Professional Documents
Culture Documents
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
A COMPUTER MODEL
AND ECONOMICS
FOR PRELIMINARY
OF CONTAINER
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.
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"
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
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.
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
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
kN
r-I r-i
\ID
c\t 00 -
ri
I
0
w r-1
> 10 00 III1CDI\O
0
(1)
Ul
CD in
OO
ri
\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
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)
-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
+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
t` 00 r-i -'
r-i --2 -t
ri
-:t
t-
r"i
Cn l0
C1
;1
ri
cd "ri
0
>fim
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
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->
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,
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
Seakeeping
rlura] i ty
ion
Appiirat.
of
wave
ance
rt. Y.cein,
iei'fot7nance,:.
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
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
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
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\
_..
..
..,_
_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
1v
jliu
I.,,
tl%i
r
w %ftj
2460
120
2460
-
14
14.E
(b)
,may
Ar--
110
2460
14
14 a
(c)
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
700
=6
for
700
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
expression
ships
with
for
direct
calculating
drive
the
diesel.
0.148 xLm.
screw.
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
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
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
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
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
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
block
program
the
with
is
optimum
operating
shows
coefficient
the
conditions
optimum
block
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
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
46
69
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
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.
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
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)
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
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
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
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
35.234.40
36.215.12
ship
in tonnes
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
`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
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
688
688
347
21.12391 13104
14645
11114
12319
692
692
349
22.12250 12999
14528
11250
12357
699
699
351
23.12128 12917
14436
II403
12785
707
707
353
24.12112 12990
14518
II660
13202
720
720
356
25.12186 13199
14751
I2004
13768
738
738
362
26.16063 17852
19952
14334
16763
973
973
387
27. i6o7o
17905
20011
14491
17029
982
982
389
28.15889
17749
19837
14649
17297
991
991
392
29.1523
17753
19841
14905
17735
1005
1005
395
30.15799
17830
19927
15222
18282
1023
1023
399
31.15926 18142
20276
15699
19115
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
715
715
3+3
40.14427 12601
14084
11513
13424
691
691
348
41.17350 13491
15078
12399
14696
767
767
356
12542
14057
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
0.076
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
o. i96
18 -0.036
0.119
04100
0.004
-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
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
-0.245
-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
-0.148
0. I19
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
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
/C
W04 = 86.36
(LxB)
WHE4 = 53.85
x
(CNC/1000)
o. sz5
55
72
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
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.
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
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
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
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-
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^
"
0
U)
N
^
J
L
N
P
-t m
7 CD 3
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
. -4
. -1
.r
, -1
TU G6
t-
rl
F-
a,
ti
1-1
01
Q1
Co ',
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
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
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
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.
7.4.4.
DESIGN PROCEDURE
DIAGRAM
EFFICIENCY
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.
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
Wageningen B-series
eller.
5 bladed prop-
CAVIT
SUBROUTINE
530
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
SUBROUTINE
interpolation
ship
of
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
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
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
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.
Bar = 0.60
x 1.0
Ex0.95
6x
0.90
(6)
Delta
120
140
160
180
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
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)
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
K6 x
length
K9 x
in
m.
0.69
bottom
Double
Cb
"" m3
Kg = 0.986
CBDB = 2.068
Chryssostomidis,
= (LBp-Lpp)
volume
volume
191
= 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
LABOUR
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
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
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.
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,
-4 -4 . -, .+4
C-1
w
v
a
V
197
T (>>r-
. -+ . -+ -4 -4 0
-L, Lf.,
ii
1' f''1 C'.1 --+ 19
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
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.
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
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
man
OL = 411600(LXBXD/1069
COL = WR X OL
60
0.5/hr.
204
& Cor.
57
steel
45.5/ton
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
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
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
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
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
15% service
prices.
9 Cylinder
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
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
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
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
;,=
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
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-
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
\,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
CO
H
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"{
t- C%
"
".
"..
...
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
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\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
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
"rl
(d rlE
.
Cd
a)
x
C
\
a
x
(7a
a)
U
a)
4-
0
OOOOOOOOOOOO
OOO
O
OO
O'O
0000000
NNNNNNNNNNNo
cY1C1 C1 cr1 C"1Cr1C1 C1 cY1cr1 c'-1 In
r
r-4 ri
VIA
U0
A AAAAiEAAAA
(g(A
"""
;4 Cd cd
CdUU
i1
p., 0
a
"ri
4 p
"
r'",
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
"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
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)
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
(Flow
chart
of
C---7
C
START
--
I
READ CNT,
10
20
CINT (1) _
CP (1) =
CPAID (1)
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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'1 r1
C\t CV N
_4
t
-:
CV
r-I
r-1
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
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
MANCHESTER CHALLENGER
STRIDER CLASS
ENCOUNTERBAY
HAIWAIAN ENTERPRISE
CP. VOYAGEUR
SEA WITCH
ACT
SELANDIA
TAEPING
JAPAN ACE
JEDDAH CROWN
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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-
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
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^
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.
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
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
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
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
\
_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
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
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
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+
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
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
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
'
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
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
"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
(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
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
'-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
container
capacity
DISTRIEUTION
OF REQUIRED
NO DEPENDENCIES ASSUMED
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
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.
AD
CtJFF
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
?>xxxxxx>X>, x fxxY`";
?xxXxxx>: xx>.XYxx>, XXX>.
"
IU
TO
"
Tv
"
"
?J
1
..
1.
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
READ
OF EFFECTIVE
HORSEPOWER
IN
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
BEAM CORRECTION
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
= 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
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=
I
CALCULATE PORT TIME AND SEATIME AND WEIGHT OF
ITEMS OTHER THAN CARGO
(,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
.NNN
$rvb~r..
rffY"-Ib-m4Deffmo.
"..
00.
$OON.
0pQOfbO.
b+.
f10b;
OO^O
. i.
ir+.
F-
"tiObRbb.
. +b
'.. 'f.
. -iH.
i.
-i.
ON"
-.
. -1
. -1 '1
N"GNmmN1
wf.
ON
n.
.y
RRSlb
p
RR
Pi"
"
NN..
O-.
tiR
J".
PiRN`
. -Piri.
or'nn+
bQ
O .
rRRg5tSi88St$
.-
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