd.,
'Cargo

1978,

'Hydrodynamic

cellular

52nd

decade'

19.

Jan.

ship,

speed

J.

generation

Katsuyoshi

high

Co.

King,

Ships',

third

Motor

Takekuma,
of

R. P.,

Merchant

pp. 1-366.
'A

London,

International

Magazine

National

Daggit,

for

Equipment

'Containerization

Editor:

containership'

Japan.

1980,

pp. 187-202.

Shinsuke,

'Maritime

Fuel

the

Vol.

MESJ,

8,

No. 4,1978,

pp-311-1826.

Kieselhorst,

W. H.

Development'

pages

Vol.

III.

Proc.

Nov.

18-20,1980,

of

'World

Containerised

11-31.
the
London.

Container
3rd

Container
C. S.

4 60

Trade

and

Technology

Conference

Technology

Publications

Conference,
Ltd.,

1981.

27.

Taggart,

'Ship

R.

Publications,
28.

29.

Spethmann,

York,
_New
K.
'Seeking

lashings'.

The

Carter,

Conf.

Leo

A. R.,

Cole,

31-

Gross,

L.

32.

33"

July

Ed:

Malcolm

Wing,

J. F.

No. 2.

SNAME Spring

et

al.

Register

Lloyds

35"

Watson,

D. G. M.

Methods'

Transc.

Nav.

Arch.

and

38.

the
39.

Register

Lloyds

S.

Erichsen,
Report
Arch.

terminals'

II,

Proc.

of

Dec.

1-3,

1982.

1-15,

Paper

24-27,1972.
in

Feb.

1978,

1985'
pp. 1-16.

'Some

Ship

279-324.

pp.

the

main

operational

Ships,

July

Techniques
Thesis

Design

Jan.

1979,
Applied

1968,

Massachusetts

pp.
to

Dept.

Institute

8-11.

of

of

Appendix.
Shipping

and
'Optimum

- Rules
Classification
capacity

of

April

1971,

pp. 1-282.

Mar.

Eng.,

Univ.

of

also

still

Ltd.,

119,

No. 123.
and

Engineering

M. Sc.
Eng.,

of

Construction

Vol.

'Optimization

pp. l-62,

Technology,

1977

Special

Mar.

is

Vol.

May

A. W.,

ship'.

Design'.

Containership

fleet

Page

21st

showing

C.

Chryssostomidis,

Conference,

Requirements

diagram

container

container

1982.

RINA,
'A

on

Amsterdam

Virginia

Gilfillan,

and

Publications

Transport

Forecasting'

Section

Ships

of

H.

Langenberg,
of

costs

Publications

Shipping

Canadian

34.

37"

'World

D. E.

Turnbull,

C. S.

-'Trade
Meeting

Container
C. S.

Conference,

Hodd,

Techniques'

PP-1-15-

Shipping

1981.

data

London.

many slots
now and the
Container
Shipping
pp. 6-7.

SNAME Eastern

36.

1980,

the

of

of lashing
No. 4. Maritime

Container

2nd

Lashing

and

Proc.

container

pp-83-90-

'Too

expanding'
the

Control
I.

deck

1980,

effect

Paper

Cardiff,

Oct.

1977,
-Dec.
pp. 203-231.

'The

UWIST,

to

Nov.

design'.

ship

alternatives

Vol.

O'Byrne,

SNAME

1980.

Ship,

Industry,

Industry
Ed.

Motor

Construction'

and

'Shipboard

M. J.

Container

30.

Design

'Optimising

SNAME Spring

Meeting

461

Regulations

and
of

Steel

ships

and

The

Michigan,
Containership
1972.

for

Ships
port

Dept.
College
and

- 1976.
terminals'

of

Nav.

of
their

40.

R. M.,

Fortson,
constrained

41.

M.

Pawlowski,

I.

Le.

B.

WEGEMT

Norway

&

R. L.

49.

Bulletin

Record,

May

51.

52.

53"

of

ships',

by

coefficient
1975,

an

Pp"217-219"

and

service

speed'

PP"117"
of

characteristics

of

freeboard

aided

cellular

National
and

Port
Shipp:

in

bulk
Delft,

carrier
Interim

pp. 1-68.
Load

Line

Rules

- Instructions
DOT UMND 3070,1966.

R. M.,

calculation'

pp. 96o-67.

1966

Ships

'Computer

for

Survey

or
the

of

guidance

of

HMSO.

aided

fitting',

curve

SWSB,

pP. 1173-76.

H.

'General

Naval

Revised

Edition,

Miller,

D. S.

Press

19799

1975,

Loadline

Marcus,

block

preliminary
Technische-Hogeschool

Shipping

MT April

cargo

PP-1-30-

coefficient

'Computer

Merchant

of

19809

'Procedures

Sept.

1972,

container

pp. 23.1-232,

1969
of Newcastle
or
No. 6,1970,
or Shipbuilding

1971,

design'.

Dept.

120,

29,1970-

L. K.

Benford,

Vol.

of

'Multipurpose

'Estimation

R. M.,

Cameron,

Oct.

RINA,

Univ.

Council

Cameron,

Transc.

1979,

SWSB Feb.

May

K. R.

Chapman,

surveyors,
50.

June

'Block

Architect

Report,

PP-1-103-

operating

characteristics

B.

formula'.

Townsin,

ship

1974,

uncertain

Papers,

'Optimising

P. S.

Katsoulis,

Kupras,

Sep.

Projektowanie,

Anne,

2-6

SWSB9 August
48.

under

a systematic

52959).

containerships'

47-

SNAME,

choice

stowage

Abstract

Guern,

Naval
46.

'The

Badania

exponential
45.

ship

in

un-

pp. 137-148.

cargoes'.
(BSRA
242

44.

sequential

techniques

Supplementary

1978,

of

LS-NE,

containership-design',
P. 'Optimal
Sen,

July

43.

'Application

minimization

conditions',

42.

III,

1970,
H. E.,

Cargo

Arch.
Aug.
'The

Ship

& Mar.
1965,

economics

pp. 180
Frankel,

or

Eng.,

Univ.

and
of

Design',

Michigan,

pp. 1-151.
of

LS-PH

E. G.

Economics

containership
Oct.

'Ocean

subsystem'

1968.
Transportation'

1973"

+WEGEMT:
West European Graduate Education in Marine Technology.
462

MIT

ing

54.

J. R.

Hancock,
integrated

Dept*

1972,

Swift,

P. M.

'An

power

service

56.

57"

M. Sc.

Inst.

of

the

centre

109

No. 18

Sep.

4151,

Abs.

No.

33941.

1974,

1972,

hull

of
of

Dept.

steel

of

weight

merchant

p. 1554,

ships'.

BSRA Translation

'Private

the

of

pp. 1-169.

gravity

& Partners

Corlett

Thesis,

problem
of

selection

Michigan,

of

'On

Hansa

Burness,

an

system'

rational

Ph. D.

Univ.

H.
steel

container

of

Massachusetts

to

approach

& OE,

hull

and

model

pp. l-89.

margin',

Schneekluth,

and
Eng.,

Ocean

of

June

Arch.

planning

terminal

Tech.,

Nav.

economic

ship,

Thesis,

55"

'An

No.

Correspondence'

1979-80.
58.

R. J..

Scott,
1962,

59.

'Containership

Design'

LS-GL,

SNAME Jan.

26,

PP. 1-61.
H.

'Determination

and

containerships'

Carstens,
carriers
1970,

Nov.

p. 1945,

the

of

steel

HANSA,

weight

107,

BSRA Translation

of

Special

No. 3502,

bulk

Issue

Abs.

No.

31164.
60.

Watson,

design'

ship
61.

Swigart,

Great

Transport

and

Overseas

Reprinted

Aug.

1978,

MT Vol.

Lakes

13,
H.

"Benford,

'Ocean

ore

Shipbuilding

76,

SNAME,

'Ka

63.

The

Jan.

Saga

and

carrier
Vol.

Vol.

Rep.

No.

University

'Transport

III:

Seaway

160,

Dec.

Naval

of

1974,

Architecture
of

Michigan

also

pp. 59-84.
economics
and preliminary
66,1958,
PP-384-442.

Maru'

Marine

P. M.

Seaway,

Department

in

pp-111-183-

Swift,

Trade'

No. 1,

Transc.

design'

and

Engineering,

Marine

1962-63,

J. E.,

Analysis:

dimensions

preliminary

IESS

Transc.

E. H.,

Volker,

and

62.

'Estimating

D. G. M.

- the
Engineering

first

of

many

International

conversions'.
Oct.

1980, PP"397-402.
'OCL's

64.
Shipbuilding
Feb.

1980,

and

Far
Marine

pp-5-

463

East

Steam

Engineering

to

Diesel
International

Conversions'.
Jan

65.

Benford,

'Steam

H.

April

ship

to

'What
to

owner

considerations

for

opt

Decision

Factors',

Motor-

pp. 28-29.

1980,

66.

Diesel

diesel

a U. S.

prompted
SBMEI,

propulsion',

Flagship

May

198.1,

pp. 205-206.
67.

Ref:

Delft.

68.

69.

70.

71.

A.

Groeneweg,

& Polko,

Bulk

of

optimisation

of

Delft.

73"

74.

75"

Euroliner

from

conception

Sep.

MT Jan

1973,

PP-

'Margins

in

naval

P. A.

Naval

Engineers
W. A.

pp. 157-170.

Naval

Hockberger,

W. A.

'A

Shipbldg.

February

1977,

pp. 23-28.

Holtrop,

J.

and

prediction

method'.

Oct.

PP. 253-56.

1978,

A.

Silverleaf,
ships

for

high

April

1967,

Moor,

D. I.

Moor,

D. I.

'Standards

& Small,
ship'.
reference

Vol.

102,1960,

Moor,

D. I.

& Pattullo,

twin

screw

and passenger
(Confidential).

April

J.

1976.

of

June
test

performance

Vol.

24,

statistical
Progress

Transc.

No. 270,

power

'Hydrodynamic

operation'

Impacts

and
Journal,

Engineer's

'A

Tmpacts'

and

Issues

margins.

Shipbldg.

Ship

of

LESS 1973-74,

RINA,

of

Issues

G. G. J.

& Dawson,

LS-NY,

Vol.

25,

design
RINA,

of
Vol.

merchant
109,

pp. 167-176.

screw

particular

margins.

Progress,

Intl.

speed

PP"174-188.

Naval

Manen,

GTS

design',

1975,

analysis

Intl.

the

of

ship

Journal,

design

results'.

single

77.

Engineer's

statistical

University

SNAME,

surface

design

'Ship

aid

38-50-

April

'Ship

the

1978.

integration

T. H.

at
with

Feb.

to cperation'.

pp. 87-94.

J.

Holtrop,

al.

Journal,

Hockberger,

L. K.

'System

et

Gale,

developed
design

Kupras,

D. B.

1971,

Diagrams

preliminary

Carpenter,

1379, Transc.
76.

carrier
method,

- Discussions'
1976.
72.

J. B.

ships'
liners,

V. F.

Paper

No.

PP-1-52.

'The

Average
to

Performance',

horsepower

effective
modern

attainment
in

variation

Cb

and

of

with
LCB.

Transc.

pp. 269.
R. N. M.
Best

'The

modern

BSRA Report

464

effective
attainment
NS 192,1968,

horsepower
for

ferries
pp.

1-19

78.

79.

D. I.

Moor,

Average

1969,

BSRA Report
A.

Emerson,

Vol.

81.

Vol.

'Resistance,

W. P. A.

SNAME Vol.

data

R. M.
Nav.

of

Scott,

J. R.

single

screw

the

updated
'Further
computer-

P.
B-screw

Intl.

series'.

developments

in

design'

propeller

Mumford,

'A

SNAME

of
trial

ship

Thesis

Glasgow,

1970.
pp. 1-320.

performance

Transc.

RINA
1965

1973,

Technical

pp. 149-186.

Standard
from

performance

of

Procedure

model

Report

No. 80,

pp. 1-18.
of

method

predicting

ships'

'The

experiment

design'
Assn.,

Ph. D.

'BTTP

Division.

merchant
E. R.

Design',

predicting
ships'.

of

Architecture

University

Laboratory,

Ship

propeller

Standards

& OE,

merchant

1966,

Ship

of

Naval

York.

'Economic

-Arch.
'Method

J. R.

of

New

prediction

Oct.

Scott,

and

269-

B-Series'

pp. 251-262.

'Recent

Physical

National

twin-screw
90.

of

Progress,

Wageningen

Oosanen,

Wageningen

1967,

experiments'.

89.

pp.

'Principles

P. J.

Cameron,

NPL,

resistance

SNAME 1934.

Comstock,

for

"The

al.

1975,

K. E.

Schoenherr,

Dept.

88.

Beams'

and motions
of hi gh
Transc.
NECI 1965-66.

liners'

et

the

of

Publications,

87.

the
Shipbldg.

propulsion

& Van

Progress

Transc.

86.

Intl.

77,1969,

M. W. C.

Oosterveld,

Shipbldg.

85.

Varying

of

determining

p. 179.

ships'

Lammeren,

analyzed

84.

for

cargo
single-screw
82, pp. 277-327.

Transc.
83.

Hulls

85,1943-

'Diagrams

D. I.,

Moor,

Van

of attainment
(Confidential).

NS 317,1971
of

single-screw

1,1954.

speed
82.

of

standards

Resistance

Vol.

screw

single

optimum

No.

'The

A. J. W.

Lap,

and

RINA,

horsepower

effective

ships'.

Transc.
80.

'The

Paper

Southampton,

465

Transc.
tank
read
Aug.

trial
RINA
in

performance
1974,

relation

before
1925.

the

of

pp. 175-186.
to
British

ship

91.

93"

L.

class

of

Progress,

1976,

Burrill,

L. C.

tests

94.

solution

Intl.

'Propeller
in

models
Transc.

Shipbldg.

in

the

King's

College

1962-63,

295-320.

pp.

container

pp. 1-190,

1980.

further

cavitation:

the

NECI,

choice

Centre

Transport

computer-aided

problems'.

A.

Emerson,

'Ship

Experimental

pp. 10-29.

propeller

S.

Gilman,

Pruebas,

and

design
23,

Tunnel',

Cavitation

de

'Formulation

Vol.
&

Y Experimentacion

1943.

propeller

16"

on

Canal

Pardo,

Vassilopoulous,
of

Mecanica

Burques'

El

Madrid,

Tank
92.

de

Modelos

con

'Semejanza

M. L.

Acevedo,

Marine

age'

Dist.

by

C. S.

Publications

Ltd.
95.

Moor,

D. I.

'ITTC

screw

ships

pp. 388-404.
'A
D. I.
Moor,

15th

program',

computer

factor

prediction

performance

ITTC

for

1978,

single

Appendix

I,

96.

from

performance

A.

Novaes,

E. D.

1976,

Oct.
100.

103"

You

J.

Jiao

May

pp-1-14.

of

container-

Management,

Vol.

4,

No. 1,

'Economic

of

- further
Transport

pp. 161-178.
and

design'

ship

PP-1-107-

comparisons

of

SNAME 1973,

Zhang

'The

economic

of
1982,

various

determination

Naval

marine

PP"79-108.

evaluation

Department
University,

time
Jnl.

economics

Transc.

and

turnaround

1978,

1976,

& Rengyi

ships'
Tong

11,1970,
time

Hongkong'.

of

'Engineering

plants',
Yang

unloading

'Turnaround

and

port

edition,

dimensions
cargo

the

vessels

& Policy,

2nd

Femenia,
power

of

I. L.

BSRA,
102.

and

Aug.

pp. 101-132.

PP-3-19-

Economics
Buxton,

NECI,

unitized

1966,
and

SNAME,

Policy

for

model

Research,

Section
R. P.

from

evidence

101.

Transc.

loading

& Maggs,

'Size

R.

Ross,

queuing

'Containership

Maritime

ships'

'A

E.

Hawaiin

Edmond,

mile

results'.

Operations

B. C.

Nehrling,
simulation'

99.

measured

trial

and

& Frankel,

generation'.

cargo
98.

tank

predicting

pp. 45.

76,1959-60,
97.

of

method

of

of
multipurpose

Architecture,

PP. 1-56.

principal
dry
Shanghai,

104.

Kupras,
in

Lamb,
of

106.

107.

23,1976,

Mandel,

P.

to

design'.

ship

108.

Sep.

I.

Lecture

No.

Intl.

study

parametric

Shipbldg.

Progress,

R.,

'Optimization

Transc.

4,

1969,

pp. 362-

building

and

University

WEGEMT,

methods
p. 477-

SNAME 1966,

'Estimating

L.

MT Oct.

procedure'

1968.

& Leopold,

Buxton,

Sep.

design

ship

SNAME,

LS-CH

and

pp-138-155-

'A

T.

method
design'.

ship

precontracted

Vol.
105.

'Optimization

L. K.

operating

costs'

Newcastle

of

applied

Tyne

upon

5-21,1978.

'Preliminary

J.

Carreyette,

July

Architect,

1978.

ship
Transc.

'Department

109.

British

110.
Sections

Steel
with

No. 5.

list

1 and

2.

No. 7,

series

list

HMSO.
Price
1st

Corporation.

floor

Price

pp. 235-58"
Gazette'
Oct.

effective

Steel

millplates,

reversing

120,

Corporation.

Price

British

111.

Vol.

p. 1081.

wages

plates

Naval

estimation'

Employment

Steel

revisions

price

RINA,
of

hourly

Shipbuilding

1980.

cost

List
July

Price

and
from

July

Business'

formerly

1979

list

of

flats,

universal

effective

of

1980,

with

4 revisions.
'British

112.
Industry

in

commodities
113.

May
-

Rates,

by

'A

5th-21st

shipowner's

view

Advanced

1978,

Sept.
By

115"

permission

of

of
'81:

Monthly

of
ship

University

'ERGOSEA

D. H.

Moreby,

Nations.

Y-ard

Summing

of

&
major

HMSO.

index

price

United

WEGEMT,

No. ll,

Paper

1981)

Statistics,

of

material

country.

P. M.

114-Swift,

issues

indices

price
(May

Bulletin

wholesale

index

116.

wholesale

publishes,

Trade

Exchange

labour

and

engineering
design

price

economics'
techniques,

Newcastle-upon-Tyne.
Limited,
up',

Glasgow.
Seaways

Dec.

1981,

pp. 3-6.
'Crew

117.
Galbraith's
Abs.

No.

Costs

Shipping

The

Advisory

52504.

b7

Shipowner's
Services

Dilemma',
Ltd.,

1979,

BSRA,

'Automation

118.
to

stay

and reduced
Supplement

competitive'

fleets

manning,
to

aims

Motorship.

81

Jan.

pp. 30-31.
119.

120.

P. M.

Alderton,
Maritime

Economics,

Computer

program

Validakis,

J. E.

Eng.,

'Ship

of

Glasgow,

London,

4th

Edition,

Association,

correspondence).
P. 'An
Casey,

economic

(or)

Salvage

Marine

Eng.

of

Ships'.

& Ocean

& Ball,

Association
Log.

Feb.

Heirung,

E.,

cargo

liner

in

of

Maritime
Heggie,
Transport

IV,

the

S.

'Design

development

Jubilee

of

Meeting

I. G.

of

general

SNAME

cargo

1968.

'Charging

SAPANUT,

Vol.

Gardner,

B.

Maritime

Policy
Issue

for

Dues,

Benn-Bros.
'Port
10,

1980'.

ships

Baltic

facilities',

port

Jan.

Intl.

1974,

Autumn

Management

Liner

Shipping

Motorship

TW

Limited

from

(various

of

PP-3-25and

Publications

No. 2,

Journal

Accommodation

charges

and
-

some

(Confidential),

& Policy.

'Port

I.

of

(BIMCO)

Economics

by

Account

No-312

_1980,
Conference

Adelstein,

propulsion

pp-1-31-

128.
published

shp

plants.

'Disbursement
Bulletin

40000

of

Erichsen,

Diamond

No. 6,

(private

p. 16.

J. R.,

light

Norwegian

annually.

comparison

Getz,

Special

Arch.

Chapman

Index'

published

1976,

Jan-Feb.

126.

131.

Cost

Expenditure

of

Shipwowner's

transportation'

130.

cargo

PP"71"

SBMEI,

129.

general

1(Ienice.

pp. 1-238.

annually

'Index

Paper

correspo.

Naval

of

and

Private

Shipping'

of

Repair

published

of

on

pp. 1-167.

1977,

'Ship

study
Dept.

Elements

'The

1979

studies',

University

123.

127.

cost

1978,

A. E.

Conference

Liverpool

of

Thesis,

London,

125.

Univ.

M. Sc.

122.

124.

Costs'.

economic

Branch,

1981,

Transport

'An

ships'.

121.

'Sea

a carrier's

Charges

1980',

(Annual).
viewpoint'

1980.

Vol.

5,

in

the

No. 3,
U. S.

issues).

July
trade.

1978.

133.

International

Fairplay

132.
(various

issues).

Butcher,

R.

'Cost

and

utilisation

Operations

Container

Weeking

analysis',

Shipping

and

Cargo

Amsterdam

1979,

Shipping

Systems,

Conference,
C. S.

7.

paper
Nov.

Publications

27-29,
Ltd.,

London.
134.

135.

Edmond,

E. D.

sets

of

containers

Vol.

119,1977,
S.,

Gilman,
North

&

138-

Council

Meek,

M.

Instn.

E. K.

Box

pp.

164-188.

of

large

Handling

National

practice'.

container

in

ships'

Scotland.

Sea

Operator'

Paper

W. H.

Container
1976.

CS Publications
Evaluation

Nov.

'The

J. B.

Container

Technology,
C. S.

Proc.

Ltd.,

Study'

1977.

-Dec.

in

London.

Container

C. S.

Ltd.,

one

Industry

Publications

view'.

Conference

Vol.

box

governing
Proceedings

purchase'

1978.

Vol.

Paper

No. 9,

PP-39-53-

R. M.

'Some

Advanced

Ship

Design

Graduate

Education

economic

complexities'.

Techniques.
in

Marine

WEGEMT,
Technology,

West

European

Sep.

5-21,

PP. 1-29.
E. T.

Laing,
Economics

'Containers

of
Marine

1975,

Deep

II,

London.

Conference

Publications,

man's

2nd

influences

'Economic

Cameron,

1970s'.

ahead

Proceedings

Technology

C. S.

1978,

way

Publications

J. B.

Brokaw,

Jan.

Their

PP-1-17-

Tilsley,

Life

Proceeding

Container

143.

8,

Deep

ICHCA.

Sherwood,

II,

Liverpool,

of

London.

1978,

142.

'

current

1975,

'The

with
R.

Ltd.,

141.

the

on

Univ.

'Containers:

&Shipbldrs.

Conference:

Association

140.

of

Engrs.

Feb.

Pentimonti,

1,

of

RINA,

'Containers

Centre,

experience

of

1389,18th

Vol.

S. C.

T. E.

Chapter

'Operating

Butcher,

Transc.

Transport

survey
1978,

Technology

139.

Ryder,

R. P.,

Shrimpton,

-A

Ports

No.

number

PP"1-158.

H. K.

Transc.

the

containerships',

Marine

& Transport

137"

'Estimating

pp. 191-202.
Maggs,

1977,

Dally,

A. J.

for

Atlantic'

Feb.
136.

& Wright,

Sea

and

their

General

Transport

Centre,

pp. l-89.

469

competitors

Cargo
Univ.

Shipping
of

in
Liverpool,

The
the

144.

E. T.

Laing,

S. A.

Sabit,
propeller

146.

C. S.

Nowacki,

H.

H.

'Ship

MT July

1970,

Benford,

H.

the

153.

Jan.

of

II,

Ship

Desig; n',

SNAME,

Dec.

'69

S.

'The

of

ships'.

non-annual

decisions'.

Engineering

1967,

-Feb.
effect

pp. 67-91.

higher

of

Institute

Symposia

'The

design'.

merchant

1976.

1978

practical

fuel

of

Proc.

ship

design'

W.

Marine

IMAS: 76,

on

ships

1974,

1967,

for

and

pp. 125-127.

of

Jan.

Ro-Ro's

economics

pp. 519-36.

Semi-bulks'

pp. 57-73.
'Great

design'

preliminary

crisis
Oct.

MT,

'Special

Odo

oil

application

Conference,

Krappinger,
and

of

Architect,

'The

R. N.

Herbert,

impact

Naval

H.

Benford,

Ro-Ro
154.

Aided

computer'LS-EC

investment

No. 2.

design

I. L.

Buxton,

to

Vol.

31-38.

their
152.

12,

Conference

Engineers

Computer

mathematics

to

& Yabuki,

on

prices

1978,

pp"i49-153"

and

and

applied

M.

repair'

pp. 367-

Vol.

Komoto,

Proc.

Progress

designs

and

container

NSMB

1970,171pp.

design

'Logic

Economist,

151.

standardisation

on

Dec.

of the
Shipbldg.

Intl.

London,

Notes

Michigan.

of

Nowacki,

pp.

for

Ltd.,
'Class

compounding

150.

equations

5 blades'.

search

Publications

Univ.

149.

pp"370-374.

The

Limited.

and
- standardisation
Technology
Conference

Container

148.

23,
'The

evolution

147.

4 and

Lash'.

or

efficiency

series
C.

Albers,

Unit

'Optimum

vol.

1976.

Pallets

Intelligence

Economist

145.

'Containers,

Lakes
LS-GL

Ore

carrier
economics
SNAME May 1966,
MT. April

1967,

pp. 147-188.
155.

Erling,

E.

factors

applied

157.

S.

Costs'.

Ro-Ro
Yoshimi

transportation
3rd

26-28

World

April

'The

C.

in

78

Congress

1977.

Ro-Ro's

1978,

& Novitake
and

Adv.

of

production

in

Marine

Symposia.
of

Conf.

concept

design)

ship

'Comparison

Gilman,

Nagao

Hall,

International

1,1979.

Vol.
156.

and

container

on Transport

pp. 84-96.

470

91-110.

Lo-Lo

and

Terminal

pp. 157-166.

Michihiko,

marine

pp.

Technology

'Intercontinental
system'.
Research,

Proc.
Rotterdam

of

the

158.

H.

Nowacki,

et

University
159.

'Optimum

Y.

Proceedings

160.

H.
'

161.

the

T.

Benford,
offs.

163.

RINA,

Oct.

Benford,

H.

'Measures

H.

design'

Dept.
1980.

Aug.
165.

'A

Benford,

'Remarks

for

LS-GL

Jan.

at

Arch.

1975,

pp. 1-29.

design

ship

pp. 511-21.
design',

ship

measures

of

Eng.

in

merit

Report

PP. 1-32.

bulk

of

Spring

ship

No. 223,

Engg.,

of

economics
SNAME

MT,

1969.

College

time'

design;

ship

& Mar.

the

on
of

trade

route

optimal

merit

Michigan,

of

for

for

look

Nave

influence

the

and

Univ.

R.

Hettena

of

I MAEM,

of

pp. 581-600.

or

second

speed,

23,1972,

of

pp. 465-76

1970,

ships'

1981.

criteria

1965,

cargo

Congress

SNAME Aug.

criteria

Transc.

Oct.
164.

'Economic

'Economic

dry

size,

Symposium

design'

ship

pp.

Istanbul,

Schipenwerf

R. D.

Goss,

multipurpose

strategy

Th. M.

Oostinjen,

for

aided

International

STAR

14,

1968,686

K.

'Design

Paper

May

First

& Kafali,

optimization'.
162.

speed

of

Ozalp,

Ed.

Michigan,

of

Gabl,

'Computer

al.

shipping

Meeting,

1972,

pp. 1-4.
166.

167-

A. J.

capital

projects',

Buxton,

I. L.
11th

NECIES
168.

Goss,

R. O.

169.

H.

Benford,

pp.
170.

Jan.

1982

PP. l-7
in

'Advances

1977,

and

analysis

London,

1963-

ship
(Advance

designs

Maritime

of

to

markets'

Copy.

Economics'

Cambridge

London.

'Investment

B. M.

Gardner,

Paper

for

before

returns
Vol.

no.

Benford,

Langenberg,

speed
1977,

& Marlow,

No. 4,

10,

P. B.

7,

Univ.

H.

'A

note

and

tax'

after

July-Aug.

1965,

on

July

inflation
14

& Andersson,

screw container
single
89, PP-1-37Vol.

471

modelling

Economics

Liverpool,

of

MT Vol.
H.

'The

Maritime

shipping'.

profitability'
172.

merchant

finance

1-16.

regimes

171.

'Matching

Economist

Engineering

'The

Longmans,

Press,

University

A.

& Sykes,

Merrit,

July

G. O.

ship'

its

PP"1-7effect

1977,

'Design

Transc.

fiscal

Conference,

1979,

and

No. 3,

of

pp.

on
242-43-

a high

of

I.

Mar.

E.

Albert,

173.

174.

R.

'Energy
Paper

& shipping

conference

Amsterdam,

Cargo

Langenberg,

H.

& Voss,

Motorship

The

of

1981,

February

1981.

ship

University

Wales,

of

7-8th

July

by

capacity'

1980.

digital

computer'

Hutchison

& Co.,

Pp"323-24.
Ship

the

Design'

the

of
June

60'

linear
1979,

industry,

I,

Cargo

British

pp. 1-46.
'Analysis

W.

Intl.

Part

shipping'

Shipbldg.

of

cross

Progress

curves

Vol.

12,

127-135.

pp.

Journee

J. M. J.

'Prediction

a Seaway'.

in

ship

liner

& Majewski,

series

1965,

in

future

L. K.

Kupras,

25th,

container

design

'Merchant

Council,

Shipper's

of

5th

Cardiff,

'Efficiency

Kruse,
& Hull,

180.

R.

Centre,

1964.

London,

179.

'Estimation

1967,

Smith,

Munro

RAI

Feb.

letter

vide

Conference,

Oct.,

operations

correspondence,

'Containership

176.

178.

Container

27-29,1979,

Technology,

of

building

new

Publications.

Private

Transport

Institute

177.

Nov.

Systems

A. K.,

and

pp. 1-4.

Hamburg,

Chatterjee,
Maritime

conversion

No. 8,

economics'

Blohm
175.

cost

of

Intl.

speed

behaviour

and

Shipbldg.

Progress,

of

Vol.

23

1976,

pp. 285-99"
181.

W.

Beukelman,
determining

& Huijser,

A.
'

seakeeping.

'Variation

Intl.

of

Shipbldg.

parameters
Progress,

Vol.

24,1977,

pp. 171-86.
182.

G.

Aertssen,

'The

containerships
Jan.

1975-76.
183.

184..

of

Vol.

24,1977,

Baxter,

Kupras,
a

tool

Shipbldg.

186.

Benford,
Transc.

of

in

the

North

75.

Pg.

11.

'The

weather

cargo

on

Atlantic'.

statistical

fast

three

data

1978,
185.

N. H.

Babbedge,

effect

ships'.

two

classes

Naval

of

Architect

the

analysis

of

Intl.

Shipbldg.

voyage
Prog.

pp. 187"

'Logistic

B. N.

Support

Ships'.

Transc.

RINA,

pp. 1-22.
L. K.
to

& de

guide

and

Progress.

H.

Zwaan,
learn
Vol.

'Engineering

SNAME Vol.

A. P.

'Graphical

a design
27,1980,

Economy

65,1957,

472

Design

process'.
pp. 242-56.

in

Tanker

pp"775-838.

Model

Intl.

Design'.

Vol-120,

187.

H.,

Benford,
in

Trends
Vol.
188.

Thornton,

the

design

70,1962,

Iron

of

D. M.

Ore

& Hettna,

States

United

of

& Williams,

E. B.

'Current

Transc.

ships'

SNAME

pp. 24-83.

Mack-Forlist,
study

K. C.

R.

Bulk

'An

feasibility

economic

Carriers'.

MT,

April

1966,

pp-136-151189.

R. D.,

Murphy,
ship

development

Gallin,
in

192.

'Theory

C.

Marine

and

Technology,

'Least

technique

card

preparation'.

Practice

in

cost

+ Appendix
MT.

'Computer

SWSB.

June

1970,

Kuniyasu,

T.

1965,

Sep.

IMI

No. 2,

March,
A. W.

Carriers'.

Transc.

1979-

studies'.

by

ships

of

to

computer

M.,

optimization

parametric

pp. 21-32.
Tanaka,

study'.

or
M.

by

ships

Engineering
1969.

Gilfillan,

Advances

Symposium
parametric

1968,

dimensions

computer'

pt.

of

Namimatsu,

principal

with

of

dimensions

T.,

Kuniyasu,

Design'.

PP-771-

Shipbuilding

Japan

aided

'Application

principal

Ship

International

R. M.

of

R. J.

computer

and

Cameron,

of

193.

by

& Taylor,

174-202.

pp.

191.

D. J.

characteristics

Program

190.

Sabat,

'Optimization

parametric

Review

study

Vol.

2,

No. 2,

pp. 1-11.

'The

design

economic
RINA

of

Bulk

Cargo

111,

No. l,

Jan.

1969,

T. G.

'Concept

Exploration

design'.

Trans.

Vol.

pp. 113-140.
194.

An

195.

M. C.

Eames,

to

approach

1977,

pp. 29-54.

British

Ship

design

196.

Feb.

1973.

Box,

M. J.

'A

Association.

new

method

with

other

Kuester,

J. L.

& Mize,
'

Notice

program'.

pp. 42-52.

FORTRAN.

warship

Research

1965-66,

with
198.

small

computer

a comparison

197.

& Drummond,

McGraw

of

J. M.
Hill

'Tanker

optimization
Computer

'Optimization
Book

Co.

'Library
Routine
for
E04UAF.
minimization
function
NAG,
with
of a
constraints'.
Group,
Vide
Letter
15th
of May 1981.

473

preliminary
Issue
No. l,

R. 117,

constrained

methods'.

of

RINA

and

Journal

techniques
1973,

pp. 1-497.

or maximization
Numerical
Algorithm

199.

(OPXRQP)

OPRQP

Optimisation
letter
200.

201.

Centre'.

1st

L. K.

Kupras,

1972,

June

vide

1978.

programming'

pp. 498.

Search

objective

algorithmt,

Polytechnic

non-linear

Hill,

'Direct

constrained

Hatfield

'Applied

McGraw

'Numerical

manual.

1981.

D. M.

York,

OPTIMA

and

The

May,

of

Himmelblau,
New

OPND3

and

Optimisation

function

using

Internal

Report,

Technique
Better

for

point

Delft

Inst.

of

Technology.
202.

Meek,

M.

'Impact

ments

in

technology

A. B.

Stone,
Inland

R. F.

Klausner,

The

OMEGA,

'The

'Risk

Intl.

K. W.

Fisher,

207.

208.

Engineering

Progress

D. B.

Hertz,

212.

Sci.

marine

capital
449-64.
pp.

1970,

Vol.

projects'
No. 6,1975.

3,

Carlo

of

pp"293-317"
in

risk

techniques'.

Symposium

in

procedures
RINA 1972,

'Analysis

Chemical

Series.

in

analysis
Review,

Vol.

No. 42,

59,

investment'.

capital

1964,

Jan.

pp. 169-181.
-Oct.,
D. B.
'Investment
policies

pp. 55-106

-Feb.

also

Sept.

Business

Review,

Webster,

W. C.

'Monte

Computer

aided

ship

Michigan,

Wolfram,

M. L.

Evaluation

design,

The

No.

in

Dept.

Engineering

NECIES

1979,
of

testing

Risk

decisions'.

SPE 6352,1977,

Feb.
Dallas,

474

pay

098,1970,

'Application

Symposium,

that

design'.

of

Naval

pp.

6-1

Arch.,
to

Economics

6-17-

&

PP"77-94.
Analysis
Soc.

21-22,
Texas

Harvard

off'.

pp. 96-108.
-Feb.
Methods
in
ship

Carlo

Transc.

pilot
No.

Jan.

Report

Design'.

recovery

1968,

'Uncertainty

J.

Anderson,

paper

in

investment

Transc.
H. A.

'Risk

Business

Hertz,

Ship

Publications.

PP-55-63-

Univ.

211.

Systems
risk

optimization

Monte

using

1979,

210.

Mgmt.

of

shipping

Oct.
of

design'.

ship

Harvard

209.

of

growing

PP-735-750-

investments

1963,

Cargo

evaluation

S. W. & Quigley,

Hess,

Inter-

-a
and

Technology,

'Economic

preliminary

their

and

Engineering

operation

evaluation

Jl.

Press,

Pergamon

1990's

requirement

27-29,1979,

Marine
C. P.

Bonini,

the

of

develop-

anticipated

& Marine

shippers

Nov.

investments'.

206.

ships

Container

role'.

and

1980.

'The

conference.

205.

on

July/Aug.

national

204.

cost

Shipbuilding

operation'.

203.

fuel

of

of

to
Petrol.

Economics
pp.

enhanced

233-242.

Eng-y.
and

213.

F. J.

Lampietti,
acceptable

& Marcus,
for

risk

214.

H. B.,

Woodward,

in

analysis

215.

Benford,

P. D.

216.

Cooper,

D. O.

No. 11,
217.

evaluation

of

1963,

Wagle,

B.

'A

in
1977;

W. J.

Barnes,

of

pp.

224.

Science,

Univ.,

U. S.

D. C.

'A

methodology

pp.

function

Program

Library,

Eng.

239-260.

for

the

of

obtaining
worth

present

profiles'.

AIIE

decision

analysis

Transc.,

226-236.

Economist,
J. H.

User's
from

Computer

J.

'A

Program

codes,

Queen's

University

programs
AIIE

simulation
Manual

Indus.

Physics

475

computer

analysis

of

pp. 241-248.

Proc.

information
Dept.

digital

on

17,4,1972,

'Useful

risk

& Schlesinger,

360-69,

to

approach

4,

'Generalized

program'.
(ERRCAL)

PP-13-33-

projects'.

1972,

(GRASP),

capital

18,1967,

No.

flow

in

probabilistic

economy
applications',
pp. 63-71.

available

Carlo

1976,72,

information

risk

Qtr.,

& Lubin,

R. W.

P.

of

G. A.

Codes,

Dufour,

1975-

for

method

Management

22,

vol.

Engineering

engineering

package

U. S. A.,

Progress

investment

'Implementing

R. W.

Fleischer,

Berger,

Tulsa,

probabilistic

Res.

'A

capital

cash

Conference
223.

W. G.

probabilistic

Berger,

of

Opt.

density

for

Co.
'Parameter

analysis

probability

computers'.
222.

petroleum

investments'.

risky

& Zinn,

1978,10,3,
221.

for

Engineering

statistical

analysis

the

L. B.

derivation

& Lesso,

Economist,

220.

Publishing

projects'.

C. D.

Zinn,
risk

Proc.

pp-443-457-

investment
219.

'The

F. S.

April
218.

Jubilee

pp. 73-78.

Hillier,
for

'Systems

7-21.

analysis

Chemical

H.

Diamond

'Decision

projects'.
pp-53-59-

& Nowacki,

to

PP-7-1

& Davidson,

analysis'.

risk

mining

predicts

1974,175,7,

H.

Petroleum

exploration'.

nodule

transport'.

No. 7,

Newendorp,

model

Journal,

marine

SNAME 1968,

Computer

commercial

Mining

Engineering-&

L. F.,

& Program

Eng.,

general

Iowa

purpose

Communications,
available
of

from
Belfast,

State

Monte
9

(1975)

CPC
N.

Ireland.

225.

Sadek

Eid,

investment

Analysis

manual,
L. M.

under

uncertainty'

(PLADE)

& Indus.

(UPFAR)

A program

1 and
letter

Vol.
dated

2,

Elsevier

in

risk
Engng.
for

preliminary

Nov.

investment

'Engineering

of

the
edition,

27,1981.

decisions

Publishing

Scientific

planning
Company,

1976.
listing

program
J. M.

Cozzolino,

Sloan

Vol.
vide

Rose,

Amsterdam,

228.

Ris,

'Evaluation

Comput.

pp. 185-197,

of

users'

227.

H. K.

alternatives'.

1,1977,

Vol.

226.

& Eldin,

M.

'A

0.

new

'Some

for

Spring,

Appendix
risk

1979,

stochastic

pp. 425-468.

2,

analysis'.

PP-53-65-

aspects

Economist

Engineering

economics'

method

Review

Management

Krappinger,

& manual,

of

ship

12,3,1967,

design
April

pp. 167-181.

SNAME: -

Society

RINA

Royal

MT

Marine

IESS

Institute

Naval

of
Institute

Architects
of

and

Naval

Marine

Engineers.

Architects.

Technology.
of

Engineers

476

&

Shipbuilders

in

Scotland.

Bibliography

D. V.

1.

Ramm,

a)

Jan

1 1965

b)

Jan

1 1965

'Containerisation,
to

April

a bibliography'.

5 1967.

Published

31,1967
- Dec.
Sep.
30,1968.

Published

and

April

Jan.

Dec.

1970,

Published

May

1971-

d)

Jan.

Dec.

1971,

Published

May

1972.

e)

Jan.

Dec.

1972,

Published

April

f)

Jan.

Published

June

g)
h)

1975-1976,

i)

Jan.

Dec.

1977,

Published

June

1978.

j)

Jan.

Dec.

1978,

Published

June

1979.

Published

Illinois,

U. S. A.

Habercom,

G. E.,

citations

from

'Shipborne
the

Ship

'Container
Ship

British

1977.

1974.

Northwestern

NTIS

Service,

Information
3.

May

Library,

Transportation

2.

1976.

University,

Containers
Data

base,

Va,

Technical

Research

Evanston,

Containerisation'

and
National

Springfield,

Design'

1968,

1973-

1973,
- Dec.
1974-1975,
Published

May

Jan-June

addendum

c)

14,1967-

Technical

U. S. A.

Information
(BSRA),
26th

Association

Division.
Oct.,

1970,

B 1134.

5.

Estimating

'Cost

Information

Division

'A

bibliography

selected

to

applied

design'

Technical

containerships'

Sep.

ship
B 4.

BSRA,
on

1968,

B 7,

BSRA.

'Computer

7.

'Engineering

Economics

bibliography,

B 245,

8.

aided

'Economics

and

Container
1)

Drewry,
H. P.

2)

and
H. P.

Drewry

Ship

by

and

Design'

'Shipping
Shipping

design'.

ship

B 47,

BSRA.
selected

BSRA.

Statistics.
Statistics'.

Published

Consultants,

Magazine

477

monthly

by

London.

International'
National

B 312,

BSRA.

Containership

'Containerisation
annually

(1971-1977)'

design

6.

Yearbook,
Co.

Ltd.,

Published
London,

1967-1982.

APPENDIX
FLOW

CHART FOR CALCULATION

READ

OF EFFECTIVE

HORSEPOWER

IN

SPEED, LENGTH B. P., BREADTH

BLOCK COEFFICIENT

MLD, DRAFT

DESIGN,

U
DATA STORED AS AN ARRAY FOR BLOCK COEFF.
CIRCULAR
OF 0.52
TO 0.72
INTERVALS
OF . 02 AND SPEED-LENGTH
RATIO
V/, /L FROM 0.40
to 1-15
OF 0.05
N

0.-4 9 v/5
I

INTERPOLATE

FOR REQD.

CB

INTERPOLATE

FOR REQD.

V/, jL

CORRECTION FOR BEAM AND

DRAFT USING MUMFORD'S
INDICES

BEAM CORRECTION

CIRC1 = CIRCM * (400.0

Y-2/3

= o. 44;

* B/(L

* 55.0))**0.2333

* V/U L-3.606

DRAFT

CORRECTION

CIRC2

= CIRC1

(400.0

T/(L*18.0))**P

OL = FUNC2(L)

OCORR-OL-0.
O74i
cIRL=1. 055 * v/U
CIRCS
SKIN

= 0.0935*(1.7*L*T+CB*L*B)/(L*B*T*CB/35.0)*0.666)
CORRECTION
FRICTION

SFC = OCORR * CIRCS/(CIRCL**0.175)

CIRC

= CIRC2

+ SFC

I
EHP = CIRC*(V**3.0)*((L*B*T*CB/35.0)**0.667)/427.1
ftmRETURN
END

478

CALCULATION

OF SHAFT
PROPELLER

HORSE POWER AND

CHOICE

OF

READ
AL=LENGTH
B. P.,
V=SPEED,
BTBEAM,
T=DRAFT,
CB=BLOCK
COEFF,
EHP=EFFECTIVE
HP NAKED HULL,
REVSIN=RPM
OF
IREVLD=TRIGGER
PROPELLER,
FOR CHANGE IN RPM TO
IMPROVE EFFY

I
(AL )
VL = V/
IQRT
IREVLD

=2

REVS

= REVSIN

PRPDIA

= 0.70

PRPDIA=28.0

EHPN

= EHP

WEAIRA=1.075

+ 0.1667*V/J

= 0.60

BAR

CONTINUE
PFBNEW = 0.1

SHP = 1.5

EHPN

NOPROP =2
CF =. 1.07 -

NO PROP =1
CF=0.367+2.50/(L**0.25)+27.5/L

EHPT
EHPS
SHP

0.002*L

= EHPN*CF
I
= EHPT*WEAIRA
I
= SHP/NOPROP

I-

1.0/3.0
Cw = o.
o6*CB

CM
Wl
W2
Wi

+ 2.0*cB/3.0

+ 0.94
=
4.5*B*(CB**2.0)/(AL*Cw*CM)
=
(7.0
6.0*CB/CW)*(2.8
=
625/T
= 0.5*iPRPDIA*o.

WAKE =

. i+

w1/w2 + w3

THRDED = WAKE*(o.
RRE = 1.02

- 1.8*CB/CM)
0.0873
- PRPDIA/B

+ o. 4*(vL-o. 5))

i
479

ril

WAKE=2*CB**5.0*(1.0-CB)+0.2*0.866**2_0.02
THRDED = 0.25*WAKE+0.14

RRE 0.985
SPDADV

= V*(1.0-WAKE)
I

HULEFF

-a-BP

(1.0-THRDED)/(1.0-WAKE
I

= REVS*SQRT(SHP/1.025)/SPDADV**2.5

6>BP>155
'1-1
N
BASICD

= FUNC(BARpBP)

PRPEFF

=FUNC(BAR.,

PITCHR

= FUNC (BAR#BP )

PRPDIA

= BASICD*SPDADV/REVS

3 PDIA

BP)

> 0.70
N

PRPDIA=0.70T
P_RPDIA

> 28: j

PRPDIA

N
. DELTA

*PRPDIA/SPDADV..
= REVS

EMPIRICAL
RELATION
TO CALCULATE
EFFCY.
FIELD
PP = 1.5'(1.0-DELTA/BASICD)
+ 0.065
PPP = 1.0
- DELTA/BASICD
P=
BASICD/(BASICD
+ 10.0)
PFNEW = PRPEFF - PP*PPP*P

QPC = FFNEW*HULEFF*RRE

480

= 28.0

SHPNEW = EHPN`NOPROP*CF*WEAIRA/(PFNEW*NULEFF*RRE))

PRPEFF-PFNEW)>
, PRPEFF
,/
IREVLD

=2
SHP-SHPNEW*NOPROP
I

REVS=REVS*1.15

SHP=SHP/0.90
SUBROUTINE

CALL

END

481

CAVIT

AM. TIDIX 2.
FLAW CHART OF THE CONFUTER ALGORITHM
FOR DETERMINATION

OF THE

CONTAINER

CAPACITY

READ IN
LENGTH B. P., BEAM, DEPTH, DRAFT, BLOCK COEFF., SHAFT HORSRYOWER
TOTAL CONTAINER CAPACITY, CONTAINER TIERS, CONTAINER ROWS,
PROPELLER REVS., STEEL COEFF., SPEED, ENDURANCE, SHAPE COEFF.

DBHM=
CAMBER=
CLEARANCE HATCH COVER AND CONTAINER=
HATCH COAMING HEIGHT=

9 DOUBLE BU'!"lY)M HT.

CALL SUBROUTINE TO CALCULATE THE LIGHTWEIGHT OF SHIP

AND THE CENTRE OF GRAVITY OF LIGHTSHIP WEIGHT

I
CALCULATE PORT TIME AND SEATIME AND WEIGHT OF
ITEMS OTHER THAN CARGO

ESTIMATE VOLUME OF DOUBLE BOTTOM, ITERATE TO FIND

FUEL IN DOUBLE BOTTOM AND SETTLER TANK, REMAINING
DOUBLE BOTTOM SPACE AVAILABLE FUR BALLAST

CALCULATE CARGO DEADWEIGHT=DISPLACEMENT-(

LIGHTSHIP WEIGHT + WT. OF CREW& EFFECT + WT. OF FRESH WATER
+ WEIGHT OF STORE + WT. OF FUEL + WT. OF DIESEL + WT. OF
LUBOIL)

CALL SUBROUTINE TO CALCULATE CONTAINER

GM.
CAPACITY BASED ON INITIAL

CALL SUBROUTINETO CALCULATESTATICAL STABILITY

(,Y)N`P=C}'LYk-YLAYr:k
CTHLDA=CONTI+CONT2+CONT3+CONT4+CONT*(CNV -4.0)

Y
CNVA-CNV-CNVB
CTDCKCm(0. 355*AL*B-15.0

*CNVA

NCDCKC=CTDCKC
N
-

CTHLllCeCONT1+CONT2+CON`1'3
+CONTQwCONT"(CNVB-4,0)

PLAYER=PLAYER+1,0

PLAYER-PLAYER-1.0
A

CONT4B-(CON`P4+CONT*'(CNVB-4.0 )/((CNVB-3.0
-47__
CTHLDCaCUNT1+CONT2+CONT3+CONT4B*(CNVB-3.0

CONT4=CONT4B
CONTaCONT4
B ASE llB1iM+YLTGTH+JYP
4
--ARM=BASI-:
+2.438 2.0
ADDAFM=2.4 38
CMI=ARM1*CONT1*WI.'C
ARM2=ARM1+A1)DAFtM
CM2= AR1h2xCONT2xWEC
ARMS=
CM3=
ARM4=
CM4=
CMBT=
NCYBT= CNVB

ARMARM+AMAR
CMARM*CONT*WEC
CMBT=CMBT+CM
NCVBT. NCVBT-1

J
C=CMBT
BASEAD+(CAMBER+HHC+HATCHH+DT
ARMA=BASEA+(CNVAx2.438)/2
CONTA=CTDCKC/CNVA
CMA=ARM*CONTA*CNVA*WEC

484

CNPR=CNA*CNV
T-

ROWSN=1"O
NRI=ROWSN CNPR
ROWSN=ROWSN+1.0

CNRA=CNRI SHAPEC
Notes:

1NCRA=CNRA

ROWSN =
CNA =
CNV =
CNVB =
CNT =
SHAPEC =

Y
CNLOST-CNRI-CNT
NCLOST=CN 'T

BAYS
ROWS
TIERS
TIERB
Total
containers,
Shape coefficient

NLOSTI=NCLOST 3.33
NLOST2=NCLOST

.8
LNLOST3-NCLOST/5.0

N123=NLOST1+NLOST2+NLOST

NCV=CNV
NREMV=NCV-3
I NRIIM=NCLOST-N123
I
I NPLAY=NRII"I
NRF'IV
NRIIKA=NPLAY

RIIKV

i
INLOST4=NPLAY

Y
NLOST4=NPLAY+NRa-N RL'MA

CLOST1=NLOST1
[CLOST2=Nl S
ICLOST3=Nl S
ST

PLAYER=NPLAY
1CPLYR=CNA ROWSN

CONT1=CPLYR-CLOST1
CONT2=CPLYR-CLOST2
CONT3=CPLYR-CLOST3
CONT4=CPLYR-CLOST4

483

Tau

GY)NT=CPLYR-PLAYER
CTHLDA-CONTI+CONT2+C0NT3+C0NT4+CONT*(CNV -4.0
CTDCKA=CNT-CTHLDA

vB<4

CTDCKC-(0. 355*AL*B-15.0)*CNVA

NCDKC-NCDCKA)<

C;ONT4>CONT

PLAYER=PLAYER+1.0
I`ICDCKC>.ICDCKA

4PLAYER--PLAYER-1.0
Y

ICONT4B-(CONT4+CONT*(CNVB-4.0)

/(

CNVB-3.0

CTHLDC=CONT1+CONT2+CONT3+CONT4B*(CNVB-3.0

ThDCKC<NCDCK
r,.,,,.,,. "

CONT4=CONT4B
CONT=CONTO
BASE--DBliPI+PLTGTH+DT
ARM=BASE+2.438 2.0
ADDARM=2.438
*CONT1*WEC
C141=ARM1
ARM2=ARM1+ADDARM
CM2= ARM2xCONT2xWEC
ARM3=

CM3=
ARM4=
CM4=
CMBT=
NCYBT=CNUB

NCVBT=4.0

i
N
ARAL-ARM+ADDARM
CM-ARM*CONT*WEC
CMBT-CMBT+CM
NCVBT=NCVBT-1

J
CMB=CMBT
BASEA=D+(CAMBER+HHC+HATCHH+DT
ARMA=BASEA+(CNVAx2.43s)/2
CONTA=CTDCKC/CNVA
CMA=ARM*CONTA*CNVA*WEC

484

r 1'1C s lil'1J. 7t

CA
7

FML=FKGLTW
x WTLT
FKG-(FMLfFMBAL

+FMC+FMMISC+F'FB+FtfFD)
*T
1.0+ . 0*:
FKB- 1.0+2.0*CB
(T*(14-2.0*(C
BMT-B**2.0

DISPL

GM=NI{M-AG

15
GMR=O.
(
Ai3MAl=BASEA+2.438/2.0

ADDARM=2.438
ARMA2=ARMA1+ADDARM
ARMA3=ARMA2+ADDARM
ARMA4=ARMA3+ADDARM

CTDCKC=CTDCKC-1 . 01

CTDCKC=CT CKC+
CTDCKF= 0.0355*AL*B-15.0

CNVA,r-,l
.0

CNVA>l,
CNVA

Tier

of

container

CONTA1=CONTA*CNVA
CMA1=CONTAI*WEC*ARMA1
CMA=CMA1
CTDCKC=CONTAI

CONTA1=0.0355*AL*B-15
CMAl=CONTA1*WEC*ARMA1
CONTA2=CTDCKC-CONTAI
CMA2=CONTA2*WEC*ARMA2
CMA=CMA1+CMA2

CNVA>2.
CNVA<3

CNVA>3 .

VA<4

FKM> FKG

CNVA>4.0
vA<\,o.

FMC-CrB+Cr2a
DISPL
FKG= FML+FMC+F(MISC+FP1FB+FMFD+FMBAL

I
485

on deck

LEND

486

APPENDIX

3.

MAIN

PROGRAM FLOW

VARIATION

READ IN
MAIN
DATA

CHART

OF PRINCIPAL

BY PARAMETRIC
DIMENSIONS

NCB=IFIX((FCB-SCB/
0.01)
+1
D05 JCB = 19NCB
DO10 JROWS=1, NROWS
CALCULATE
BMIN &
BMAX
D020JTIER=1,
CALCULATE
& DMAX

NTIER
DMIN

DMINEDMAX
FLMIN1=L
FLMIN2=L/BMIN*BMAX
FLMIN3=V2/7.3818
SLBP=AMAX1(
FLMINIPFLMIN29
FLMIN3)

DO 102
= 1pNB

KNB

DO 3OKLBP
= 1, NLBP

41

I
TMIN =B
/B/TMAX

CALLFREBRD
TMAX1 =DFREEBOARD

I
FLMAXI=L/DMAX*DMIN
FLMAX2=L/BMAX*BMIN
FLMAX3=V2/0.52493
FLBP=AMINl(FLMAXlp
FLMAX2, FLMAX3)

TMAX2 =
B/B/TMIN

NLB = IFIX
(FLBP-SLBP)
51.0)
+1

TMAX
=
MINIMUM
(TMAX1,

OF
TMAX2)

I
ND = IFIX((
DMAX-DMIN)
0.4)
+1

DOlO4
KND
= 1, ND

NDRAFT =
IFIX((TMAX
TMIN)
0.5)

CHECK
PROP. EFF
WITHIN
BP-b
CHART

DO 40JT
= 1, NDRAFT
FIRST
APPROX.
TO CONTAINER
CAPACITY
v

487

CALL
DESIGN

'f
CALL
SEAKEP

CALL
FREBRD

I
CALL

CALL
ECONOM
I

WTLGHT

WRITE
RFRMIN

CALL
VOYTIM

CALL
FUELWE

41
4o

T=T+0.5
CONTINUE

31
30

L=L+1.0
CONTINUE

I
CALL
PAYLOD

B=B+0.

CALL
STABIL

102

CONTINUE

D=D+0.4

io4

CONTINUE

TIER=TIER
20

WEC>z0
OR

CONTINUE

41
ROWS=ROWS +

WEC<8

CONTINUE

10

CB = CB + 0.01

CALL
CROSSC

CONTINUE
---l

STOP

488

a
d

"

4gm

Oi".

""NNNNhNh^

NNh.

h.

ic

000OOOOOO

St:

888885R8

NN

NNNRNNN.

00

NNNNN

FiNNNN..

Pi"..

R.

NNNNhN

R
'z

.z

msmo

8339sr'g

8, 8F. g85tR$s8:
>

CdO

mi

-Pi..

in

F
5<'

is

.. <

hh

Ui

(
`

<

s+

s<

--

"m

RR

"

h
MFO

^ANNm-h
\i
.

nNN
p

pNN.

\-

bm.

\.

MPNf'NN/.
\nr\n
J\iNN

NbF.

N.

i.

\i.

\.

- i.

Nn.
nrnN.
NN.
Oitim
-

m-.. . "NFON.

nNN.

-.

nff

NN.

+N
\iV
i!

"""""""

CP

\\

R" .............................
..Qi11.,,.
FFmFmb1NNNiNNNNRNN.

RRR'
NNN...
~\

NNNNNN"RRNm.

NN01..
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

N \\\\\
11NNNNN..
m mm

r\I

hrJ\l

N
m

~'

1NN
\i.
.

N\

\i.

\\\
by.

PmmOmP

-
n.

.p

\\\\\\\
r

V\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
PPVI-

bb

- 1RRNmm:
F
FbPPJ.

mF

PmPmNFm^FFti

\
t -.

FF

...

'. bbb

f
1 N

1"'
e

"
"
P
( J1.
.il

".
F`

.! .f

"(

O O O O
i.
1. 1. .YrMr.

Ij

1i

rRS:

1i

O M
.1

O
Ii

.i.

m
l

.i

MOMM
M
_
mmmmmmmOm0...

nOMOM
N

MM .i

RIiZRiZiZ&rZ&RIZRRRRRRSZFZRiZRRicR&&RRFZRRRRRRRRIZRRRRR
N

lN

bONON

0=
bN

.PO

m.

X
OMNMOmMOMmmmmmm0..
MMO
OD MOO
MMNNMNMMMNNMMMNMMMMNMNMMNMNMM

NOD

00
t

MwMmMwOMMOOMMMwO
NMMMMN

o
OI
<

N.

iN

MN

fD mmffb

CO

OR

.. fO

ff

NNNNN

.P

bN

mf
NR

O
VN

MN

.N

.gN

QQ

.NNN

$rvb~r..
rffY"-Ib-m4Deffmo.
"..

00.

$OON.

0pQOfbO.

b+.

f10b;

OO^O

. i.

ir+.

F-

"tiObRbb.

. +b

'.. 'f.

. -iH.

i.

-i.

ON"
-.

. -1

. -1 '1

N"GNmmN1

wf.

ON

n.

.y

RRSlb
p

RR
Pi"

"

NN..

O-.

tiR
J".

PiRN`

. -Piri.

q " nv. ^nne-N

fA8R8888888b

or'nn+

bQ
O .

rRRg5tSi88St$
.-

O
INMNNNNNANt

i. RNNNNNr.
. r.

pT2

'

yOPONtiNFYN

F11..;.
000 `0 ` ' ;

i8R8888

8QSt$aStSt5l5

ry~RmDO
nfTm

N.

mN

-RaRRSppO:`"
.....
.. i

-w

FFFZ

-y

i..

...........

r ;

.n

miOS
D.

mfPN
~

p
FH

rmmgN^omNO$VbNiT

NPPVRomf.

R8
N

. n.

h`

$8. 2 gR.
-.
.
ti.

m-..
V

NN^.

NA".

mSt 8R8R8=$
N`

RSt:

NN.

n.

N.

N,.

S88q88qb88
Qml-evrvr..

cq

32
m

oN

N,.

n.. n

NNN

mm
c

<ouo

..

NfFOP

Qgm
: '1`is=
s
<oyyYYa
iFcR`

Hi
aicCSisB-mi

. "um'B

l<..

OrNN.
. -. . -.

. -. ..

f.
. -.

f. bFOPRNNNNNNNNNRrr.
. -. .y
. +...
N

LFtS

UNIVERSITY
I. IPRARY

i
r'e3
Cie.

>

Q`

'
Rm. '
p

~nrrMriffffffff

489

s7S F ie.
'-2
iSm''v"s }.
RInsiZC

t .i