THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN LIBRARIES ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The conclusions of this study are derived from an extensive compilation of factual data gathered from many sources. While much of this information is commonly available, the most valuable portions of it were privately submitted by industrial concerns and government agencies. This confidential information makes the project both unique and reliable. If the report proves useful to industry, the following contributors deserve the credit: American Bureau of Shipping American Merchant Marine Institute American President Lines Bethlehem Steel Co., Shipbuilding Division, Quincy, San Francisco Delta Steamship Lines, Inc. Friede & Goldman, Inc. Gibbs & Cox, Inc. Grace Line, Inc. J. J. Henry Co., Inc. Joshua Hendy Corp. Lykes Bros. Steamship Co., Inc. Manitowoc Shipbuilding, Inc. Maritime Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce Maritime Cargo Transportation Conference, NAS-NRC. Maryland Shipbuilding and Drydock-Co. Matson Navigation Co. Moore-McCormack Lines, Inc. Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co. New York Shipbuilding Corp. Pacific Far East Line, Inc. States Marine Corp. United States Lines Co. Comments and criticism on an interim report were contributed by gentlemen from many of the above organizations as well as from Arthur D. Little, Inc., Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Webb Institute of Naval Architecture. The Humble Oil & Refining Company supplied a valuable outline of the tax structures of foreign maritime nations. (Continued on Inrside of Back Cover)

THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT OF NAVAL ARCHITECTURE AND MARINE ENGINEERING GENERAL CARGO SHIP ECONOMICS AND DESIGN Harry Benford First Printing July 1962 as Office of Research Administration Report on Project 04465 Reprinted August, 1962 Reprinted June, 1968 Revised Edition Ann Arbor June, 1968

is- ~l?r-ii~~l'

PREFACE This is a report of a research study carried out under a grant from The University of Michigan's Office of Research Administration. While the immediate project terminates with this publication, the work reported here is but a first step which makes possible many larger projects which can now be programmed and solved by means of the computer. The realization of such projects would allow the shipowner and naval architect to use rational methods founded on an orderly combination of commercial requirements and technological capabilities rather than guesswork, rule of thumb, and conventionalized imitation. The tenor of this study is implied in the definition of a ship as a capital investment which earns its returns as a socially useful instrument of water transport; and the ideal ship is the one that fulfills these functions most effectively. One major piece of misinformation has been pointed out since the original edition. It can be most easily corrected by deleting the first complete paragraph on Page 51, the one starting "The term.... While the original edition was nearing completion, the Maritime Administration changed its definition of nominal sea speed to that attainable under trial conditions at 80 percent of maximum SHP. This replaced the earlier definition using 80 percent of normal SHP (the maximum power being 1.10 times the normal). The change in definition is throught reasonable since modern steam plants have been found to be capable of operating at maximum power throughout the life of the ship. This suddenly made all the steam ships in the merchant fleet about a half a knot faster, at least on paper, and threw a skew into many of the curves and formulas in this particular booklet. Most such inaccuracies can however be easily corrected although the task is admittedly confusing. The table of Page iv will help in making these corrections. -iii -

MODIFICATIONS FOR CHANGED SPEED AND POWER DEFINITION Applicable Note Figures 1 2 3 4 1-6 X 7A-8B X 9A-1OD X 11A-11B X 13-14 x 15 X 19-20 X 32 X 34A-35 X 37-38 x Tables X X XV X XVII X XVIII X Equations 18 x 29 X 35-39 X 48-49 X 52 X 55 X NOTES: 1. Speed and power relationships can be corrected simply by substituting SHP wherever SHPN is shown. 2. No correction required. If SHP is known, divide by 1.1 to get SHPN for use in these figures, tables, or equations. 3. For a quick approximation, assume corrected nominal sea speed is half a knot greater than indicated. Figures 19 and 20 let you correct nominal sea speed more accurately. 4. No correction needed. The assumed level of power, whether maximum or normal, applies. -iv

CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.........................................Front Cover PREFACE....................................................... iii MODIFICATIONS FOR CHANGED SPEED AND POWER DEFINITION.......... iv ABBREVIATIONS................................................ ix FIGURES....................................................... xi TABLES....................................i....... xiv GENERAL INTRODUCTION............................... 1 CHAPTER I. SUMMARY OF THE B-1 and B-1.8 SERIES Introduction.................................. 7 Method of Development......................... 7 Delineation................................... 8 Deadweight Coefficients....................... 16 Cargo Weight vs Deadweight................... 24 Cargo Volume..................... *......... 24 Building Costs............ 32 II. HULL FORM, PROPORTIONS AND SPEED General.................................. 38 Proportions................................... 39 Cubic Number.............................. 44 Hull Form........................... 44 Speed and Power............................... 47 III. FREEBOARD Definitions................................... 50 Full Scantling vs Scantling Draft.................. 50 Shelter Deck Ships................................ 52 Complete-Superstructure Ships...................... 53 New Tonnage Law.................................... 53 Design Considerations............ o-o-o....... 53 Draft Considerations.............................0. 57 Depth Considerations............................. 57

CHAPTER Page IV. Volumes Bale Capacity.................................. 59 Tonnage........................................ 62 V. WEIGHTS General........................................ 63 Categories..................................... 63 Steel Hull Weights............................. 64 Outfitting Weights............................. 69 Hull Engineering Weights....................... 69 Machinery Weights.............................. 71 Accommodation Weights.......................... 71 Deadweight....................................... 72 VI. BUILDING COSTS General........................................ 73 Categories..................................... 73 Steel Hull Costs............................... 73 Outfitting Costs............................... 74 Hull Engineering Costs......................... 74 Machinery Costs................................ 74 Miscellaneous Costs............................ 75 Overhead Costs............................... 76 Hourly Rates................................... 76 Profit........................................ 76 Summary of Building Cost Factors.............. 76 Duplicate Ship Savings......................... 83 Owner's Costs.................................. 84 Accommodation Costs............................ 85 Foreign Building Costs......................... 88 VII. SCHEDULING AND OTHER OPERATING FACTORS Introduction.. 88 Introduction............................. 88 Scheduling Requirements........................92 Port Time..............................,...... 92 Operating Days per Year........................ 90 Cruising Radius............................... 93 Power Required for Speeds and Displacements Other than Designed....................... 93 -vi -

CHAPTER Page VII. SCHEDULING AND OTHER OPERATING FACTORS (Cont'd.) Fuel Consumption............................... 93 Fuel Margins................................... 99 Port Fuel...................................... 99 Idle Status Fuel............................... 101 Feed Water..................................... 101 Domestic Water................................. 101 Evaporators.................................... 102 Lubricating Oil.' 103 Emergency Diesel Generator Oil................. 103 Provisions and Stores 104 Passengers, Crew and Effects................;. 104 Dunnage..................................104 Summary and Parametric Study 104 VIII. OPERATING COSTS AND REVENUE Introduction................................... 106 Accounting Procedures 106 Operating Subsidy......................107 Cost Trends.................................... 107 Automation..................................... 108 Wages.......................................... 108 Subsistence.............................111 Fuel........................................... 111 Maintenance and Repair.......................... 113 Stores and Supplies....................113 Protection and Indemnity Insurance..........115 Hull and Machinery Insurance................... 115 War Risk Insurance............................. 116 Overhead and Miscellaneous..................... 116 Port Expenses.................................. 116 Cargo Handling Costs........................... 118 Other Cargo Costs............................... 120 Revenue and Economic Criteria.................. 120 IX. SAMPLE STUDY Introduction................................... 121 Statement of Problem........................... 121 Solution....................................... 122 X. SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER WORK.- 126 -vii -

APPENDIX Page I. CHARACTERISTICS OF DEADWEIGHT AND BALE CAPACITY WITH VARIATIONS IN FREEBOARD....... 128 II. SAMPLE USE OF FREEBOARD CURVES.................. 130 III. INFLUENCE OF FREEBOARD ON BEAM-DRAFT RATIO REQUIRED FOR CONSTANT STABILITY............. 132 IV. STOWAGE FACTORS................................ 136 V oDEADWEIGHT DISTRIBUTION ON TYPICAL'ROUNDWORLD SCHEDULE.............................. 141 REFERENCES............................................... 142 -vii -

ABBREVIATIONS ABS: American Bureau of Shipping B: Beam B-i, B-1.8: Arbitrary designations for standard design families CB: Block coefficient based on design draft, design displacement and length between perpendiculars CDWT: Deadweight coefficient; ratio of deadweight to displacement at design draft Cp: Prismatic coefficient with same basis as CB Cx: Maximum section coefficient at design draft CN: Cubic number = LBD 100 d: Design draft dfb: Draft at minimum allowable freeboard dS: Scantling draft D: Depth to uppermost continuous deck DM: Modified depth which corrects for extent of superstructure DWT: Deadweight at design draft id: Displacement in salt water at design draft EBC: Equivalent bale capacity. See Chapter IV (EBC)M: Equivalent bale capacity of machinery space H & M: Hull and machinery L or LBP: Length between perpendiculars -ix

LS: Length of superstructure within the fore and aft perpendiculars M & R: Maintenance and repair MH: Man-hours N: Number of identical ship NC: Number in crew P & I: Protection and indemnity r: Freeboard ratio related to freeboard of the B-1 Series Reefer: Refrigerated SHP: Maximum continuous shaft horsepower SHPN: Normal shaft horsepower (equals. 1.1) V: Volume of displacement VK: Nominal sea speed in knots, taken as trial condition speed at 80 percent power, assuming operation at design draft (see Preface) WC: Weight of cargo WHE: Net weight of hull engineering (wet) WM: Net weight of machinery (wet) W0: Net weight of outfitting WS: Net weight of steel Z: Voyage length, usually round trip Notes 1. Other abbreviations are explained wherever used. 2. All dimensions are in feet, weights in long tons, distances in nautical miles. 3. Unless otherwise specified, all terms such as displacement, deadweight, cargo weight, etc., apply to the ship when loaded down to the design draft. This draft will usually be less than the freeboard or scantling drafts.

FIGURES 1. Length, Speed and Displacement for B-1 Series (page 10) 2. Freeboard for B-1 Series (page 11) 3. Draft for B-1 Series (page 12) 4. Beam for B-1 Series (page 13) 5. Block Coefficient for B-1 Series (page 14) 6. Cubic Numbers (page 15) 7A. Deadweight Coefficient, Displacement and Horsepower for B-1 Series (page 18) 7B. Deadweight Coefficient, Displacement and Horsepower for B-1.8 Series (page 19) 8A. Deadweight Coefficient, Deadweight and Horsepower for B-1 Series (page 20) 8B. Deadweight Coefficient, Deadweight and Horsepower for B-1.8 Series (page 21) 9A. Deadweight Coefficient, Deadweight and Speed for B-1 Series (page 22) 9B. Deadweight Coefficient, Deadweight and Speed for B-1.8 Series (page 23) 10A. Deadweight, Cargo Weight and Speed for B-1 Series with Evaporators (page 25) 10B. Deadweight, Cargo Weight and Speed for B-1 Series without Evaporators (page 26) l0C. Deadweight, Cargo Weight and Speed for B-1.8 Series with Evaporators (page 27) 10D. Deadweight, Cargo Weight and Speed for B-1.8 Series without Evaporators (page 28) -xi -

11A. Equivalent Bale Capacity per Ton of Displacement vs Displacement and Horsepower for B-1 Series (page 30) liB. Equivalent Bale Capacity per Ton of Displacement vs Displacement and Horsepower for B-1.8 Series (page 31) 12. Bale Capacity vs Cargo Weight (page 33) 13. Trends in Building Costs with Various Horsepowers (page 35) 14. Unit Cost of Building, Cubic Number and Horsepower (page 36) 15. Influence of Cargo Weight and Speed on Building Cost (page 37) 16. Proportions of Modern European Cargo Ships (page 40) 17. Proportions of Recent U. S. Cargo Ship Designs, Including Roll-On and Container Types (page 41) 18o Block and Prismatic Coefficients vs Speed-Length Ratio (page 46) 19. Approximate Speed vs Displacement and Horsepower, Single Screw Ships (B-1 Series) (page 48) 20. Approximate Speed vs Displacement and Horsepower, Twin Screw Ships (page L') 21. Freeboard Terminology (page 51 ) 22. Flush Deck Minimum Freeboard Drafts (page 54) 23. Freeboard Draft Corrections (page 55) 24. Minimum Allowable Freeboard for B-1 Series (page 56) 25. Steel Weight Coefficients for Cubic Numbers up to 10,000 (page 66) 26. Steel Weight Coefficients for Cubic Numbers from 10,000 to 60,000 (page 67) 27. Outfitting Weight (page 70) 28. Hull Engineering Weight (page 70) 29. Steel Hull Costs (rpa(e 79) 30. Outfitting Costs (paee 80) -xii

31. Hull Engineering Costs (page 81) 32. Machinery Costs (page 82) 33. Accommodation Cost vs Crew Size ( page 86) 34A. Variations in Sea Speed with Changes in Displacement and Horsepower: Over-Powered Ships (page 95) 34B. Variations in Sea Speed with Changes in Displacement and Horsepower: Normally-Powered Ships (page 96) 34C. Variations in Sea Speed with Changes in Displacement and Horsepower: Under-Powered Ships (page 97) 35. Relative Fuel Rates at Partial Load (page 98) 36. Operating Cost Trends (page 110) 37. Crew Size vs Cubic Number and Horsepower (page 112) 38. Annual Cost of Maintenance and Repair (page 114) 39. Annual Cost of Stores and Supplies (per Man) (paFre 117) 40. Port Costs (pa:e 117) 41. Influence of Freeboard on Deadweight and Bale Capacity (page 129) 42. Deadweight Distribution on Typical'Round-World Schedule (page 141 ) -xiii -

TABLES I. RANGE OF FACTORS CONSIDERED (page 3) II. TYPICAL GENERAL CARGO SHIP (page 4) III. CORRECTION FACTORS FOR VARIATION FROM B-1 SERIES (page 9) IVo PUBLISHED vs PREDICTED DEADWEIGHTS AND BALE CAPACITY (page 16 ) V. NUMERICAL VALUES FOR EQUIVALENT BALE CAPACITY FORMULA (page 29) VIo C VALUES RELATING LENGTH AND BEAM (page 43) VIIo TONNAGE COEFFICIENTS (page 62) VIII o INFLUENCE OF ADDED DECK ON STEEL WEIGHT (page 68) IX. VALUES OF MACHINERY WEIGHT COEFFICIENT, CM (page 71 ) X. SUMMARY OF AVERAGE BUILDING COST FACTORS (page 77) XI. MULTIPLE SHIP COST REDUCTION FACTORS (page 84) XII. TYPICAL OCEANGOING CARGO LINER SCHEDULE (page 89) XIII. TYPICAL'ROUIND-WORLD CARGO LINER SCHEDULE (page 90) XIVo EXPLANATION OF CURVES IN FIGURE 35 (page 94) XV. BUNKER C FUEL OIL CONVERSION FACTORS (page 100) XVI. REDUCTION IN FUEL CONSUMPTION PER THOUSAND TONS REDUCTION IN DEADWEIGHT (page 101 ) XVIIo LUBRICATING OIL WEIGHT (page 103 ) XVIII ASSUMPTIONS FOR LOST DEADWEIGHT ANALYSIS (page 105 ) XIX. OPERATING SUBSIDIES (page 107) XX. CREW SIZE COEFFICIENTS (page 109 ) -xiv

XXI. CARGO WEIGHTS AND VOLUMES FOR SAMPLE SHIP (page 122) XXII. SUMMARY OF COSTS FOR SAMPLE SHIP (page 125 ) XXIIIo. PRECENTAGE OF BALE CAPACITY LOST TO BROKEN STOWAGE IN AN AVERAGE GENERAL CARGO SHIP (page 136) XXIV. STOWAGE FACTORS FOR VARIOUS COMMODITIES AS PACKED FOR SHIPMENT (page 137) -XV

GENERAL INTRODUCTION The intent of this report is twofold. The long term purpose is to provide a first step in the eventual development of a completely rational approach to general cargo ship design, The more immediate aim is to present the detailed technical-economic conclusions reached to date -- conclusions which, while necessarily restricted in scope, should nevertheless prove of interim usefulness in ship design. One traditional difficulty in preliminary design is that astute shipowners usually express their needs in terms of trade route requirements: amount and type of cargo to be transported annually, ports to be serviced, and so forth (10)e* Preliminary studies then lead to various alternative fleet concepts, each of which meets the specified functional requirements and from among which the most profitable can be found. The component ship of the most profitable fleet will then be defined in terms of its own functional capabilities; cargo weight and volume, sea speed, and endurance. The naval architect, however, cannot delineate the ship until he has converted speed to horsepower. But this he cannot do until he has first converted cargo weight to displacement, which again he cannot do until he knows horsepower and on and on. Thus, he is usually forced to guess at the relationships between these factors and to waste time working on a series of gradually closing loops in the cycle of design (40). One aim of this study is to provide a tool that will eliminate much of this repetitive labor. This aim is accomplished through systematic analyses which start with the naval architect's technical parameters (displacement and horsepower) and from which are synthesized corresponding commercial transport capabilities (speed, distance, cargo weight and bale capacity). Generalizations are thereby made which allow the reverse procedure to be carried out in actual practice. Thus, given any reasonable requirements for speed, length of voyage, cargo weight and bale capacity, the naval architect can within minutes block out the principal technical characteristics of a suitable ship. The above process, complemented by systematic studies of operating economics, makes it reasonably easy to conduct engineering economy studies on large numbers of alternative, functionally equivalent ships, or fleets, in order to find the one of greatest profitability potential. ~Numbers in parentheses correspond to publications listed in the Reference. -1

The factual information on which the study is based is drawn both from publications and from confidential data supplied by various informed individuals. Interpretation of such data is always difficult; frequently the information is unusable as received and needs guess work in application; some data points represent fleet averages, some ship class averages and some, individual vessels; as frequently happens, most plotted points are clustered near the middle of the chart with few points at the extremes. In short, the available figures are hardly suitable for conventional statistical analysis; rather, common sense and judgment based on past experience with other types of ships have been used to propose what order may lie in the plotted chaos. So that the results of the study may be applied to ships of unconventional size or speed, most of the parameters are allowed to extend well beyond currently practical limits. The final results are somewhat less radical in scope than originally planned largely because the higher speeds were found to demand impossible combinations of horsepower and displacement, leading to negative deadweight or bale capacity (based on conventional machinery requirements). Table I shows the range of factors considered both initially and finally. Of course, not every combination of the final extremes would be technically, much less economically, feasible. Where propulsion machineryis a factor, single screw, geared steam turbines are assumed. In several cases reference is also made to twin screws, diesel or gas turbine installations. In the sections dealing with cargo weights and volumes, operation both with and without evaporators is considered. All of the above variations merit further research. All cost factors are based on ships built in TU. S. yards and operated under U. S. flag, Subsidy support and foreign costs are already well covered in other references (69, 78, 96 and 134) so are dealt with only briefly in this study. Table II shows a skeleton specification for what is considered an average ship for purposes of this study. It may be noted that Table II places no direct restrictions on the size or speed of our typical ship; thus we are free to study economic factors over a wide range of technological combinations. Within such a framework it is necessary to set up restrictions which allow systematic study of bite-sized portions. These restrictions are only temporary, however, and may be methodically shifted as each increment of the analysis is completed. In this study, two limited areas are investigated; and although these are widely separated, they are so related that all intermediate areas may be readily understood. Our first limited grouping, identified as the B-1 Series, is intended -2

TABLE I RANGE OF FACTORS CONSIDERED (Dimensions are in feet, weights are in long tons) Initial Proposal Final Range Item _ Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum Length (BP) 180 800 100 800 Beam 30 110 30 110 Depth 10.5 65 10 65 Draft 8 40 10 46 Displacement 1,000 75,000 1,500 70,000 Deadweight 750 60,000 1,000 60,000 Cubic Number 500 60,000 5,000 60,000 Sea Speed, knots 8 38 12 28 SHPN (single screw) 0 40,000 5,000 40,000 SHPN (twin screw) 0 70,000 2,000 70,000 Block Coefficient 0.50 0.90 0.50 0.90 Cargo Weight - 1,000 50,000 Bale Capacity, cu.ft. 0 3,500,000 -3

TABLE II TYPICAL GENERAL CARGO SHIP Machinery Location: amidships. Machinery Type: single screw, geared steam turbine with two, two drum, bent tube boilers; electric auxiliaries; evaporators. Steam Conditions: 600 psi, 8500 F. Cargo Gear: conventional kingpost and boom arrangement; 5- to 10-ton booms plus a 60-ton jumbo. Holds: mechanically ventilated, 50% dehumidified; moderate capacity for liquid and refrigerated cargoes; hydraulically operated hatch covers at all decks. Construction: ABS, maximum welding, scantling draft. Hull Form: standard sheer and camber; forecastle (20% LBP); see B-1 Series, ChapterI for proportions. Accommodations: one and two-man rooms, semi-private baths, air conditioned. Passengers: 12. Regulatory Requirements: ABS, Maritime Administration, U. S. Coast Guard, U. S. Public Health Service. (See References 25, 72, 87, 103, 107, 112 and 119). -4

to represent average modern U, S. practice in general cargo ship design but with wide latitude in size and speed. The second, or B-1.8 Series, is similar in every respect except that freeboards are arbitrarily increased 80 percent over those of the first series, with beam and draft adjusted to maintain stability. Freeboard is thereby introduced as a variable, permitting fuller insight into the design impact of increased cargo stowage factors. The following chapter explains the development of the B-1 and B-1,8 Series in detail. Future studies should make further methodical shifts in the restrictions mentioned or implied above. Chapter X suggests several such possibilities. Although the typical specification shown in Table II is derived from modern U. SO shis in berth line operation, it could also be applied to tramp ships. The chief difference would be caused by the fact that the latter would presumably be unsubsidized and hence less influenced by the direct and indirect pressures of the 1936 Act. Also, tramp ships would have complete freedom in choice of speed since fixed schedules are inappropriate. Chapter I, immediately following, is in effect a summary of the findings of much of the rest of the report. It presents the design development and functional capabilities of the ships of the B-1 and B-1.8 Series. It also shows their estimated building costs and principal dimensions, Estimation of functional capabilities necessarily employs several assumptions which any particular operator may find at variance with his own conditions, If these variations are numerous or extreme, he may prefer to reassemble the conclusions of Chapter I using his own bits and pieces. If such is the case, the details presented in Chapters II through VII may be helpful; they should also prove useful in future research extending beyond current limitations. Chapters II through VI discuss the many considerations (such as proportions, weights and building costs) that provide the foundation for economic analysis of cargo ship design. Chapters VII and VIII, which are not altogether amalgamated into the first chapter, deal with ship scheduling factors and operating costs. Chapter IX clarifies the use of the report by means of a numerical example while Chapter X outlines further research needs. Estimating retains much of the black art and the researcher who wishes to explore the subject must defer to the confidential dictates of his sources of information. The usual requirement allows the researcher to analyze the data and publish his conclusions; the reader cannot make his own analysis, however, because dissemination of the basic data is nearly always verboten. This is unfortunate since a good deal of judgment is necessarily employed for reasons already -5

stated. Hence any other student of the subject would, no doubt, reach somewhat different conclusions. Having made these apologies, the following points are given as an aid in evaluating the reliability of the less well-documented findings: 1. The majority of the building cost details are confined to recent Maritime Administration ships with displacement ranging from 16,000 to 21,000 tons. Costs for three larger containership or roll-on designs indirectly extend the displacement range to 50,000 tons. 2. Weight information includes, in addition to the above, numerous warmed over figures from the old C-1, C-2 and C-3 designs, as well as several assorted vessels. The range is thereby enlarged to displacements as low as 12,000 in several cases, with a few of less than half that amount. 3. Ship operators have submitted estimated operating costs for vessels ranging in displacement from 7500 to 40,000 tons with horsepowers ranging from 5000 to 30,000. In most cases the estimates show only fair agreement with one another. 4. Conclusions regarding steel weights are probably correct to within three to five percent for cubic numbers between 7000 and 20,000 and within seven percent outside those limits. 5. Most actual machinery weights should fall within five percent of the predicted figures. 6. Outfitting andhull engineering weights show wide scattering as indicated by the maximum and minimum coefficients reported in Chapter V. 7. Building costs also show wide scattering as indicated by the coefficients shown in Chapter VI. As an example, two shipyards which submitted breakdowns on the same ship indicated a difference of two to one in the estimated man-hours for steel hull construction; and steel hull is among the easier costs to estimate. -6

CHAPTER I SUMMARY OF THE B-1 AND B-1,8 SERIES Introduction The B-1 Series is intended to represent average modern U. S. cargo ship design but without restriction on size or speed. The B-lo8 Series is a variation in which (for corresponding designs) length, displacement and block coefficient are unchanged, but freeboard is arbitrarily increased by 80 percent; beam and draft are also modified as needed to maintain stability. This variation results in radically increased stowage factors (cubic feet of hold per ton of cargo) and, as shown in Appendix I, straight line interpolation and extrapolation are reasonably accurate between and somewhat beyond the two series. For purposes of identification, a design halfway between a B-1 and B-1.8 Series would be part of the B-1.4 Series. Method of Development The B-1 Series is developed as follows. The basic variables are speed and displacement and these are arbitrarily put into many combinations. For each combination, length is found by means of Equation 4 (see Chapter II)o Speed-length ratio is then calculated leading to the establishment of the block coefficient, taken from Figure 18. Tentative values of beam and draft, found from Equations 8 and 9, are used to establish the beam-draft ratio. These two dimensions are then modified so as to balance the equation between block coefficient and displacement; beam-draft ratio is left unchanged, however. Depth is arbitrarily set at a value equal to the length divided by 11.5, which is an average value for modern designs. Freeboard is found by subtraction and is, in all cases, greater than the minimum required by regulation. -7

In the B-1.8 Series, length, displacement and block coefficient are held the same as in any given combination of speed and displacement in the B-1 Series. Freeboard, however, is increased by 80 percent. Beam and draft are then varied from the B-1 values in order to maintain the same relative transverse stability. This is done by multiplying the beam and dividing the draft by the cube root of 1.8 (Appendix III proves this relationship.) Depth is found by adding draft to freeboard. Owing to restrictions on time, no definitive study is made of the relationship between power and speed for the various hypothetical designs. As an expedient Figure 19, based primarily on Minorsky's nomograph (84), is used to find the approximate horsepowers required for the B-1 Series. Because of its greater beamdraft ratio, any given design of the B-1.8 Series is assumed to have a sea speed four percent less than that of the corresponding B-1 design of equal power. This is an average figure based on limited analysis. Throughout this paper (unless otherwise specified) speed, power, draft, freeboard, displacement, deadweight, cargo weight and all other characteristics are those at the designed condition. Delineation Figures 1 through 4 show the principal dimensions of the B-1 Series while Figure 5 shows block coefficients. Table III shows how these values may be modified in order to define the B-1.8 Series or any intermediate design. Figure 6 shows cubic numbers for both series. The undulations in many of the contours are caused by the characteristic relationship between block coefficient and speed-length ratio as shown in Figure 5. -8

TABLE III CORRECTION FACTORS FOR VARIATION FROM B-1 SERIES Factor for B-1.8 Factor for any Series Variation Freeboard 1.8 r Length 1.0 1.0 Displacement 1.0 1.0 Block Coefficient 1.0 1.0 Beam 1. 216 Dn~~raft 1 1 Draft 1.216 3yW... Speed 1.0 1.0 Horsepower See note below Note: Horsepower for the B-1.8 series is taken as that power required to drive the corresponding B-1 Series vessel at a speed increased by the factor 1/0.96. For other variations the denominator in the factor would be 1.05 - (r/20). Typical B-1 Hull: Corresponding B-lo8 Hull - - - -9

1. II I. I I I I I I I 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 if I I I II I I Is I II I I I; I I I II~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ OD ti l I I il 11 1 -I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~fI In~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I Ii t z~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~II il t-tr~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I 11~. 4-h I-14~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~ -il' —4:1tII Il1 It ti l l I I. I... o 6~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~t1 0 o o o~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I......

-I i-I L-1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~— A — F-,, I- -F-~~~~~~~~~~~~I A 0~~~~~ 1%) N3C1 v I0 FRE~EBeOoPRo IN FEET

T ~ ~ ~ ~ L~tr ~ lilllllll1111111 11 I ift I, *' + L4 -..-t -1'I-IL I I III, I4 I I I Li I cc~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~II H-I i.: 1~~~~~~ t~~~tt rrtt~~~~~~ L~~t~~~tii~~~n~~I I It I I I I r~~~~ Frt~~;~'i 4I -i Ni-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~; I i I I I II I L I I i II I II II i I I ~I A l I......._ILL II i il IL Ii I1I ii I:~1iI 1 I1 ~II r~ 11 FT I I I L~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ 11 fill I~~~iIlrrr I r I1rI I rrI. fill!-I I! 11 I 1I I II IIii I; III 1I fit! if l: iI 1I iI I LI L L II: I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I r-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-C.-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+4 LCL'~ ~ ~ - -~r -4-C~i ~''' i-C, —i-kC-CHC-C~St;t+tH+ -4-+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ — L I - I II I T:: H-L I +!-I._FT - ~ T F, 44 — 4-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~t — m m S W W m m m~wr~m —WH4 *~ 1C, —; —''LLtiL t' jj II-'4 4-, 4''.- -,{'44 L 4-ic~Ct —--- ~(-~i —+!~+H)S~t~t~+tt+tttttlitli; 4. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Lr -c-C - ~'~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~ — LI4 tr 24' —yi-. 4 —4 —4-'t —t I I' I I — ___t ________ Wg tH m X mP oO N DRAFT IN FEET

Z: O r". ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I i ii1'I)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~il I — I rm S W = v He H mg Wl H!E~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~mlI -0 W W m ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~l I Ig I ISg~ 00 ~ X n G 1 10 m m m m! g +0t I I - VI EP'~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ i fall I fil... LM-111lW 11 llklL 1111111111111l~ ~~~~~~f~~~~~~~~~~~It-i~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~tI UI P Ih 6 (P p O ru~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I a 1a1S S G 1w144 E~~~~~~~~il!1111f1111 111111111 Ilk111|1l1l11111l1l1 121X.11 if If lilllIiiiiiiilEL X@Tliiiilllll~i4 o o E W M t e w w r m 1111111M 11 10111 111!111W t w U IIIIIIIIINI~t TTo 11 Ifl lo li ISo 1o E I g X F!I l fn 2 I I W I~Il~~t11!!!11!!W HIIIIIIW M ttI!!I m m m m i E q E 11!!!!111 1111 gIIIII!I!I~l~ll~l~lllllEIN I > FN1M g H m!we e 010/ Ilill!!i lltth~l~tHR W XI LX 1!1!! 1111!!!!1111 II!X!III!I~!illililil~lfly s Ug X E~~~~m m w w 0-ggS 0fi1 B m w!! X1111!!!!!11 Il!!!#I!!!!!lilill!~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i m XM Wt+ll 1!2WeEI!!lin~!!ll!!illT~iii rn I I fill-IHl!l~l!!1g!!11 X ~lill!~ll~ig @ e 2X =m m t~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~lX SS Xg~~~~~~~~~~~~I i - - -I o o o o ~ o O O o o~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~%ilfl 0) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ B~t.......

0 z~ 0 r (A0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ le -- T 0 — ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~In~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I o~ 0 LA -IX~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~I L (AN L&.~~~~~ o ~~tt C~tf~~tt~t~l LII~~L~CLIIIIorI Lil f\) 0 I0I I0e ITO o 1 9 Q, O Cp O h) p g\~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1 6 B LO C ~~~~~~~~ CO E IF F 1 II I II I I Ih1

100,000._, ~ ~~~~~~~~80tO00 -— ~_;~~...... -.:-:.- 55 -- - ~~~~~~~6,0010 I I.. F.__.~__mm...,,,i'm~J'~m'-===;'mm="'''401......._-... -..........................1, 0 --- ~,= —- - --—........~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~....... T-T ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - r.~~~.b'-~.:m".5,0::_~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~T __ -- ~ ____._____ — ---— ~ - -— ~~~~~~~~~W Mill ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ in —

Deadweight Coefficients Figures 7A through 8B show the relationship between deadweight, displacement and horsepower for both the B-1 and B-1.8 Series. Figures 9A and 9B are similar to Figures 8A and 8B except that approximate sea speeds are substituted for horsepower. The potential usefulness of these figures is obvious. Table IV confirms the relative accuracy of the curves; the departures are caused largely by variations in the elaboration of outfitting and hull engineering in the individual ships. Chapter V explains the methods of estimation used in the development of these curveso TABLE IV PUBLISHED vs PREDICTED DEADWEIGHTS AN~D BALE CAPACITIES Notes: 1. Predicted deadweights are from Figure 7A. 2. Predicted bale capacities are from Figure 11A 3. Tabulated values of deadweight and bale capacity are in thousands of long tons and thousands of cubic feet, respectively. 4. Published values of deadweight and bale capacity are from Reference 103. Bale capacities include reefer and liquid cargoes uncorrected for relative volumetric requirements~ 5. The ratio shown in each case is the predicted value divided by the published value~ (Cont'd.)

TABLE IV (Cont'd.) Ship Deadweight _ Bale Capacity Pubi. Predict, Ratio P.Rbl. Predict, Ratio C3-S-33a 10.46 10.22 0.977 563 624 1.107 C3-S-37b 10.99 10.68 0.972 605 660 1.090 C3-S-38a 10.21 10o38 1.o 016 643 628 0.976 C3-S-46a 10.18 10.46 1.027 750 632 0.842 C3-S-43a 10.98 10.56 0.962 682 653 0.958 C4-S-lq 12.54 13.25 1.057 751 774 1.029 C4-S-ls 11.97 11.42 0.954 787 654 0.831 C4-S-lt 12.22 13.25 1.083 744 774 1,039 C4-S-lu 12.82 13.25 1.033 817 774 0.947 C4-S-58a 12.39 12.48 1.006 703 732 1.041 C4-S-57a 10.71 10.83 1.011 703 617 0.878 Average 1.009 0.977 - Value is for maximum deadweight; design value is not published, -17

03 09 Op 0Z 0O1 9 t Z 1:II I 1;1! i i!L: I iI If I i I I I I III I III II II I I I I I I I. III i I II Ill I f Wti:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ii~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ i tM m020itH jI~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~IJ Hll I Ii r_ II IIIIIII I I I II IWI lllll llllllll l l lll i lT T I I l 11L I i fI II I 1! I I III II I I I 1 L I I, I L1os IIM llilililIiili~liiltlilLtIILII~LIH I I I I I I I I IIIF+-I t <11 lil 41 1I I I I = I I,~' I g I I l I il I OIfilbl LlTLi!1 111 1 1 l I I' IJ Il, Il

I. 9 8 0 5 ~~~~~~~~~~0 U) i~~~ k Z ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. 4 Z 3 2~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 2 O O~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 20 Z 9uJ Cf) I cJ ul) CJ 1.'.9'rJ~~~~~.,z9 in -- -1 9 — 0 —-------- ---—,

Ico 140 10 fill lilt I ll H ill I IIII fill I l l ][ H- H, 111A I Hill[ I l i l l i l l f l i t l i l t I l i I l i: 111111i III I it tit I i f I l l f i t I If [if I ]H ill] I I oot if Hill little 1, l i l t I Ililt! I Hill 11M t fit 3 I f i l l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 H i ll I I l i l t 1 1111 1 fi l l] I 11 I lill fill Ill H ill 11 fill Hill 11111 I _ j 1 i 7 7 i I I I I I I. i II II I I ll 11111 I... lilt title IW I I III lilt I II im Ili I I I 1 1 1 1 I I i H ill I.... I..... I f f...... f ilial[ Illf( I I 11 I I I l i l t I l l I I li lt I 11111jillil...... H ills a Ill. I.. I.. I I 11 fill little ill A MIMI rr [Ill lilt[ I IIll 11111 I I L Aff I 1 I I I I Ill fa il I III ]fillI I I IITT Ill I I I I ill I'll 1111H I IiI I I I ILEI I I I I I f I Ill Ifill )IIII Ill lilt 177WT% I I ill I I I I I 111m, -ITl 1 LIL L 1.be I lilt fill Ill title lim it[] & -Lo -T - I IIll L L -L, IF I I I I I1 1Hli 111111111 Jim'111111 I I lilt IM 11" L-A.0 I Ifit IL11.6& += I L-L.................. I IIIIr-TIII IIII I I II I I I II I fit PI lilt I I I I I I I I I I Ilim it 11 II. I I or LILL I;Po II IIll) fill 11 11 11 11 1 11 fit lilt II 11 11 f I few I 0 _0 -0 ill I.H 1111111111II I:- O,....... MI Ili I 11 lilt 11111 I...... IM I I I I 0 0 -1 [Lon 11 I.I I I I l lt I I I I 0! or] I LA111`117 I — I I I I I fu ll[ I I [it T II 11111111IIIHli Ill II I I I I I I I I I I Ililt Ili -00,..00 it I on I i#T 1111111111 IL 1,10 I.001 OF iii__ I L-1 Lim Il.... IIfill title 11111.4 I I I-L H ll 111111 -'' 11 11. -M I 11 A I H li I i M I I I I I 0- 011 I OR I I I title 0- I I H li I.0or Poo LO I If Jill 0IIIII IIfill -.17.10...... _LL I I I IL I -fit-! 00, It el 1114 1 1 1 1 1 wri 11 I lilt, 1 00! Jon 01 II I Ir 11101 tile I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 LL_ I ItIL 00, 0I.&T I fill if III fill I I I 11 I 11 I II 11 Ill 11 Poe IM I I it HI 1,W 11 -61!ni'00, it fill[ i II.,'lilt'01 I ILL- Ill lilt 01 I I I I I I LW I I I Ill L., -01.- I I1-1.11off - - I H ill 11 III Ill IfI It Ill I L.00 lilt 1.6 r I I I Ht I I I U01 I I I I lo- 11 Ill fit 1.0n I 1.1111 I I I I fit I Ill fit I I L.W1 ]]little 011 limit I II I I I L 0, I I I I I I I....... ]IM 111 I II Wrl -_ 11 IL-M I1111 11111 I I 11 11 Ill 11 I I1;1111I I -1., it l 11111111 I I I LIV- Ifail I if I i I I I 0,11 II I lilim 01 I II1-4c [if I gill 1 1 1111 I lim it I 111111111 I I I I -Lj, Tj little I I I II I60T II I I 11 I Ifill lilt LI, Jill. PT 10 2 110 0 1 DEADWEIGHT I W THOUSANDS OF LONG TONS

~-;~ ~'.~'~-.............................. ~ —~..............B —'~.......'~....i~i~__~....~,...,_.,.~,_,.,,_ ~. ~-,.~ ~-.,-,-~,, ~. -~ ~,, _.. ~ ~ --- -_=_L.'.i...:.:.L:.-=.' —-. —. ~-:.... i...I...'-'-'...._E.;....-i...~_-_.__':_.. __ i _.ug.,L'L~ -till-,'I A~~~~~~~~~~~.., _......'-' _..._.~... L. L,:,"J:... L-~ 7-? ~~;.; t m l% r,-;-. ~~-r —.-~.r.. - - -m-'r.,, -—,-., I~ ~~~~~ L.. —..-.........-.... -. —.. — _.-t...=. _,.;.*,, ~- — ~- -~. —_.+....r_~ i..~;.':...... t.-]_4,'~' _-_.... ~ ~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Il — ~ —' -- %-'~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-_~_...~ —3- A_ — IIt.. I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.j-t...... - I-[' L — Ir~ II 1- - - - - -. - _' - - - _ q-'r-'r'~ —'~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I~I III: —J:'~' ~I'i~'~.:"~__~.. ~_.'._'='-._J.':....,;'i'-24-.....L_ q L ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~-o ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-T..-, —i'I'J'oZ.r I, —iq- I....... - - U........ - T — -'-'-~'- I-...-I-. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I 1.I1' — -— L.....II!:i~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~olI-I II','!-7? T+_' 7__.?L-_'M_ -:,o;'_........_ -- % — ~ —~ —--—''-... -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~- tt-t+ +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i_.... __L__..-.:_'L_ _:,~.... j- u-.4............... _.'. _.....L,~ _ _.___q_'~,,,,...... ~,.~__ =. 4~~ _ ~~~~ ~,~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1_.L4 -i' ~. ~ T-r- L~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~! 1'~'.,'". % -' -7....., —E-T ]-'-'~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i I t~,' I. 7.......,.......... i ~.:'..............:........~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~iI.2~11 —........-..tiT-~.-z-: —!-~'. ~!:..,. —-t-.' —.:-~ —.........i~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~itii —: —t~-:'F'-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.......... I~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~DEADWEIGHT IN'TVOUSAINO$ oF LONG "T'O I

I Ila~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ fIIIII II ItillI~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~lif HI~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I a % A. Itfil I IIIIII I I I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I I bqq 11I I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ill HillI ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r; ~ ~ II HlI I~~~~~~~ll~~~~~~~~~fill] Till[ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ l 16i I I 1 1 I I Ii~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~fill Mil I~~~~~~~~~~ —! a 1 TW7 F I Ifill1 TW USA DS F I ION

.4m n ( N 0o t o p CI IU ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ P U1 O) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1 P3~~~~AI0 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-7 W II I I I: I = Xv~tF XX0X1 Fi! > ij 1) i l | — +-F - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-1[t is IIIII I I I I I I I I I I I I I 111|112111 11 11 11 I1111 11111- F~21111||||< llll llrl< l re t~ l 11111111 F i~~~~~~li l ~~~~~~~~1IH 1 1[1 11 WIl I I I 1l 1; I t Er~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~__..... I=n-.-I 1XlEM!I| ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~E-'?~r-`' ~~~~~~~~l~rlr~ ~ ~r~r..4~ —-.-,.G.8. 4 1. r~) —- ~) %O ZO 30- ~~~I ~~~~~Ii~II1I~IIII~I ~ iII~~C~~~:I i: I I +11 11 1;0;:i1 t A~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~iC i-lg K I I I — W~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I!il llI It I l l I 11 H 11,f ISWW; kIIII1;1 Ill I ti — lWW ~~~~~~~~~~R fit~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-tM1~~~~~~~~~~I (i II Mil I AM 1 jit1 |l t / 1 1_ Lt1111l1 f IIIFtt-t4 tftYt;Cty)fILt;!fft MIIL 111> 1 a~UI I-! I Il I Irl1 I I II I NIiiiiillliiiiillKlt I I I rr r —E;rrrrrrr-IHHCiILC -~~-l-l-r: —-+ I —! -f-+ —t — I E + —t III 11e R 1 1 X t 1 1 14 1 I li~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~l0 fTU jil;L~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I ]IH 1 $ l l 1 IllW G' ~N'Ti1.)S1 D OF L...ONC. "TL-,, 4,~, 1111 lil t:l ll I:FW~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Il lil I I I 11 1 I I t;| |||LHl l' H lilt llill 1 tl 101 1 1 t I rr I 1: I t I I I Ill Mli! 1111X1- I IL| IL 01 _ I L eti l 11 Ill 110 11 l Ill I I Illf Ills ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~;l ro~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r tile ti! 1E1111( 11N THOUS P O on t r -~t:;L ctr ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i c~~~~~~~i ~~~~~~ t;~l t — ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ —--— e-e~~-~rI Jr L, L r~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~LI o Lo III II I I 1.0- I - ~~-t!_ir t-' t nllti L1;if "F~;( t,~ -t~I Iit I.4 1.6.8 2 4- 6 8 \O 20 30~~~IL...... O 00-N~H t HUAD O OG7N

Cargo Weight vs Deadweight Total deadweight includes -- in addition to cargo weight -- weight of fuel, feed water, domestic water (washing and potable), lubricating oil, diesel oil for emergency generator, dunnage, provisions and stores, plus passengers, crew and effects. All of these non-payload items are lumped together in the term "lost deadweight". Thus, cargo weight plus lost deadweight equals deadweight. The amount of lost deadweight hinges on many factors, principally distance between fueling ports, horsepower, overall size and presence or absence of evaporators. Despite the discouragement of so many considerations, a parametric study is made of hypothetical ships on typical voyages. This study leads to generally applicable conclusions relating cargo weight to deadweight. The analysis is based principally on zero and 20,000-mile round trip distances plus enough intermediate ranges to establish the accuracy of straight line interpolation. The results of the lost deadweight analysis are summarized in Figures 10A through D. These may be used to convert cargo weight to deadweight or vice versa. The dashed line in each figure represents the relationship at any speed for zero round trip distance, the solid contours represent the relationship for a 20,000-mile round trip voyage. Values for intermediate distances may be found by simple interpolation. Four figures are required in order to indicate the two standard series both with and without evaporators since this factor will have an appreciable influence on the amount of fresh water carried in reserve. Cargo Volume Differing trade routes put differing requirements on the relative amounts of ordinary dry cargo, liquid cargo, refrigerated cargo and containerized cargo. In order to put all these into a single common denominator the concept of "equivalent bale capacity" (EBC) is introduced. The equivalent bale capacity of a ship is that bale capacity it would have if all provisions for special cargo were eliminated and the spaces given over to the accommodation of ordinary break-bulk dry cargo. The details of this calculation may be found in Chapter IV. In the average modern ship the equivalent bale capacity is usually about equal to the sum of the actual capacities of dry cargo holds, refrigerated holds and cargo tanks. -24

S r4.L v on do SONVSOOH t-1 1 IL H V I- hm 09-evol, 09 o Ole 07 of I I I I-Tri r I ir 41~~~~~~~~~~2~ 01 e lo~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~ II I I IIY I I J I o'T I i I Lor I~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~trU I~~~I ~ oo~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~o 11 1;7. - r 1I f 1rrl I Irlri I I I I I1I I I I II I I I )I 1I!I _LI 1I1!1 II111iI I 8\~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

SNO-L 1E)NO-1 -10 SON14Sr)OH-L N1 1HcJV3AA C)V*dVD Oft oll 02 01 Ilifzi 11 lit la lilt I, 4A all I 0 1 T i l l [ T I Jill 11 T ill [lilt! +H4-H-. f i l l I f 1 1 t i l l Till i t I t 1 1 1. 1 fill fill If............. II tI tsam 1. I it I I Y-T I 0-1I I LO I 1 1.017 I I I Lrll II I 01' i I I L I AA ff II I VIM I I I 01'01 01' LO...........10 loor - - - - - - - I jor I ITI I 001I J- I I IT 11 11 oo, LOT I I I Ion 011 10 WT f.0'I I +4 I LAI -d-I I I-4 I I-or I 1 L.W1 I 10-T I L I I LX II lor-.PF I I i I II I-A'I I 0117 I I I I I i+ -boll II 011' I II Iloor I -FTAl! I I L -IF I l l I Jill Hill I L f i l l I....... r-F -1-1 L -T-F -F - 7H T-F -F -TTTTT -4+

4:1' Z T ttttW i;~ W W~d 2. t I.r.. *t Ut~~~ L ~ ~ IVIJ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I W XC11 L t it-T7 T 4,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ t- 44 iX!4 tt.X;t41t W.;rlt- W _,*4 ItA~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. T.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t -4 t tI S___ - J ti.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

42t 1 - U, I 1 14 A,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~U I~~ Tl; lit -MAf~ 4IN A It if R ~~~~~~14 M - ~~~~~~~~~~~t t1 11 t4tiIIR,A~~~~~~~~~~tA i TA; F4 Xt V' IXXX t i

Figures 11A and B show the relationship between equivalent bale capacity, displacement and horsepower for the B-1 and B-1.8 Series. Values are obtained by methods developed in Chapter IV. These values assume an average amount of deep tankage devoted to feed water and fuel oil. As an integral part of the previously discussed analysis of lost deadweight, equivalent bale capacities are modified to suit estimated fuel and feed water encroachments. The final conclusions of that part of the analysis are surmarize by the following equation: EBC a + bZ + (c + d 100) WC ] where EBC Equivalent bale capacity in cubic feet a. b, c, & do see Table V for values Z = Round trip distance in nautical miles WC - Weight of cargo in long tons TABLE V NUMERICAL VALUES FOR EQUIVALENT BALE CAPACITY FORMULA Values Series Evaporators a b c d B-1 Yes 0 6 66 0.40 B-1 No 20,000 7.5 66 0.40 B-1.8 Yes 0 15 107.5 0.80 B-1.8 No 100,000 15 107.5 0.80 The above-mentioned relationship between cargo weight, bale capacity and f reeboard (as implied by the designations of the B-l and B-l. 8 Series) may be manipulated in order to estimate the amount of freeboard required under any actual set of conditions. Freeboard ratio is defined as design freeboard divided by freeboard of the corresponding B-l Series design, representing average practice.

SNO.L 9r-O do $QW)col N!.~NSn-td~IO 09 09 017 OF OZ Of g 9 ~Z -.0 r~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ i! X 11X~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I I I I ITtit tll I i I I I I III IIIITIII M 51Wi2Zlli [IT 1111 1 1 II2 U 2 5; | | |1I EI gE I~iI g E i I I 4 I iI II ItA31 IH~tuS Ihef I VH if Iz~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 1sX~tH1::11 1il~litigrill I 51 I,X 3 5~ilM;A:;Mll~l-lM IME21 Il I I I 2 d ~~~~~~~~~ 0 s~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~O ~ L LIg'4 IS Jf 11101111111 111 11 III IX lm I A I1l 11 Al %01t al H I I I I I II IZ_ I I [ite II, I I IffE 1 4 I0 1 I I I~: I I2 S 1 I f JilI I I 1Z I Iz I I I II.... ~:~'I s^ j.N111'=14=j,10t I0ll I!: X il:!l-ll! l! 1!: 1111;11 [! 1l!: t i l!01 1 1 L! [1;10!WS11SS1 1!! E!d SE! g I l l l 2 f! X l | l g I~~~~~~~~~~~I I Iill I 11Yl I I I IMli -1~i!IiIi I 1 1 E! l1[0 m [ ~ l!iilW W S1!diil S f1 1f 0; i0 Mi]i H4 it W!~'E'0' ff'; i:: i 11 i:: i i!: S IHI til i x L ~ ll;!lifllilill~tlit I I I! 0tl~f00gl! f I I~izl!#lg J IE;J~llilil~i~l I i!0ll]{l{; [ I I]J I I I N I,, I IA I io I I I t I I I Ii I I; I J I I~~~~

SNO.L c.*)rqO-l 40 SUNVSnOVA-1- N1 op Os oz 01.1111, I U H I I fill F I _11111 I t 1 1 11 I I I I 11-A lilt lilt I I I II I IIIIIIIIJIL" I -1 [title I _U11111111111 I 11 111111 I I I II IIIII rl I I II I I I LILLI ILL11 I lim i t I I II IIIII I I I I fill I I I I I I I I I I I JF I I -AILL11111 I if I I I I Lit I Z I IIIII IH H III I I HII 11-11 rl I Im i I I I lilt I I IIII I I I L ------ _LLLII III I I I I Ii -.-Lit Hill 111111 -1-11-111_1 trill fill[ I I I I II I II I li lt[ f it III filial HI I I I I I AF I IIH IH 1111 HII I1111 Hill LLit I I III lilt Hill IIII I Iff I I ]:fi ll I I I III 1 1 I I I I l i t t le 1 1 I I I I I I I I I Hill I I I I I I I I I 1 11 111 1 1 1 I 1 1 I I I I I I I [lim it I 11 If I I I I I II I I I LLLrrw Iur [lim it lu H ill 11 I little If, it title 11 II I FT I I fill I limit It, 11 fit I I IL III I L A l I I I I I T_ I -1 IHIM11i Hill I U;IIIII -A...... I O' I.11111 I I I V I I t I LA I Ililt little FI I X I I lz 41I I II AILA 1 R If I I I I F 0 1 1 1 1 1 A d I lilt I'r I I 1.11. IF I I I I I A Y lilt I -UT J1 I I I H II I I I II I 00'00, I 0 I H II I I )fillI fill IIIIIIHIT I H II I I A1111111il I I lilt I I I 111111111 IIII I I I I I II I r 1 L IIIIIH! 11 II I Z ff J I oil IIIIIIH M 11 III 11 III I III IIH -111][11 Lf] I I I 11, fill 111111,11 ILI I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I fill IIII 01 Ii LILH Li I I I I I IIII IIII I I A 11 lf tell e l I I I IIII wo, [if III I I I IIII 20 III III H IfIII I L [little[[ [H ill 11 III If I I I 1-4 I I llicit III 11 I I title I 01'01 11111111 III 11 11 I II I I I VI Hill!] III I I I I IIII I I I AA I I I I I V,... [little H I 11 It.1 I I - I I L.11 I - lim it []fill I L I JK I I ILI Li I I --- L 111111 I or 110, III 01.0 01 __1001 o- 1 A-LI or Al I I I I J1,'I I I I 119 -L.. I I I I .... IIIH I I "Ole, I lilt Iff I II I _LUL 1 I Ill''! I - M ill 11 I I I I I I little I Ill 111111 Ill lilt I I life, II 11 I-A lli lilt IIIIIII I I I I fill I I'01 IIIIIIIIII ]fill little lilt ItII I I I I I I W I 11 I I I LA Ill li tt l e 1 1 I I I I I I I I M ill Ill L'o, fill I Lit 11 It I I I H f IIIIIIII ill -A Odf - - I I I 0'1 I - - I I ill lim it.10 H ill,'g, 011 I I I I I b?, ri I I I I U"ll fill IIIIII Y ll HIM lilt IIIIII 01 00, M ill mill?o HIM Ill )lilt.01 -—;w I Lol IIII I I I M. HIM Ill I I I I I I II I I I I I I I?o Ill lilt] I I I II II I LA, I I I I J`F Ole, O-e Lf I I I I'Ill I 11 I I I I I I I I 1101 Ill I A I II I r l I 01 11 11 Ill I I I I. I I I. A ll I II I " I I I 11 _40 IIllIII V II II I - 01 I JILLE L1111111 I III IE II I I I;Oq 001 00, 00, - I I L -.00 I II LA I I I I IL I Y71 I I -_ - - JJJILH tj I I 11 41111 1 1 I, 0[lim it I I 11 IIIIIIIIIII I 1xi I III.00' I I I I I 10' I 00, - - I o 11_1111 I I I 11 11 11111111111 -, II " II -01 - 01 00' ---;P" 01 -t-f MillI 1 10' 00, 0, - - - LLLIA-LLL ll little[ lilt 00'..O I LILIM 0 lilt I II I I IIll I litrl I I 1111111 OT I I I IIIIIIIIIIIII 11 little.01 LJV. - I I I I.rl I lr -07 I I I I 1111111111 A l I lilt[ d, Jorl I.0 -I I I I little J I I I I I I I - -LI I-1. 1. LLLL1 I 11 FE Tr I iTfl-TT cri co LO m CY

Using straight line interpolation between the two series, one derives the following expression for ships with evaporators: z EBC + 5.25Z - 14J1W + 0.1-10-00 W [j 1L.25Z + 51.9W + 0.5 Z00W Ships without evaporators will have somewhat different freeboard requirements because of greater quantities of reserve fresh water required: EBC + 80,000 + l.875Z - 14.1W0 ~ 0.1 Z 1000 3 100,000 ~ 9.375Z + 5.W + 0"5 51.9W01000 where r freeboard ratio and other terms are as just defined. Recognizing the awkwardness of the above expressions, Figure 12 summarizes the findings in a form making it convenient to find the proper f reeboard ratio. In the example shown on the chart, a ratio of 1.16 is found. by graphic interpolation. Thus, one can block out a suitable ship by interpolating 20 percent of the way between the B-l and 13-1.8 Series as delineated in Figures 1 through 6. Similarly, weights, capacities and other technical characteristics can be estimated by interpolation between the values of Figures 7A and 713, 8A and 8B, etc. In converting from cargo weight and density to required bale capacity it is important to remember that, on the average, some 15 percent of the bale capacity will be lost owing to broken stowage. Appendix IV treats this subject in more detail. Table IV indicates -the degree of reliability one may place in using Figure llA. The overall average is quite good and the wide range of individual departures can be explained by variations in relative freeboard, extent of superstructure and so forth. Building Costs Figure 13 shows trends in construction costs for general cargo

Fl G. j2 PERC.EM.T (.-1 To b-i.) E.AMPLE: 0 s0 100 I I I I,I I,, CA, R60 WEIGHT 3,000 L.T STOwvJAGCE FACrTOR = O C10..FT. / L.T. BALE. CAPAC.ITY INTERP0L.ATI0, SCkLES T VsRA rO r Es -'EITERPOLA'Tt OI,,I SC, PLE.S.CPATY vs FOR S-'E.RIE~S =loo: 13,00O - I, 300, 0O0 CU. fT. CARGO V\WEIGHT B-.. o0 l.2 1.4 I.(O I.8 Z.0 (VOY=e. - 20,000 o \ i LES._ I + X SHIP H -sS NO EVAPORA/TOKR$) UJ (PLOTTED FOR CONVENIENCE I I. I IN FiNDiNG SUTPBLE BY PLOTTIN4G AS SHOWN, ~~~~~~B- SERIk~ES~) PA B-I.,lb SERIES IS FOUNO APPROPR-I/TE. / WITHOUT EVAtPORPTORS —WITH EV/PPORATORS..0 0~~~~: j~~~~ ~ ~~~~~~o/ / ~, etX Z 4 2~~~~, 0s 0 / S / 0 0~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~ i 0 CARGO WE\G9T J THOUS0t4DS OF LO9G TON0 LU 4: /~~~~~ ~ 1 0 30 40 0 t0 20 30 4 50 CPA-RGO WEIGHT INI TH0USPANCS OF L-OwG TrONS

displacement may have altogether different amounts of freeboard. The contours are based on an analysis of the B-l Series but additional calculations show that the values are equally applicable to the B-L.8 Series and, by inference, to intermediate designs. Actual shipbuilding costs will of course depart from the values shown in Figure 13; inflation, market conditions, duplicate ship savings and relative elaboration are a few of the more obvious reasons. The trend, however, is believed to be accurate and, as is true in most engineering economy studies, an accurate trend is all that is usually needed. WAhere absolute costs are desired, the curves can be used to estimate departures from the known cost of some other recent ship. Figure 14 is derived from Figure 13. It shows unit, rather than total, costs and the finer scale allows more accurate interpretat ion. Figure 15 applies only to the ]3-l Series, It is introduced merely as an interesting illustration of the influence of sea speed and cargo deadweight on building cost. All three of the foregoing cost curves are synthesized by means of estimating methods detailed in Chapter VI.

I Wtl t E Xi iS I I I I tItr W~i Stt~t tht; thitit EI I N l I0LL~tilLLLIM~ll-lillI 111 1 @<!z<>til) XS MM t11 I I 11 I 1111 11 Llilililil-IFI-M:IIIX~t M~ttLILIII~t t~t; WS~q0TS 4XX L kmfM |..llillx~l~laI IN O 1W h~$+M ETM H111I t I <1 m S2 1 I S; I T NT0k4S l 1 0 S1 I F W U G3 E A H I I I X I IL I t Wiltili l0All333tI04Imill X4 212 g>S | |[ 41 i l illi X ~ t tlil~tS 4 S l t l X I i I N W1 ll41 1 Htill~~~d$X~~l~il X S S AW41 I 1 101:1 weag0080W~~~~g 1I 1:1 1 }1]1 I 1117 1, X > > > t N i 1 0 f f i F g~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~fF03g~~~i h41 1 N 0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W E | j1 1 1 | g 1Xt1: 1 tttX g g l ti N 1w;XX 1 m m EXE0 l O W I I I I m m ll 1: 11 1 1 1 1 ~ B~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~mX 0 1 1 11';l1,il~~~I I I I g 100!11t liF i X X XtlL I I I I 9 1i -gt~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~tX X X 1N 1 X W 1!+1~I I I Lu~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~L CO~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ X ~ X IX 01 04 W MS X~eI I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~' -I I I I I I I 4 i X I I I I I O CONlSTRUCTtON COST IN Mi\LL.tONS OF BOL.L../RS

-9~ THkOUS~ANDS OF IDOLLNRS PIER CUSIL MUMMBER. s J > en m s oo tD rs w v en a~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~) 4s: oo D L -tW-1 S I hIl I IIX o~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~t X L ------ r~~~~~~~r X w04 til L L X W M i I T 1_ Ji-ii i "-;ii i I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ H I mL l It' i iI _7_ t~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1~ n LS pE4|g W~t, 4X LLIj Lll X 1 I I I I I I I0LLG lII aI i X1f It 7~~~~~~~~~~H, 1WX 00- co Ii —$M ~-~'-' — i -- Cc, o X, W W 1W C)~~~I-TI~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ J It I I i Iii~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ziIIIK I i I i~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I I ~ 0 1i-tikl~tKKHttftl tttkt-tt~t] TT 00 t 0 ~:1 ] jX0 0 I:0S;|Hl-itWfL 83 il.-:~1-"-11 00 I-F ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ n - Lf 1 I ii }i | j f X i. | 1 i'I | i H'. III tI'!!| 15 i; i! 1Li;> |I-t11|'i ~iftitfi~i-!|91f! i ff i[ 4 [lfif t f:|t!'!|fti!|',I~r~i: j09.41X=1 i 41dI(t 0 J >tn ar1 - ot r c rsoo<> 1 1' i

0 - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-I I'l4-4I-, X-~i -4 4-4 — - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I I-,,- -. I- I I % I,r~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - I,- - -4 --- - C 14,1 0 -;- IT +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 4I -4I-I I rt'~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~tf ++J, -7 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~4-4 00 It L i~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~f~~~~~~~~~II iII I I T I I~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~, I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ z 4~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~4 I r~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Il I 4 I- -4 -4.-'-4- r -~-I I 0, 44-i.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ii ON, O +11 11_+ __......4. -. -. —, —-~ —, r - - ll -- -4, - 4II I I I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -4, -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I'-I i I -, —,, -4- -4 — -4-~~~~~~~~~~~~KII 1'TT T I I I I 7 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ L44 I IIL,I I, I_ -i t +~ i I~~~~~~~~~~~I I 1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I-' l O N N~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0N OD Nl co U' MIL-LIONI'S OFr DOL-LARS

CHAPTER II HULL FORM, PROPORTIONS AND SPEED General This chapter deals with the relationship between a ship's speed and its hull form and proportions. It progresses through a review of modern European practice to an analysis of recent U. S. cargo ship designs. (The analysis of UA. S. ships is used as a basis for the B-l Series). Neither this chapter nor any other attempts a direct presentation of optimum design. Our claims are more modest; we merely explain how one can make the tools with which to fashion a systems analysis leading eventually to an optimum ship. The B-l and B-L.8 Series are but two samples of the tools proposed. In short, this chapter is largely confined to indications of conventional practice, variations on which must be studied in our search for the ideal,, Processionary wormism is a frequent foible of the marine industry so the young naval architect is advised to respect but not worship the work of his predecessors. Having developed this healthy skepticism and having gained thereby a creative frame of mind, he should then learn to apply his skepticism with double emphasis to his own arithmetic and spelling, He should also try to distinguish between those elements of current practice which are more or less inevitable (such as beam-draft ratio required for stability) and those which are largely matters of opinion (such as block coefficient vs speed-length ratio.) One complicating factor in general cargo ship design is the problem of partial draft. To start with, in actual operation, these ships seldom put to sea loaded down to their marks; either there is not enough cargo or it is of unsuitable density. This leads to changes in speed and power relationships, fuel consumption etc. Secondly, since most general cargo is pretty low in density, minimum freeboard is seldom a requirement and freeboard drafts are more likely to be set by scantlings than by geometry of the ship. Further complications arise from such factors as the carriage of dense raw materials on the homeward voyage, and availability of commodities suitable for deck cargo. Thus each trade route makes its own particular impact on the

design of the ship and the uniformity of purpose found in bulk carriers is missing, particularly in the ships of the liner trade. The subject of freeboard is so critical to the analysis of general cargo ship design that it is assigned its own chapter immediately following. General discussions of the technology of preliminary design may be found in References 1, 12, 22, 26, 28, 33, 43, 64, 65, 66, 71, 88, 89, 91, 104, 109, 137, 138, 140 and 143. Proportions Figures 16 and 17 show the proportions of recently designed ships of both U. S. and European origin. These figures should be studied along with most of the paragraphs which follow. Various authorities, including Posdunine and C. S. Baker, have shown that length seems to vary with speed and displacement according to the following empirical relationship L =C( K2 A3 [4j where C = coefficient which ranges from 20.1 to 21.95 in recent U.S. designs, with an average value of 20.7. One of the major restrictions of this study is the confinement of length to a C value of 20.7. Greater lengths will lead to increased steel weights and construction costs. Smaller lengths will tend towards high resistance, poor seakeeping characteristics and, possibly, cramped cargo handling arrangements. However, variations in both directions should be made a part of future studies. Design draft is normally chosen as large as possible considering the probable loading conditions at each of the intended ports of call and intermediate canals. European cargo ships average about 25.5 feet design draft while recent U. S. designs average about 29.5 feet. A design draft greater than 31 feet is rare, however. European coasters may have design drafts more like 20 feet and drafts as small as 17.5 feet are not uncommon. The length-draft ratio is an important criterion. Excessive values may, le-,7 ad tor slmmi ngr 9 dmageT forw -a7rdH andH1 inc0 rePAsed dnge Pr of

.......... E ------------ +~H tol -- --- ----- 44- - - F........... -----------.... H----- ---- ---- + 44-IT F-Fqt TM., 4+ - - - - - - - - - - - 1 6''M ---- ----- ------............ ----------...................................... +,L4+ - I f i l l I I IV 44+ UL _t__r K"111 ----------- + IFO if+ 40_1 4:H+ UT

r 1 r2T -7-.. - - - - -. - - - - j7 1 -T 7P t L- IT** *I' r LLLL 1 LL L 0j;:WEXA,1-~ — ~i- -r- -1 —K. TT_~ ~~-h | Xve~ tX bFlAII,i,- it LLL~ I ~N i~ < i~ k~E ~ 4gf I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I -i itt ~- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ C~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~!,1 ~-1-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I'~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I I L X1 1 z S I I I'<+WrS.9~l I 1M 1811 L Ll t II 11t~X11! II rR I 2X1 1 11 1 Ittl l I I I II III II 11 1 I1 I II so 2 j 0 4 lI $ L_- W lt04t+ 1Xl 1i~t li g SMI.t I I I I | | liIw~l~lt~t~ll ~ —-— I [ 0I1 I 11, l W: +M W-ii: ef I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I -~ 21- L - - - - - -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~' - V -1 I L [XS+ I I 1 S 1 I LX - = e 9 T- ~~~~~w —— i- L I I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I 1 I:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I I I jft~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I I IL l [XI jtl:1111111i11WS1rksLi~ XX ti'II;S tlllm lllllljll~ lllltilMlllll~~ilIIIIIII 11111 1 X lee_ HH~~~~~~~~~~ itltlll-ll 111ll11111 Lk td>.lllLl111I~tM0M LI11111 11 1 I L l 11 11]L1LIIII1HIIIIIIILI 7111111111111iIIII <1111IIII<I<IIIIIIIIIIX|LLi|1rIl|,,;j11111 m miliilllr lb4liiiimiiiillll11 Bl111141111111l11 1111il1I-l~cu~sfll IL m [+Lh 10 W hl~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~l~~~ihl~~~~~~lf 1 { 10 1 1 lli lil@! 10 1 11 00 018 1: 1 | | 1 | i + +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I~' Clii~l!~iii~l~~r!|vigllllllliiiiiiiiilTr v111ll-Iiiill1 llll H-iiliiiii~a~ili ~ | | l'l ~ ttl X1211i1 11 0 || L ~' |W: 1,r|L' 1,..11,iSiI |1~,|iL,s|[,,|||2,}|Z0 |i, l.. l~ ||III||]jI|IrI<r I11!11111 ~ I:iilliiiilIIIIIlkfliiiiimillliiiil1111111111111111liiil1 11~l111 lU [1111 liIL'i~illlllIIIIIIIIIIIIIIL~~III~I ll L~Lllllllllllllll1111111 ~TTIIItI~IIIIH Ilan 1E

abnormally proportioned general cargo ships. Of course, scantling draft can be considerably greater than design draft if conditions warrant. European cargo ships have an average relationship of L -18d - 54 feet or d - + 3 feet 6 Recent U. S. designs indicate a slightly greater length, on the average L 18d -40 feet [7] or d l 8 + 2.22 feet [8] In recently proposed containership and roll-on designs, practical draft restrictions, coupled with great length requirements, have resulted in length-draft ratios ranging up to 29! Beam may be limited by external restrictions such as locks, building ways or dry docks. It may also be influenced by its proportion to other dimensions, principally draft. Increases in beamdraft ratios (for a given length, draft and displacement) allow decreases in block and prismatic coefficients, the net result, frequently, being a reduction in resistance. Stability considerations also set both maximum and minimum limits on the ratio of beam to draft; and stability, in turn, is affected by cargo density (through its influence on freeboard, as discussed later), type of cargo handling gear, extent of deck erections, and other practical considerations. The beam of the average modern European cargo ship is about 2d + 7 feet, with 2d as a practical minimum and 2d + 20 feet as a practical maximum. In recent U. So designs, beams range from 2d + 5 feet to 2d + 22 feet, with 2d + 14 feet as an average. In the case of the previously mentioned roll-on designs, beams run as high as 2d + 46 feet. The ratio of length to beam is another useful criterion. Large values suggest long, skinny ships with good rectangular holds but relatively low stability. Perhaps the chief virtue of the ratio lies in the fact that practical values seem to fall within moderately narrow bands; thus any tendency towards non-conformity warns one to -42

proceed with caution. Analysis of large numbers of ships indicates that length and beam can be related as L = 9B - C 9] where C has the values listed in Table VI. TABLE VI C VALUES RELATING LENGTH AND BEAM European U. S. Practice Practice Average 117 166 Minimum 65 115 Maximum 170 200 All of the dimensions discussed up to this point have been concerned with the underwater portion of the hull and provisions of proper displacement and deadweight capacity. The final principal dimension, depth, introduces problems of freeboard and the provision of proper volumetric capacity. In some cases, questions of hull girder requirements may also prove critical. The length-depth ratio must be considered in light of its influence on hull girder strength, rigidity and steel weight. The average ratio is about 11.5 in both U. S. and European practice, with a length distribution ranging from 60 feet less, to 80 feet greater than this value. The related problem of freeboard is discussed in the next chapter. The ratio of beam to depth deserves consideration. Low values suggest a possible deficiency in stability; values greater than 2.0 may require special consideration in calculation of section modulus unless longitudinal bulkheads are present. (Reference 129 considers beams only within range of L/10 + 5 to L/10 + 20.) -43

Cubic Number One of the most convenient measures of overall ship size is the well known cubic number, abbreviated "CN" in many of the charts and formulas of this paper: CN- LBD 10] Occasionally situations arise in which the length of a ship is known but depth and/or beam are unknown. In such cases, the cubic number can be estimated as follows: 3.15 CN - 100 (J) [11] 100 It can be shown that the cubic number bears the following relationship to the design displacement: 0.35 D x2] Substituting average values for CB and D/d, one obtains the approximation CN - 0.87/ [13] Values of the constant will approach 0~95 for high-cubic ships and 0.80 for low-cubic ships, based on U. S. practice. See also Figure 6. Hull Form Much has been written on the subject of hull form and it is not the purpose of this report to duplicate such efforts. However, two resistance factors deserve special mention here: fullness of form and fatness ratio. Beam-draft ratio has already been discussed in an earlier section. Fullness of form can be expressed either as block coefficient (CB) or prismatic coefficient (Cp). In commercial ships, the maximum section coefficient (Cx) is so close to unity that block and prismatic coefficients are almost synonymous. Fullness of form, by itself, is not a complete criterion of resistance. For example, a tugboat having any given prismatic coefficient is more resistful per ton of displacement than, say, a -44

racing shell of equal prismatic. The reason is that the tug has its displacement squeezed into a very short length. This relative distribution of displacement can be expressed by the traditional displacement-length ratio A /(L/100)3 or by the newer (and truly dimensionless) volumetric coefficient V/L3 Over the years, many experts have attempted to establish the proper relationship between fullness of form (block or prismatic coefficients) and speed as measured by speed-length ratio (VK/TXL). For a given deadweight capacity, a high block or prismatic requires a relatively small set of dimensions with consequent savings in building and upkeep costs. On the other hand, low coefficients require relatively low horsepower with consequent savings in machinery and fuel costs. Within the range of normal speed, as speedlength ratio is increased, wave resistance becomes more crucial and the optimum block or prismatic drops. While all of the published curves of block or prismatic vs speed-length ratio have been drawn with the above thought in mind, as far as is known, none has been directly based on economics. Earlier studies (15) tentatively conclude that, in general cargo ship design, block and prismatic may be varied widely with only negligible effect on overall ship profitability. If this can be verified, designers will be given new latitude in choosing hull form coefficients. Watson (140) rightfully argues that prismatic coefficient must not be chosen without concurrent consideration of displacement-length ratio. Upon completion of the current study, a rigorous reanalysis should be made of the economically optimum prismatic coefficient and displacement-length ratio. It is probable that contours, rather than a single curve, can be developed, each suitable to a given typical trade route requirement. Figure 18 is representative of modern U. S. design practice in the relationship of block and prismatic coefficients and speedlength ratio. The curve of prismatic coefficients is derived from References 109 and 140. Block coefficients, in turn, are found using the Series 60 maximum section coefficients (125).

AA 001 091 0911 OZI 0011 00]O 09 599 I I I I I T I I T I I A _L L I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~S; I T I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I. oSI0I6* I I I I I I I I I I T I T I I I I T - - - - - -...... I I T fill fill I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ e

Speed and Power Pending further studies, Figure 19 may be used to estimate speed and power for single screw merchant ships of normal proportions and fullness of form. The figure also contains contours of length based on Equation 4. Figure 20 may be used for speed and power estimation for twin screw merchant ships of normal proportions and fullness of form. Contours are derived from data taken. from Reference 5, with an arbitrary increase of 17 percent to allow for twin rather than single screw propulsion. (Twin screws have lower propulsive efficiency and greater appendage resistance.) Further studies are required to develop definite relationships between proportions and powering requirements. Such work, which could be based on the Series 60 results (126), would allow economic analysis of varying proportions including hulls of rather abnormal design. Figure 19 is used for estimating speed and power in the B-1 Series. The B-1.8 Series would have slightly different values owing to greater beam-draft ratios. Studies show that, for a given displacement and horsepower, the typical B-1.8 design would be four percent slower than indicated by Figure 19. For a given speed, then, power for a B-1.8 design can be estimated by entering the curves with speed increased by the factor 1' 0.96. This factor can be generalized for intermediate series as Speed Correction Factor = -1 -14 1.05 - 20 where r is the ratio of actual freeboard to freeboard for the B-1 Series. References 85, 86 and 127 may also be consulted. -47

10 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:TF100:~ ~ ~ ~~2~V: __. LKj I-:t:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ t~~~~.t...~... 5 0 t~~~~~~~ _ 0 0 IIT 0 2~5 IT" t~~~~~E Tr~~~~~~~~~~~~~2 NOtINAL SEA 5PE_ O -K.OTS

SNO.L C)NO' 0 SCVSnOI-.L al.L NC'1Q 0 o 0 WVI N0 0 01 T- 7,T, -44~~~- - 4 4- - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -F'I 00 ( TIJ 1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~C 7~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.~~~~~~~~~o f I~~~~~~~~~~~~I (z 01 00~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1 0 Mj I I LJF~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~a -~~ O Y "Oe o-~~~~~~~~

CHAPTER III FREEBOARD Definitions A number of terms should be clarified before freeboard is discussed. First, one must remember that the regulatory measure of cargo ship freeboard is taken as the maximum of either of two values. One, aimed at protection of hatches, is set by the geometry of the ship, being a direct measure of freeboard based on such considerations as length, extent of superstructure and amount of sheer. It is indicated by the letter G in Figure 21. The other is an indirect measure of freeboard, being that allowed by the scantling draft (which affects local strength scantlings as well as hull girder section modulus). Scantling draft is denoted by the letter S in Figure 21. The freeboard deck is the uppermost continuous deck with all closures weathertight. A full scantling ship is one in which the uppermost continuous deck is the freeboard deck and in which the scantlings are sufficient to permit a draft at least equal to that set by the geometry of the ship. See Sketch A, Figure 21. A scantling draft ship is similar to a full scantling ship except that scantlings are insufficient to allow a draft as great as that permitted by the geometry of the ship. See Sketch B, Figure 21. Full Scantling vs Scantling Draft The choice between full scantling and scantling draft design hinges on the expected density of the cargo on the one hand, and on the size and speed of the ship and the length of voyage on the other. Under average conditions, a full scantling (minimum freeboard) ship will be full and down (full of cargo and down to its Plimsoll mark) with cargo stowed at about 55 cubic feet per ton, including broken -50

FIG. a1 FPREEBOAR D TERMIt4OLOGY FREEe0 t. STR. OD<. FREEID. ~ STR. DK. A/. FULL SCANTLIUN G SHIP. SCANTLING DRAFT SHlP 5 ELTER OK. HHELTER OK. STR. OK. ST pR. DK. a 1 ElXEMPT l FREE.EB. OK. FREE.DO. DK. G S C. SHELTER DECK SHIP D. SHELTER DECK SHIP WITH SCANTLING DRAFT ASBBREVIA ONS: FREEED FREEBOFARO STR: STR.NCTh G: MINItMOAM POSSIBLEI FREEBOARD ALLOWED BY TH-E 6EOMETR Y OF THE S H IP. 5: S CANTLlING DRAFT &: PLI\SOLL M\ARK INDICATING MAX\MUM PERM\\SSI LE DRA/FT...... 51L

stowage. This figure will vary with length of voyage, type of machinery, sea speed, overall size, and possible use of lightweight materials. If the expected cargo has a stowage factor (corrected for broken stowage) smaller than this critical value, the ship should be of full scantling design. That is, it should have minimum allowable freeboard and some wasted internal volume must be accepted. On the other hand, if the cargo has a higher stowage factor, then freeboard should be increased and a scantling draft design becomes desirable. The preponderance of general cargo today is relatively low in density and, except under unusual circumstances, scantling draft ships are appropriate. Shelter Deck Ships At this writing (1965) the U.S. government is about to adopt a new approach to tonnage measurement that will make the shelter deck configuration obsolete. Although shelter deck ships will presumably disappear within the next few years, a knowledge of their characteristics helps clarify the new tonnage law. A shelter deck ship is one designed to beat the old tonnage rules. A small non-weathertight hatch in the uppermost deck and nonweathertight openings in the upper'tween deck bulkheads make the upper'tween deck space into the legal equivalent of a long open-tothe-weather superstructure, which is exempt from tonnage measurement. The uppermost deck is disqualified as the freeboard deck because it contains the non-weathertight tonnage hatch, so freeboard is measured from the second deck instead. Sketches C and D in Figure 21 show how a shelter deck ship may have its freeboard set either by scantlings, Sketch D, or geometry of the ship, Sketch C. Some ships were designed to operate as "convertible shelter deckers" under the old tonnage rules. That is, the tonnage openings and their closing appliances were arranged so that they could readily be alternated between weathertight and non-weathertight, as defined by both the load line and the tonnage regulations. In the "closed" condition, such ships could be either full scantling (Figure 21A) or scantling draft ships (Figure 21B), with the freeboard assigned from the upper deck in either case. In the "open" condition (Figure 21C and D), the shelter deck freeboard was used, measured from the second deck. The condition in which the ship was operated at any time was up to the owner, and depended essentially on the amount and density of available cargo. The crew had to go through the routine of repainting the Plimsoll mark and statutory deck line each time the ship was switched from one condition to the other. The owner concurrently had to submit appropriate documentation to the assigning authority. If all this sounds a little ridiculous, it was, but it helped show the need for new tonnage laws. -52

Complete-Superstructure Ships A complete-superstructure ship is one in which the freeboard is calculated from the second deck even though the weather deck is completely weathertight and is, technically, the freeboard deck. This option is sometimes taken for scantling draft ships where the design draft is less than that permitted by geometry of the ship measured from second deck (as in Sketch D, Figure 21). The advantage of this is that the weather deck closures need then only comply with the freeboard rules for superstructure decks. The same is true of shelter deck ships with scantling draft. New Tonnage Law The new U.S. tonnage law is based on recommendations of IMCO, Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative Organization, working under the United Nations. Under the new law, a cargo ship is assigned a Plimsoll mark as before set either by geometry or scantlings but always measured from the upper deck (Sketch A or B, Figure 21). In addition, a tonnage mark is assigned about where the Plimsoll mark would have been had the ship been a shelter decker built under the old rules. When the ship sails with the tonnage mark above the actual waterline, the upper'tween deck space will be exempt from tonnage measurement otherwise not. No tonnage openings need be fitted. The technical advantages of this new approach are obvious. Design Considerations Full Scantling design allows little leeway in the relationship between cargo weight and hold capacity in the design stage. Scantling draft design, on the contrary, allows complete freedom in this respect and the designer can adjust freeboard until the hold volume is just sufficient to accommodate that weight of cargo allowed by the ship's displacement and other weight characteristics. Methods for doing this are discussed in Chapters I and II. If it is uncertain whether conditions warrant a full scantling or scantling draft design, one can tentatively assume the latter and find the freeboard required for full and down Qperation. The minimum freeboard, based on geometry of the ship, can then be estimated by means of Figures 22 and 23, or by Figure 20 in Reference 114 if ship is without sheer. If minimum freeboard as thus determined is greater than that required for hold volume, then a full scantling ship is in order, otherwise not. Appendix II contains examples showing the use of Figures 22 and 23. Figure 24 shows the minimum allowable freeboard for the B-1 Series. -53

0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 0 ~ --:|' - 00HSXMS oW ~~~~~~~4~ 4-H- T T~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~j-. r 1 i w L X i l lloif 0ttA14L' ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~T-i ril "-'-r o~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ IH 1 I ttikp tMt@tt t tt S g~~~~~~~fi~~~m / 2 2 L ] (1 2< S ~~~~~~~~~~~~~I A I 7 M oE~~~~~~~~~~~A if. I N I I 111 IN I )fi~t I A I i -g A7If s l t -. t A. A:: t — A " —.-'i~ i'-~:g iS'~' —'~:';~ -—::~. — 1W- 1 oE~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~j A/iEWL+0 Ij1tt 1-. u~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~4 I ftf Ft I v uw

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r I"'0 rN - 0 it I ET t k I I OIl

F k. 24 I,,, I IIL I I I XI I*1 lr II I II II L I I I I1 I III I I- L 1 1 1 t lr I I 1 1 11 111 11 L 1 1]TI HTrl T11 1111 1k AU IV IL A" rrr;r-rl rr -1 =1 1a EMXL; IIi 1 TT71. r r_ -_ JE 1_,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ It I I XXW If I~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~I S t X m~~~~tWWX t tH s~It If~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-~ if I 14.~~~~~ r W - LW lll; E = rt lW l lfm WI1-T WX iem I I I I I~~~~~~~~I I I I 11- rf II T r T _ I I I III I IrII I 1 II - tf~t IT II40- TII~tIITIITIIITII~tTITIS~t A- I I It~t WT -t~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~4-t ft~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i~ ii -t-rti tt+ilTttTttIItt~l~i it i - +tt t I ir 1 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 12 NW' -T- I I T I I I II T II~ ~ ~ ~ ~ X IIIII I J 4Tf II tti l1 1 1kI1 111 I111~I I I1i t 1 4 m tt~~~~l t! | t t T _~~~tfl: ~t#4||lllt t Ll 2 11127mXI1ITti mi i- t H I X 7 r _ r 17 7~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ITl I L HlI IL - 111s JIL X t1 1 1 14 1 1 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I-mi I T- S TIL Tr I'T~lln It~fFX1 1 XittlllLW l ill TW 11 -4- I_ _~~t i 00 _44- 4 - VI:T I; -t- + 1-

Draft Considerations A further complication is introduced by the fact that in most cases a scantling draft ship is designed around an intended operating draft which is even less than the scantling draft (which is in turn less than the minimum freeboard draft based on geometry of the ship). The excess of scantling draft over design draft is a matter for joint decision between owner and naval architect. Prudence encourages a healthy margin, perhaps ten or fifteen percent; cost and weight saving encourage a minimum, usually a matter of one to six inches. A large margin provides a safer and more versatile ship which may on occasion benefit financially from increased weight lifting capability. The extra steel weight required is discussed in Chapter V. Depth Considerations Freeboard must also be considered in light of its relationship to depth. On occasion, length-depth ratio may prove to be the limiting factor and extra freeboard may be required for that reason alone. Freeboard regulations (129) limit depth to strength deck to L/10 to L/13.5 while Table 12 of Reference 3 indicates maximum permissible length-depth ratios varying from about 14.4 in a ship of 115-foot length to about 12.2 in a ship of 755-foot length. The possibility of greater length-depth ratios should not be excluded from future studies, however. A final observation is that cargo density and availability may vary widely on different legs of the proposed voyage, that seasonal variations will exist and that most cargo predictions are based on shaky assumptions. It thus becomes wise to allow considerable latitude in this phase of the design. These complications are dealt with more fully in Chapter VII. -57

CHAPTER IV VOLUMES Bale Capacity In designing a general cargo ship, the provision of sufficient cargo hold volume is just as important as the provision of sufficient displacement; and the configuration of the cargo holds merits the same attention as that given to the underwater hull form (20, 24). Surprisingly enough, the literature contains relatively little information on methods for estimating hold volumes. References 8, 22, 88, 89 and 113 comprise most of the available sources, a microscopic quantity indeed contrasted with current outpourings in hull form and resistance. (The Sorcerer's Apprentice isn't the only fellow who has trouble keeping up with his hydrodynamics.) Without wishing to detract from the desirability of further efforts in the latter field, here is this writer's contribution to a better understanding of cargo hold volumes. The parameters having most direct influence on hold capacity are length, beam, depth, extent of superstructure, sheer, block coefficient, required machinery cubic, and volume of fuel oil and fresh water carried outside the doublebottom. It is assumed that the designer will try to maximize the hold volume and minimize the working spaces and non-payload deep tankso As a means of recognizing the volume within the superstructure, depth (D) is replaced by a modified depth (DM). Assuming a superstructure height of eight feet DM = D + 8 15 where LS = length of superstructure within fore and aft perpendiculars in feet -59

(LS/L averages about 20 percent in recent U. S. designs and this figure is assumed in the B-1 and B-1.8 Series,) A further sophistication is required to put all kinds of cargo spaces into the common denominator of required volume of enclosing structure. Bale capacity is chosen as the most common measure and special cargo spaces are corrected to the bale capacity they would provide if designed for dry cargo. The corrected sum of all cargo spaces is called "equivalent bale capacity" (EBC) and is expressed as follows: EBC = Bale Capacity + (CR x Reefer Cargo Volume) + (CL x Liquid Cargo Volume) + (Cc x Below-?163 Deck Containerized Cargo Volume) where CR, CL and CC are coefficients relating refrigerated, liquid, and containerized cargo volumes, respectively, to equivalent bale capacity. Based on the references previously cited, the following values are recommended for average conditions: CR = 1.21 for'tween deck reefer cargo spaces CL = 0.90 for cargo deep tanks CC = 1.15 for cargo containers (based on external volume of container) Thus, for any required apportionment of reefer, liquid, containerized and regular dry cargo, one can quickly estimate the required equivalent bale capacity. Armed with the above concepts, the following formula is derived from capacity data from known ships. This assumes standard sheer and an average volume of non-payload deep tanks: EBC= (CB - 0.10)LBDM - (EBC)M L171 where EBC = equivalent bale capacity in cubic feet CB = block coefficient at designed draft L = length between perpendiculars in feet (Cont'd.) -60_

B = beam in feet DM = modified depth in feet (see above) (EBC)M = equivalent bale capacity of the machinery space in cubic feet The equivalent bale capacity of single screw steam turbine machine spaces may be estimated as (EBC)M = C + 6.75 SHPN L183 where, for machinery amidships C 46,000 and for machinery aft, C 85,000. The average ship's doublebottom will accommodate fuel oil and feed water to the extent of about 10.5 percent of the design displacement. Greater quantities require deep tanks which encroach on hold volume. The ships which provide the data for the previously mentioned expression for EBC accommodate fuel and feed water to an average extent of 15 percent of design displacement. If, in an actual case, fuel and feed water requirements are materially different than this, bale capacity estimates will require adjustment at a rate of about 34 cubic feet per ton of excess or deficiency (34 = CL times weighted average stowage factor of oil and water). The maximum negative correction is reached when the amount of such liquids is small enough to allow accommodation entirely within the doublebottom. Calling the combined weight of fuel oil and feed water WFF, the bale capacity corrections are summarized below: lo If WFF - 0.15 SL, EBC needs no correction 2. If WFF > 0.15 L, subtract 34 (WFF -.15 A ) 3. If WFF < 0.105 Z, add 1.53 SZ 4. If WFF > 0.105 AZ and < 0.15 ~\, add 34 (.15 nL - WFF) The methods discussed above are used to establish the bale capacities for the B-1 and B-1.8 Series vessels on voyages of different length as reported in Chapter I. -61

Tonnage Quick methods for estimating registered tonnage may occasionally be useful in preliminary design. Analysis of recent ships leads to the following: Tonnage Measurement = C(CN x CB - 1000) L19] where C has the approximate values listed in Table VII. Further studies will be in order when the tonnage laws are finally changed. And horsepower and type of machinery should probably be introduced as additional parameters. TABLE VII TONNAGE COEFFICIENTS Ship Type Tonnage Shelter Deck Normal Gross 0.95 1.25 Net 0.55 0.77 -62

CHAPTER V WEIGHTS General The conclusions of this chapter are largely derived from 15 recent designs, weight data for which were supplied by nine different organizations. Known weights from older ships were also used, principally to clarify the influence of ship size. Reference 114 may be consulted for methods of estimating weights for containerships. Categories For purpose of preliminary design, weights should be subdivided into a reasonably small number of groups. Considerable compromise is required here because of the following considerations: 1. For simplicity, the number of groups should be small; this inevitably leads to widely scattered data points, analysis of which is difficult owing to compounding of design variables. 2. The weight breakdown must bear close relationship to that used by the various shipyards which supply factual data. These breakdowns are tied to history and contain many anomalies. 3. The same breakdown must also be suitable for calculating building costs, most of which are based on weights. In this study, weights are divided into the four conventional categories: steel hull, outfitting, hull engineering (wet) and propulsion machinery (wet). The exact definition is that detailed by Watson (140). -63

Weights of fuel, water, stores, etc., are dealt with in Chapter VII. Future studies might benefit from a complete reevaluation of the outfitting and hull engineering categories. The breakdown used here leaves much to be desired in its application to weight or cost estimation. Steel Hull Weights Empirical analysis of many actual general cargo ships, leads to the following simplified expression for the net weight of the steel hull"d,' WS -340 ( 1N x C1 x C2 x C3 20 where CN - cubic number = LD 10] C1 = 0.675 +(1/2)Cg [21] C2 = 1 + 0.36 [S 22 18 = 0005853) + 0939 [23 C = 0.00585{ L 8.3 + 0.939 23 and L = length between perpendiculars in feet B - beam in feet D = depth to uppermost continuous deck in feet CB = block coefficient at design draft LS = length of superstructure within fore and aft perpendiculars in feet These figures are appropriate for hulls employing little or no special steels or aluminum alloys.'All weights are in long tons -64

Figures 25 and 26, derived from the above formulation may be convenient. These use the familiar steel weight coefficient based on cubic number (Ws = CS x CN) and assume a superstructure of 20 percent of the ship's length. Figure 26 carries a superimposed correction factor for other lengths of superstructure. This factor can be applied to coefficients from either chart. A somewhat more rational, but apparently less accurate, approach to steel weight estimation is based on freeboard rule requirements (129) for section modulus of the hull girder. This method has the merit of automatically correcting for differences in scantling draft and is also possibly superior in predicting steel weights of very large ships WS =1.285 - 0.0786 N )N x C1 x C2 24 1000 2 where Bd 8/3 -.1D i00 N=1.11DS(f L) for L>200 [25] and Bd 9/4 N 1.5D ( 100 for 200 > L > 160 26 while C1, C2, L, LS, B and D are as just defined and dS = scantling draft in feet. The above formulation is based on a method first suggested by engineers of Bethlehem Steel Company's Shipbuilding Division, Quincy. Several other steel weight estimating methods are presented in References 60, 88, 123 and 140. However most of these are somewhat too complicated for use in parametric design studies. No matter what method is used, however, one must remember that such approaches are accurate only for revealing trends and should not be relied upon for actual individual cases. When steel weights are estimated on any system other than that of Equation 24, the problem of correcting for differences in scantling draft becomes exceedingly difficult. Increasing the scantling draft of course requires a proportionate increase in the hull girder section modulus. However it is not easy to predict how this will change the steel weight, In some instances -65

_99_ HF H* R. - e q Frf -; lL~~~~~~~~~~~~~~li ll + 1~I., 11 L I II I ] I l l __E1 1 1 1111 1*1 1t 1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ O -tt fut ue iH R tt002 1 M-t t ttH-++utt~t~tti-t:tf0+t+++l O Mt )+f?- peH —lS40 -t-", i-H i-~ ~ ~ c~H -cl- I I 111 Ili I1 1 I!Lliiil I11 IIlIt*eTiiiiltlll11111111111>11111ghi~-iiiIIIt r E tX XX X X 14 z 11 1 0tECr 1 >4 -T I I I IT I... ~ tCCCL ~ 1-~ Ii -~ W W W Xm-mE3 mmlttt LC1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1 +'1 L + mm Wff -.-1J~.! 1-1 I LL4- f-1 -f+ II -4 -.4 I I V I ILLII. i~~ j'~;tt- L~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-tr — t~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ T1 + E L f- m X ~ v 1 1 g m T! L 4W- I g X X W m~~~~~~~~~mM 0Wiwa llr 0:~+, 4+ Lt wtr4Xmmmgt lam1ii I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~41l t +'+!~ 44S["Sr tE~ I. ffti tmI1 1t II -t T' - Itl~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~l X~~~~~~~~~~~~~ffl,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1 I S. P _TT f r 7LA L' -- i I, 4+~ t r -7 IA - 44. i| XWE;2. 1 P tw t~-' t -e t- r- L1 )if EI -E.t, W1 -f:SIw,~ tii | Xt;+4l0t- - tt - I t e q t |~~~~~~~~~+ + irt~t gXW S~tXl H r~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ i. t~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~4 + f L;XtW'1Alf C r t t,,tt f,.Y t m ir~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~-r 10 -'C ffi i Lt' Mig i. t i-blg(J- X t XA 1E 111121 4 SL'S f fi r?:i i. C+ ) 4' 4 0 Saiil WE:I ITT IOEFFICIENT 8 Cs L1_ LT H it + r C i~~~~~~~~+44i 44-1-4-It TM4 + +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~' iI I, ~~~~~~~~~tirili~~~~~~~~~~~~~L ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - r~4 44~ LH ~ ~''. ii c, t ~f Ii f! I —t - 1 rr c 1-t+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'~t~+ht+~~tlt++~+~+t CH- t~tt~t c-t-ttf-fC Lt-H + ~eetCC'' " C~c iCi~ CCC~L(.CI~iI I LA -LCL-r-FTL; L:;~+tt rrrr tt-:1: rr ~~ ctfif t~RM4ect++tCc~-~util~ XL4-4 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~(tC ~ - ~ ~ ~k C~II I1II1I1 ~i11ILi C- ~II ICL1IiIiI; ~ T4 tI - 4' i"" A]et,45

6 I I II I I II I ill lll ll llL..l............... 4'0f~ti~m~tl~mT~l4TT~t4jT0T~ll~tl~ttttl4400 e _ e _ _ 5,- _, 7 _ (11~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~4 IIIIIIIL P W 11111111 X 1M111 4m AU~mmmu-mfX - <+;tm; 2. t~~~~~~~4 4 if0 (p S ET W X:t15..,..~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~......'H1E~~~~~~4 X~~~~~~~~~~4 -.1 ofa TS2 I T -'-ITt 0.o.

large increases in section modulus can be effected by slightly increasing the thickness of the main deck stringer. The influence of this added weight is magnified by the concurrent favorable upward shift in the neutral axis. In other cases the neutral axis is already near mid-depth and this advantage does not occur. As an example of this irregularity, two known actual cases were matched on a comparable basis and one was found to change steel weight three times as much as the other. In short, it appears that the effect of scantling draft on steel weight is beyond quantitative analysis in the preliminary stages of design. Equation 24 will of course indicate general trends but it too may be misleading for specific comparisons. Although variations in scantling draft are difficult, to analyze weightwise they are, fortunately, relatively modest in impact. This is borne out by various experts (113) who estimate that, for a given overall size of ship, a shelter deck design will save from 4 to 6.5 percent in steel weight; another finds that, for a given displacement, a shelter deck design will increase steel weight by four percent..Ref erence- 113 also publishes figures, attributed to Roester and shown in Table VIII, which may be used to modify steel weight estimates where the number of decks differ between comparisons. TABLE VIII INFLUENCE OF ADDED DECK ON STEEL WEIGHT L ~~~Percent Increase in Steel L Weight for the Addition of D ~~~One Complete'Tween Deck 10 3 11 4.25 12 5.5 13 6.75 14 8 15 9.25

The same authority estimates a two percent change in steel weight for every ten percent change in length-beam ratio. One final nugget concerns the influence of the open deck or all-hatch design. Coldman (46,47) finds that such ships save from three to five percent steel compared with ships of conventional design. However, it is possible that some of this weight saving is eaten up by the extra weight of hatch covers. Outfitting Weights The weight of outfitting in tons may be expressed as 0.825 = CO (lC) ~27 where CN is the cubic number and C0 is a coefficient ranging from 109 in austere designs to 160 in elaborate designs, with a value of 125 in average designs. This relationship is arrived at empirically from data based on modern U. S. practice. Figure 27 presents this formulation graphically. Hull Engineering Weights The wet weight of hull engineering in tons may be expressed 0.825 W-HE =CHE (i ) 28 where CHE is a coefficient ranging from 53 in austere designs to 82 in elaborate designs, with a value of 62 in average designs. Again, these relationships are based on recent U. S. cargo ships. Figure 28 has contours corresponding to the above. Additional weight information for both outfitting and hull engineering may be found in References 18 and 140.

t 1 t;-f:tt~~7 1 c -- L-.l I T t~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~II I~~~~~~~~~~~~~ LI Y-t~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ NTT I iI I IA`rT~~~~~~~~~~~T I, ce-~~~~~~~~~~~~~I' ILII I I T CL TILT 4 1 I TI~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I w~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I I IX I ~I I I 1 I T~~~~~~~ I TI IT I - -~~~~~ I T i~~~~~~~~~~ls — Ant~~~~~~~~tTI 1 T I I IIT7ct I 1 -r tttt t -r~~~~~~~~jtt r -7~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~J VVAGT5INLOG O

Machinery Weights Steam turbine propulsion machinery has weight characteristics which vary with the square root of the horsepower: SHP WM = CM N lo9 1000 WM wet weight of propulsion machiery in tons SHPN -normal installed shaft horsepower CM - machinery weight coefficient; see Table IX TABLE IX VALUES OF MACHINERY WEIGHT COEFFICIENT, CM Machinery Location Arrangement Amidships Aft Single Screw, average 247 225 Single Screw, minimum 230 213 Twin Screw, average 313 301 Twin Screw, minimum 301 289

systems are ill fitted to answer this. However, it is estimated that if only one man were carried there would be about 70 tons of weight in his accommodation. This includes the steel deck house, joiner work, deck covering, furniture, hotel services (including piping, wiring and duct work as well as air conditioning system and added electrical capacity). It also includes food services, safety equipment such as lifeboat, radio and other items which would be useless on a totally unmanned ship. With a 58-man crew, the corresponding weight is estimated to be 608 tons. While no intermediate values have been calculated, it is believed that the weight would vary exponentially with the number in the crew: 0. 535 WA = 70 NC \d Owing to the difficulty of establishing the inputs, it is probably appropriate to simplify the above expression into WA = 80 Lrl] where WA= weight of accommodations in tons and NC number in crew Each passenger accommodated would add about 12 tons to the above. Deadweight The deadweight coefficient curves shown in Chapter I are synthesized from weights estimated according to the foregoing methods. Steel weights are based on the cubic number system assuming a superstructure equal in length to 20 percent of the ship's length. Length-depth ratio and block coefficient are as determined for each individual hypothetical ship. Outfitting, hull engineering and machinery weights are based on the average values cited and it i's assumed that machinery is located amidships.

CHAPTER VI BUILDING COSTS General As in the case of the weight analysis, the conclusions presented in this chapter are based on cost and man-hour breakdowns submitted in confidence by individuals in nine different organizations. Figures were supplied in 28 sets covering 15 different designs. Information was also gleaned from References 9, 35 and 54. Categories As a matter of-convenience, building costs are put into the same subdivisions used in the preceding weight analysis. In addition, consideration is given to miscellaneous costs such as drafting and staging which involve no weights in the finished ship. Steel Hull Costs Steel material costs average $220 per ton of steel, net weight. This includes transportation and covers special shapes, welding rod,castings, forgings and a nominal quantity of aluminum as well as the regular shipbuilding steel. And JFK is doing his little best to make this figure inviolate, but all other prices herein are subject to change without notice. Steel man-hours can be estimated as 0.85 MH = C S ~~~~~~323 where WS is the net weight of steel and C is a coefficient which varies from 68,000 in a well equipped and efficient yard to

140,000 in an average small and inexperienced yard. In a typical large yard, C will run around 90,000. The complexity of structure will also influence this figure; values given are for an average U. S. cargo ship of recent design. Outfitting Costs Outfitting material costs per ton (net) range from $720 to $1250 with an average of $980. Outfitting man-hours may be estimated as follows: MH=C(~0.)0.9 L~ where W0 is the net weight of outfitting in tons and C is a coefficient which ranges from 15,000 to 27,5000 with an average value of 20,000. The above breakdown assumes little or no subcontracting of joiner work or deck covering. Hull Engineering Costs Material costs for hull engineering vary between $2000 and $3400 per ton (net). An average value is $2700 per ton. Hull engineering man-hours can be estimated as 0.75 MH~WH where WHE is net weight of hull engineering in tons and C is a coefficient which falls between 39,000 and 72,000 with an average value of 51,000. Machinery Costs Machinery material costs can be estimated on the following basis:

Material Cost ~ 440,OOO000 0.[57 Machinery man-hours can be estimated as MH 25,400 ( HNO6L6i This breakdown assumes that the major machinery components will be purchased by the shipyard rather than being yard-built. Since both material and labor costs vary with the six-tenths power of the shaft horsepower, a simple expression for total cost of installed machinery may be arrived at: /SHPN 0.6 Machinery Cost = C 10L0 ] Assuming 70 percent overhead, 5 percent profit and $3 per hour labor rate, C will come to about $600,000. If, in addition., miscellaneous costs are included, C will increase to $690,000. The above figures are based on single screw, geared steam turbine machinery located amidships. Certain other conditions can be estimated by application of the following coefficients to both material and labor costs (or total costs, if preferred): Single screw aft: 0.91 Twin screw amidships: 1.27 Twin screw aft:1.24 References 6, 51, 59, 82, 83, 117, and,122 give information on other types of machinery. Reference 51 also deals in relative costs of twin vs single screw. Miscellaneous Costs Many important costs involve work with which none of the ship~s weight categories are concerned. These include drafting, purchasing, blueprints, scheduling, model tests, material handling, cleaning, launching, staging, drydock, tests and trials, insurance, classification, bond, patents and so forth. On the average, the subtotal of material costs for steel hull, outfitting, hull engineering and machinery should be increased by

ten percent for miscellaneous materials. Similarly, labor costs should be increased by 33 percent for miscellaneous direct labor. Owner's expenses are discussed separately in a later section. Overhead Costs Indirect costs are usually taken as a percentage of the direct plus miscellaneous labor costs. An average figure is 70 percent. These include all costs which cannot be directly charged to any one contract, such as officers' salaries, taxes, depreciation, watchmen, utilities and so forth. Hourly Rates For the year 1961, an average hourly rate, including a normal amount of overtime and piecework bonus, would be about $2.90. For the year 1962, a rate of $3.00 is assumed. Profit Profit is generally calculated as a percentage of the summation of all the material and labor costs, including overhead, although this method does not give a meaningful measure of return on stockholders' investment. The average markup is perhaps 7.5 percent in good times. In average times, five percent is more likely and that figure is used in this study. Summary of Building Cost Factors For ease of use, average values of the more important cost factors are summarized in Table X.

TABLE X SUMMARY OF AVERAGE BUILDING COST FACTORS Material Man-Hours Direct Direct + Misc. Direct Direct + Misc. W 0.85(Ws 0.85 Steel Hull 220 W5 $242 W5 90 0000000) 120 000 (100 0.9 ~ W 0 ~0 9 Outfit ~$980 W0 $1080 W0 20,000 026,600 kj0 0075 ~ ~ 0.75 Hull Eng. $2700 W HE $2970 W HE 51,0'0 00 68,000( HE) SH 06 S (s.6SHP\ \06 SHP 0.6 Machy,44 000 N $40.6 0 o0 25,400 SHPNJ ( Mach $4400 I 0 484' 00l (1000 33801000 "Single screw, steam turbine, a midships

Figures 29, 30, 31 and 32 show average values of man-hours, material costs and toi~al costs for steel hull, outfitting, hullengineering n machinery, respectively. Miscellaneous costs are included in every case. The total costs are based on $3 per hour labor rates, 70 percent overhead and five percent profit margin. Machinery costs apply to single screw, steam turbine machinery located amidships. Single shi"p contracts are assumed throughout. Factors shown in Table X are used to synthesize the curves of total costs shown in Chapter I (Figures 13, 14 and 15). These are costs for a single ship before correction for duplicate savings. Owner's expenses are not included. Analysis of the resulting curves leads to the following approximate relationship: Cl~l~0)3/4 + SC2 L38 Building Cost=C 10+C2 008 also SHPN 1/10 2/3 SHPN 0.6 Building Cost = C310000 + C2 10 where, under average conditions today C1 = $1,200,000 C2 = $ 690,000 C3 = $1,000,000 Equation 39 is the more restricted of the two and should be applied only to general cargo ships of average freeboard. Equation 38 can be applied regardless of freeboard but tends to give high answers when cubic number is less than 8000. Reference 69 indicates that for identical cargo weights and volumetric capacity (inside containers) and identical sea speed, a cellular containership should cost ten percent more than a conventional ship. Reference 114 may be consulted for detailed

-i~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~4 4~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~4 m m 00 ggt m 1Xm X XXXWW~~~~~ffiX-3WlWWW II~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Z0tm~7 - -T7"T.......... ~~~~~~~MLLNS OF DOLLW W ARSWW if I I I I I I X f f mE1l11!11I 11 lie _tT' w W~~~m WAX m mW XmXS W-11g g g E X illilill lilil ll SX q~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I~llit m m X S m X X X m W B 1 BSS E IP~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~m I~~l f 0 + - XSgW4lti EL 1t1pm q @ m S S S m m X S m w X ~~- 01ii 114 4l l T i + T IT I E m m X X X m m m XSM m -mlX m X m X I i l l l l l l l l I W T 1l > S~~~~~~~~~~~mm~~~~4 Ittt II I1 I I: Jm# + tittt1 l il!K1!1 I 1.ll1$1at-'1l~1 11l1!k Z E m E ffi ffi ffi ffi ffiffi W Wt7- J-4 loi w O m m m w m m X E E 1l lil 1lZ E E mgt; 1 P~t -J z E E E m m 1 W ~~~~~~~~~+ -i: - + + mm XL X WlX~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~44:X- 4-H i tX 0 S S X XW101 1 I-n [~~~~~t ii-kFg - 4 gi1 -4 O E E E E t H. W W 4. -. tt4 m~~~~~~~~ m;;ll t2 t-.4'-,'X Xi6tTX;t-L [;; T1W + - \0s Sm XzL.. L|l, 5w 464- P S' - EX A SX XtHe1 11 44 | o ~~~~~~~~~~ f ep + m & sZ at e~ O = _~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~4 1 t~~l LLIOF15 OF 4-4. ti

I a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I I I I I i I i i 1 r I ll 1 1 1 1 ~ r T I I r I I I r I I I i 1 I I U 1 I ~ I I i I 1L! 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I l lll l llil l l l l l l ll!! I IL1 I I II!I1I I1I I I I......... L t~~~~~~~~~L I L O ~~t~~t-_tfiL~ t_-' I I II tt- mt~ttttttt~tt~-ftI,~iI A II I It

-d -- - 4 -- f4-~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~4 I f ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ri I 1 1TT-'Ft~~~~ tr~~-~~T-T~~F~~- ),-Y tnr ~ F j r — t-t l Firlt - r~~~~~~~~~~~t r~~tih r+ 4 T-t -L - I~~~~~~~~~~I L I I f I I-1-I I I I -T I I I I~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~

'BUT'IV'~IUI~fl- aM CIa M'NIJ il ad:v1M.~.JVHS IVWIAbON 04.O 07 01 0 c og Sffi ffi -.' e 4 t,' t t i,- 4~ I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ K-'TTl IL -I —-mW tSW 4 -, -r ~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~T —T - i T I I -F T oo~ I7 4 + -4I4 -Ii l L XX~t~t~trlfetmt fitm t 41Xt11 1 -41- t+ X r tit e + =T — 7~~~~~~~nH — [ H r I — t ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 41L~~~~4 fl F _ _ t-*l ll ll-!-I I~ I a 7p!-lFt, # —j ii4 r E ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~oo~ r~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ IX I I 11 I 4s 7 +S H I! XI h~l i, I ij I i 51' I HiR 1 11 1 Ir -9 1' I II I9T111 I L I IIII II I [a-= I 1 HtH I I- -FT O-, 47 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C ^ H t'+ ~ t+ *' 1 LL }Fllllllll~~till~llI~TIIIIL!IIIII[i.1i.i.l - - -jll4444llol- t~l' 0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 6 0 -- 4~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~T ~ — ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - 9'T~ll~lllllllllII!!II 1!lllllll~llll~l 1I L~tw++-4irT4FLLT II-'! 1-l1,ll~it 1111111l1 IL+LTTILH41111,'lll rllrr~rrirrrrrrtrllllltill ll l: m T~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 0 7- 4 44++ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-4r- -.-i. I 1 i II II i -I -t >~~~~~~~~~~~~~fl fl!+ ++ I I I i I 1,I I I; Il 11 i T ll I -lt-T H Y;tl Y +

methods of estimating containership costs. Figures shown in that reference should be raised somewhat to include miscellaneous material and labor costs. The costs of containers must of course also be included. One interesting fact brought out in this study concerns the influence of ship speed on building cost. Figure 15 shows building cost plotted against cargo weight capacity with contours for different speeds. In a typical case, say 8000-ton cargo and 18 knots, an 11 percent increase of speed to 20 knots will raise the cost nearly 18 percent. The pertinent point is that of this 18 percent increase, less than 5 percent can be charged against the extra horsepower. Most of the difference is explained by the larger hull required for the higher speed. Duplicate Ship Savings All of the above cost figures are based on a single ship contract and include drawings, templates, purchase orders and other non-recurring needs. In the case of multiple ship contracts, the cost per ship will be reduced according to the following relationship: Cost per Ship - Cost of Single Ship L40 where N - number of identical ships and x is an exponent which varies from 0.055 to 0.145, with an average value of about 0.100. These figures apply to normal merchant ships. Simple craft such as barges would have lower exponents, naval vessels would have higher. Also, an inexperienced yard should have a relatively high exponent because its labor force learns much from the earlier ships. Converting the foregoing to the cost for each additional ship, we have Cost for the Nth Ship Cost for the 1st Ship CNl-x - (N-1)l-x

Table XI puts these findings into tabular form. TABLE XI MULTIPLE SHIP COST REDUCTION FACTORS Number of Ratio of Average Cost Ratio of Cost of Each Ships per Ship to Cost of Additional Ship to Cost in Single Ship of Single Ship Contract..... Min. Aver. Max. Min. Aver. Max. 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 2 0.904 0.933 0.9625 0.808 0o 866 0.925 3 0 o 8525 0.896 0.940 0.749 0. 822 0.897 4 0 o 818 0.871 0.926 0.713 0.794 0.882 5 0 792 0 851 0.916 0.688 0. 774 0.872 6 0.772 0.836 0.906 0.670 0.758 0.863 7 0o 754 0o 823 0.8985 0.654 0.746 0.855 8 0.740 0.812 0.892 0.640 0. 735 0847 9 0728 0o 802 0.8865 0.628 0 726 0.839 10 0.717 0 o 794 0.881 0.617 0.719 0.832 Owner's Costs In addition to the predicted shipyard bill, the owner must not overlook several other costs incidental to the newbuilding. These include naval architect's fees for contract plans, specifications, working plan approval and inspection. They also include special consulting fees such as for interior design, owner's outfit, interest on money paid before delivery, bonds, and attorney's fees. Based on details furnished by two subsidized operators, it is concluded that owner's costs may be estimated as a percentage

of the shipyard bill for a single ship. This percentage comes to about 3 plus 1.75 times the number of ships. Reference 5 uses eight percent without specifying the number of identical ships involved. Non-subsidized owners would probably have lower costs than those indicated above because of fewer complications in methods of doing business. In comparative cost studies it is frequently acceptable practice specifically to omit owner's costs from the calculations. Accommodation Costs One of the more favorable aspects of shipboard automation is the potential saving in cost of accommodations. Standards for crew quarters have grown to such an extent that this particular cost segment has attained major proportions. Using methods and assumptions similar to those discussed under Weights it is found that, under current conditions, accommodation costs can be estimated as follows: 0.56 Steel Cost = $ 27,000 NC (+ $ 63,000) [42] Outfit Cost = $ 75,000 NC (+ $188,000) 43 Hull Engineering Cost = $ 78,000 NC (+ $169,000) [44] 0.56, Total Accommodation Cost = $180,000 NC (+ $420,000) [45] where NC = number in crew and figures in parentheses are to be added if 12 passengers are accommodated. These figures are on a first-of-kind basis. They could be reduced for multiple ship contracts but should also be increased for owner's furnished materials. Figure 33 presents the above formulation in graphic form. Lest there be any misunderstanding, all previously discussed costs have included the accommodations. -85

-98- $ fi g 0 O 8 8 s 8 O I I I~l I I 1L 1 1i1 i m LI -1 I N 4 0 I IL% rlv IImKPaA Im I1 I I\t S|E I Iif I I IIm ~ vxlu ILII I I I IL II I I I1 ILH I I1 1t1 I1 I S1 111 I ~ I IE I 1 I&II X WW111~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 1| I1 I 1j @~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~- IWS I I I IL I cI O~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~WLLL t~~~~~~~~~r~~~r n~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~PP o~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~IA IAA 41~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r o~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~IVIA o~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~LL TI

Foreign Building Costs In the lower cost foreign nations shipbuilding prices are currently between 45 and 50 percent of U. S. prices for identical ships. For the more austere (but perhaps less productive) foreign ships, the net building cost may be only 35 percent of the cost of a typical subsidized U. S. ship of identical speed and cargo capacity. See References 39, 63 and 98. -87

CHAPTER VII SCHEDULING AND OTHER OPERATING FACTORS Introduction Any careful analysis of general cargo ship operations must face the complication of frequent operation at partial draft. There will also be variations in power utilization resulting from the combined influences of partial loading and maintenance of practical schedules. Changes in power utilization lead further to changes in fuel rate. Other considerations include analysis of weight of non-payload items and methods of estimating annual transport capability. Scheduling Requirements It is difficult to generalize about cargo ship schedules except to say that a tramp ship has none whereas liner operators find it almost mandatory to stick to some rigorous periodic service. Assuming a design for the liner trade, the naval architect should be given the details of the distances, scheduled speeds and predicted cargo quantities for each leg of the voyage. Samples of such schedules are shown in Tables XII and XIII, and Appendix V is also of interest. Scheduling information is prerequisite to an accurate estimate of operating costs, particularly as regards fuel requirements. It is also necessary for accurate assessment of deadweight lost to fuel and fresh water. Lacking the details of the intended operation, the naval architect can still make an estimate of average conditions and arrive at reasonably dependable figures. The studies reported in References 69, 105 and 136 serve as examples of how imaginary typical schedules can be used to establish economic patterns, and Reference 34 gives a good idea of the complexities involved in planning a multi-port operation. One should be cautioned against placing too much emphasis on any given schedule. Cargo quantities are difficult to predict with accuracy and it is impossible to say what changes may shortly occur in any given trade route requirement. Nor must the possible future resale value be forgotten. In short, a certain amount of versatility is essential in any design. Table XII shows a typical cargo liner schedule while Table XIII, from Reference 87, shows a'round-the-world schedule. See also References 19, 62, 80, 120 and 124.

TABLE XII TYPICAL OCEANGOING CARGO LINER SCHEDULE (Four 18-knot vessels sailing from New York fortnightly, 56-day turnaround) Steamin Long Long Port Port Miles Speed Time Tons Tons Time Arrive Sail Load Disch. New York 2665 Fri 1700 A (US outport) 286 17.0 00-17 250 00-14 Sat 1000 Sat 2400 B (US outport) 497 16.5 01-16 400 | 00-17 Mon 0600 Mon 2300 C (enter canal) 1577 18.0 03-16 190 00-15 Fri 1500 Sat 0600 D (leave canal) 42 trans 00-09 a 1500 Sat 1500 Sat 1500 E 356 18.0 00-20 180 00-09 Sun 1100 Sun 2000 F 565 18.0 01-10 21,000 85 00-13 Tue 0600 Tue 1900 bananas G 687 18.0 01-17 750 01-23 Thu 1200 Sat 1100 H 452 17.5 01-02 200 00-16 Sun 1300 Mon 0500 I 52 slow 00-04 175 00-15 Mon 0900 Mon 2400 J 82 slow 00-06 50 275 00-11 Tue 0600 Tue 1700 K 322 18.0 00-18 290 175 00-09 Wed 1100 Wed 2000 co L 169 17.0 00-10 1315 85 00-13 Thu 0600 Thu 1900 M 230 18.0 00-13 75 00-09 Fri 0800 Fri 1700 N 201 15.5 00-13 400 2200 + 04-18"' Sat 0600 Wed 2400 21,000 bananas 0 42 slow 00-06 1350 55 00-14 Thu 0600 Thu 2000 K 606 18.0 01-10 1075 00-13 Sat 0600 Sat 1900 P 110 slow 00-11 65 00-09 Sun 0600 Sun 1500 I 273 18.0 00-15 1960 00-18 Mon 0600 Mon 2400 G 507 17.0 01-06 1860 01-18 Wed 0600 Thu 2400 Q 259 17.0 00-15 1500 00-12 Fri 1500 Sat 0300 F 429 18.0 01-03 18,000 00-12 Sun 0600 Sun 1800 bananas D (enter canal) 733 18.0 01-22 00-14 Tue 1600 Wed 0600 C (leave canal) 42 trans 00-09 Wed 1500 Wed 1500 New York 1956 18.0 04-13 3260 + 02-00 Mon 0400 Wed 0400 18,000 bananas X (US outport) 30 slow 00-04 2630 01-03 Wed 0800 Thu 1100 Y (US outport) 265 slow 00-20 675 3775 02-11 Fri 0700 Sun 1800 Z (US outport 94 slow 00-12 455 200 00-13 Mon 0600 Mon 1900 New York 240 16.0 00-15 03-07 Tue 1000 Fri 1700 e Extra time allowed for calls at other outports as seasonal requirements vary

TABLE XIII TYPICAL'ROUND-WORLD CARGO LINER SCHEDULE (Twenty-knot vessels, 112-day turnaround. See also Appendix V) Cargo Sea Port Port Arrive Sail Aboard' Miles Time Time Speed New York 0 @.0100 2930 Cristobal 4 @ 0400 4 f 0800 1954 4-03 -04 19.8 Balboa 4 @ 1800 4 [ 1800 43 -10 - Various Los Angeles 10 @ 1500 12 [ 2400 2913 6-00 2-09 20.3 San Francisco 13 @ 1800 17 f 2000 9230 368 -18 4-02 20.5 Yokohama 29 @ 0700 31 [ 0800 4990 5000 10-18 2-01 19.4 Pusan 32 @ 1800 33 @ 1800 665 1-10 i 1-00 19.6 Kobe 34 @ 1200 35 L 2000 361 -18 1-08 20.1 Okinawa 37 @ 0600 38 [ 1200 653 1-10 | 1-06 19.3 Keelung 39 @ 0600 40 L 0800 335 -19 1-02 17.7 Hong Kong 41 @ 0700 42 @ 0800 440 -23i 1-01 19.2 Saigon 44 @ 0600 46 @ 1600 2690 917 1-22 2-10 20.0 Singapore 48 @ 0600 51 @ 2000 649 1-15 3-14 16.7 Pt.Swettenham 52 @ 0600 56 @ 2000 193 -10 4-14 19.3 Penang 57 @ 0600 58 [ 1200 5990 153 -10 1-06 15.3 Colombo 61 @ 0600 62 @ 0900 1285 2-20 1-03 18.9 Cochin 63 @ 0600 64 @ 2000 318 -21 1-14 15.2 Mangaloreee 65 @ 0600 65 L 1800 193 -10 -12 19.3 Bombay 66 @ 1400 68 [ 2000 399 -20 2-06 20.0 Karachi. 70 [ 0600 72 @ 0800 6240 504 1-10 2-02 14.9 Eincludes 140 tons empty van weight( (o.:i.:}) e0Om.its Mangalore during Monsoon season (May-Sept) -90

TABLE XIII (Cont'd.) Cargo Sea Port Port Arrive Sail Aboard Miles Time Time Speed Suez 78 @ 0200 78 @ 0800 6240 2777 5-21 -06 19.7 Pt. Said 78 @ 2200 78 @ 2200 88 -14 - Various Naples 81 @ 0600 81 @ 2400 1116 2-09 -18 19.6 Barcelona 83 @ 0600 83 @ 2000 558 1-06 -14 18.6 Marseille 84 @ 0600 84 @ 2000 187 -10 -14 18.7 Genoa 85 @ 0600 87 @ 2400 9630 200 -10 2-18 20.0 Leghorn 88 @ 0600 89 @ 1200 78 -06 1-06 13.0 New York 98 @ 0600 102 @ 1600 2690 4089 9-00 4-10 19.0 Via CCC Boston 103 @ 080'0 104 @ 1600 216 -16 1-08 13.5 Via CCC Philadelphia 105 @ 1800 106 L 0600 406 1-02 -12 15.7 Via C&D Baltimore 106 @ 1600 107 @ 2000 95 -10 1-04 9.5 Hampton Roads 108 @ 0700 109 @ 1200 150 -11 1-05 13.7 New York 3.10 @ 0600 112 @ 0100 2930 245 -18 1-19 13.7 27548 61-16 50-08 -91

Port Time Port time is relatively independent of cargo capacity. This is because ships are equipped with cargo gear commensurate with cargo capacity. For example, a survey of recent U. S. cargo ships (74) shows the following relationship to be fairly accurate: Pairs of Cargo Booms = 1 + 1.425 Bale Capacity 46 The biggest factor in port time is the cargo handling system. Break-bulk methods are assumed here. Container cargo can, of course, be handled in a fraction of the time and palletized cargo would be somewhere in between. See References 69, 73, 74, 75, 76 and 114. Another factor would be the number of ports serviced. The typical cargo liner operation involves overnight waits at numerous ports where only a small amount of cargo may be handled. The number of ports, in turn, appears to be related to the length of voyage. Analysis of three typical operations shows close agreement with the following formula: Port Days per Round Trip = 10 + 1.5 1000 4 where Z is the round trip distance. Information on cargo handling speeds may be found in References 46, 47, 69, 74, 102, 105 and 114. Operating Days per Year Most general cargo ship operators figure on 350 operating days per year, the remaining days being devoted to shipyard repairs. Fast turnaround ships such as containerships might figure 340 days, closely akin to values found appropriate for ore carriers (16) and tankers (15). The ten-day difference is explained by the lack of time for routine dockside repairs in the fast turnaround ships. One containership operator, however, reports an average of 360 operating days per year. Simpson (117) estimates 355 operating days for a steam turbine ship versus 340 for a diesel ship. Diesel purveyors may -92_

confirm the numbers but switch the sequence. Cruising Radius Strictly speaking, a ship's cruising radius is that distance which it can cover, while proceeding under normal power, without stopping to take on fuel, fresh water or other consumables or to handle cargo. The cruising radius of most recent U. S. cargo ships is from 10,000 to 16,000 miles with some as high as 20,000 miles. Actual interport distances are considerably lower being only about 3000 miles in the North Atlantic trades and 8000 miles in the Pacific. Moreover, cruising radius, as such, is not too meaningful when one considers that fuel and stores are consumed even in port, that emergency fuel margins must be alloted, that much time is spent at partial horsepower, and that most consumables can be readily replenished at various ports along the way. In short, cruising radius should not be taken literally in ship design. Instead, one should study each case individually and compute the necessary quantities of fuel and other consumables. Again, versatility should be kept in mind. Many of the details of this procedure are discussed in the following sections. Power Required for Speeds and Displacements Other Than Designed Figures 34A, B and C can be used to estimate the power required at speeds and/or displacements other than the designed values. Each figure contains a family of contours for each of three block coefficients. Three figures are required: one for over-powered ships, one for normally-powered ships and one for under-powered ships; that is, for ships which are relatively full, normal, or fine-lined considering their speed-length ratios. These contours are derived from Reference 49. Fuel Consumption Average modern marine steam turbine plants, when operated at designed power, should have normal all-purpose fuel rates close to those shown in Reference 45 for the 600 psi - 8500 F cycle,arrangement G. Converted to daily consumption, these are approximately equivalent to (Cont'd.)

Barrels per Day = 50 + 34.2 8 or SHP Tons per Day = 8 + 5.18 N 1000 In addition, for every ten tons of reefer and air conditioning capacity add 1.5 barrels, or 0.226 tons, per day. Average large U. S. cargo liners require about 13 barrels or two tons per day for this purpose. The above fuel rates should be modified when vessels operate at considerably reduced horsepower. Figure 35 and Table XIV may be consulted for correction factors which may be applied. References 5, 6, 24, 31, 32, 45, 55, 59, 82, 83, 95, 101, 111, 117, 118, 121 and 122 give fuel rates for propulsion units other than conventional steam turbines of average steam condition. Reference 21 has useful figures on hotel load and other miscellaneous requirements. TABLE XIV EXPLANATION OF CURVES IN FIGURE 35 Curve Type of Machinery Reference (1) Steam turbines, average values 115 (1A) Steam turbine, 17,500 SHP 107 (2) Steam turbine 110 (3) Gas turbine, 6000 SHP 95 (4) Gas turbine (all purpose), 6000 SHP 83 (5) Gas turbine (propulsion only), 6000 SHP 83 (6) Gas turbine, 3340 SHP 121 (7) Gas turbine, 10,500 SHP 121 (8) Diesel (direct, geared, electric), average values 115 (9) Diesel, 9200 BHP, direct 55 (10) Diesel, 15,000 BHP, direct 55 (11) Diesel, 6000 SHP, geared 95 (12) Free piston gas turbine, 6000 SHP 95

Q d3M/dJS>3N0H I-'VN,!ON AQO _L0.D83d 0 0 ~~~~00 0 0 0o 0 8 8 H-1 H I I IH [Jill IIIIH IIII I 11 I I I.o -- Lo eo ~\ \ — I~ ~ ~~~~ 77 AA..h~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ V.I iI TT~~~e ~0~ I, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ifflIIIIIIIII HWT'~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'Ii IIII f I I I II~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I *,ilill I I.. I''II'i-'mIO O i LL(I O I I I I> Hill IIIIIIIII I I j it~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ IH 1! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I': i ii; Jill I I I I i I ~ ~ I: I I'll l H'''H111 H I I] [l i,Hl l,: I I I I I If H I I I I I I I I I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1.111,,i%

'H3MOd3SQOH -NVW80N:O _LN3D83d o g o, o o 8,.,of ~ E W- X X, XW, < \\\\ 0 0\\ \'\ 0000 0000 000 0: 0 0 i t 0 0 I I i $ t XF 0 0 I. 0 ~i... - X - —!1 ic I Hill II I I I I1 1 II ci 1111 7 11 1 I I I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ II Il I I I I I! Hll \ A I! W i I, I 1,11fi g t; ILT =4........ t -. IIt ffl S +SIIIII 111 I I I I 1511 1 1 I I IIPIIIIIr~I I Id illlflit I I I I Iliil.1ffli ti.......tFR 1f1X IlilkLI~ll~lil 1111 1 | I I I 1 1 115s1 l~bill~l ltH R I 111f1 111 1t -- I... I.. i.. I iI I I I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~4 IW I I 111111111 1 11 I E ~il III I l llll I I i I I F ril lllllll 1111 1 lllllllifljll + I I I + I ~- I Lii~lIimll l dy idW-)t 1 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'1_ t 4 @ > tO 0 rt X N - X t b tD s q n N - O X > tD a rt X txl - O S > to ts t X Nt_ QO)WN(O ID't Q) N U) ~~~~~~~~~~t C~~~ N'-@ WNW U) ~~~~~~ N -O)W N~~~~ U)'t 0) Nals.~ ~ ~ zZ:-'......!"'z4" 4 I ILL 1 I I I I I I 111111 I HIMI~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~: I 11I 1 mil.I. ~'._ -!_~_44O 51~~~ IL 4-t~~ LL 171 li MI I I I I I I~~~ Hill II H ll I IHI~lilh 11 i II W III 1111111i~~~~~~~~l I M1111111 111111 1111 -14 lilili Ili II 1111111ill 1111 Tell! 1!H I HNI ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~fl.

d*3MOd 3S O H I'W"lVON AO -L133U3 3d 8CI Q ho o~ o 8 8 0 o X~~~~~~s~~ o 0 0 EE~~~lid~~ll~~~ll~~l~~lilillilil\\}.\L~~~~~~~~li I i I Ii i i ll eiiiiiiiI eii t li o | i ii I I t f i i 4 W w 1t iti ilil 1 1 Flili!; 1 F > ii Ilili ii~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~V II H l~ ill~iii III I I I 11111l I IIII ii Al I lI A 1111 hl'11l111 I i l iil;L l \~ i1-; --— t i1ll- r i e \ E -; I fi fII IIIINI I WillIIIIII l I II I I I I H I II I I I I I I A n 111 T U T <,:: iil tl F 1 ~-.i fL'4.- -4-.. "........ fi l l | ]Sl[[10mi4[l1t1 Hil IIIII II- -Lt t.S[ lt-'"~t1;1M 0X; i_ j,~' | |:|...i,';____ I.i.. ti;! 1H'', ~ ~~~~~~ ~~~:":'i:!',t 71't ciii~ ~,",'i'!4r EV11111151111111111~ 1 1 1I I I kAII1 i V 1 11 i Il, I I I I I I III i,]'1111111111 1.1~111 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 11 11 A 1111111i1ill 1111 VIIII I'xi1 1 1 11 ll 1 1 11 1 f-THI M[I 11Z ll l II HIMItt EIII IIIS I d1-11 llll1lllllllll1lll I11111VI11II IIIIIIlIIIIII II T llrSN111 TTI II11111111W111 11111111 II 11 II I I 11111M1 MIl! I tll I 1 zI I I 1,,1 Hffllmilil ~ ~l~h l TITI I H. MI I I I I'VIIlyyiillliiilllliiilllillIlIII 1 iIIIHIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII}I I 1 1 I I illllliillt Illliiiil il~: Iff ]t1L111111111111111111111l 1M II |I lo 111111111111111111111111111111111111 11 11 11 11 1I I1111111111h1 111:1 1Al Hill JI ]I II II 111I 1 i I1 I I: t1:;1;: II Lk I Vi 1111 I I~~l -i III C-~~ ic~t~ —-1HIM Hi[L ll [ lllg I I I I I I I I SSIC IC I H: 1 Ill Illiiil01111111111Hill II m 1 1UI1111I11111I11 II Ill I llli 11i L6 VAN Ill I I ll liil- 1 11 IIIIIIIIIII IIII IIII III 11IIIIIIIIIII I11 I KIIIII 2 LL R~~~~~ll ^ III~l~ ii~ll 1-1 HII I I I - I I rII lllll mlltiiiillll t11[1IIT IpIIIIIIIIIII T INHiiillllili ltLI II! IIIIIII i I ALT 1IIIIIIIIIIII III I I I Hill H~~~~~~~~~c-t:I: i i R~~~~~lliiliii I It Ai I IN I IM 9z 1: 11 1~~~~~~ I IMAI ~ ~ ~ j i I f IA I i j' Iff - I J ll. 11 HIM U11H I AlIM, AIII I 11111:1Z I ll H i l Il 1 I I I i l I T Il I I I A I II 11 "11.1._,....!il; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~il I 4MAM I t I I I 111 I I HIM 1:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~II IHI iiilrII I j I 11111 Hill I 11 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I I I I I I I I I 11111II I"N~ I Il I I I I I ill Ill I I -H IIIIII 1'' 11 I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Il I II i i HM,, I H I I I Hil 1 I Ill! 11 IIII~NIIIIIIIIIII I I I I M I I I I rY I Ni I I I I I I Hll; 11HIIII 111111 M 1111 Ili 11 I ly" IIIIIII, Hill Hill IIIIII. 11 I I %, I 1! \filrl -V I N!ir ~ It!ii rrrr i I 1I iI I b lillill~~~ll 110 1 I 11 LA J IIIIIIII II 11 IIIIIII I 11 HIM I I 11 I I I I I Ill HIM Hill!fil ilim 1 lllllI I Ii i i I 1 Ill 11111111- I I I I I I I I 1 1 I ill 1111111111 I IIII Ill I 11 11 11 11 IIH I.I I H ill I I I Ill I I I i i 7 1 iilil iiilill ii n Ii I iii111N11 in t IL IN 11l i I i i I III, IIIII1~ ~ ~11IIIII I IIA 11 1 111111 11 1 l 11 1 ll I li l I I II I il 1 1 Illiiiiiiiiiiiii i~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~IIII Jl

ir~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+'~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I~~~~~~~+ 1 4:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I I I Jr~~ 44I ~~~ t rn -~~~~~~~~H -T 4 ~~~j~J4IT44.- - - 0T - - 4+F,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~A Z~~~~.J-_ +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ F1 - -+ L ~.-I Iz T-1- 7 1- iI i4_~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i =-+-4- 4 T~-~- IF~ ~~~I ++44-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~j -j,- - -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~P

Table XV is included as a convenient means of converting from one means of expression of fuel rate to another. Readers as simple minded as the writer will join him in taking comfort in the availability of these magic numbers. All known Anglo-American usages are included with the exception of hundredweights per fortnight. Table XVI is derived from figures presented in Reference 5. It provides a rough indication of the fuel savings which result from operation at less than designed deadweight. Normal shaft horsepower is assumed. Fuel Margins Prudence dictates the carriage of more fuel than is actually thought to be required. The proper margin is a function of the probable severity of conditions on the trade route and the distance involved in the critical leg of the voyage. The critical leg is usually the one leading to the bunkering end of the voyage. In other words there is no point in basing the margin on the total round trip distance if one can replenish any emergency fuel utilization at ports along the way. Most operators carry a 20 to 25 percent fuel margin based on a one way trip. Port Fuel Fuel is burned in port in order to maintain hotel services and to provide power for handling cargo. The rate of fuel utilization in port is thus influenced by the rate of cargo handling, a difficult factor to predict. A study mentioned in Reference 110 calculates a fuel rate of 0.1771 barrels of bunker oil per ton of cargo handled in or out. However, the typical break-bulk cargo ship spends considerable port time nights and weekends when cargo handling is halted but hotel service is not. Allen and Sullivan (2) cite a figure of 40 barrels per day when idle, 55 when working cargo, in the case of the Mariners. Mac Millan and Westfall (69) use 66.3 barrels per day for a 12,000 deadweight ton conventional ship and 100 barrels per day for a 14,000 deadweight containership. An average figure based on the above and other sources (42, 74, 120 and 136) leads to the following estimate: Barrels per Port Day Z 4.5 1000WT 50 or Tons per Port Day - 0.678 1000 5 -99

TABLE XV BUNKER C FUEL OIL CONVERSION FACTORS Basic Relationships One long ton of fuel oil occupies, on the average)6.63 barrels or 278.46 gallons. One barrel - 42 gallons = 5.615 cubic feet. One pound of oil is assumed to contain 18,500 BTU. Cost Conversions: S/ton = 6.63 ($/bbl) - 2.7846 (~/gal) $/bbl = (/tn) 0.42 (~/gal) 6.63 t/gal = ($/ton) - ($/bbl) 2.7846 0.42 Other Conversions: To convert A to B multiply A by factor shown below B I Pounds per SHP-Hr Tons/Day Tons/Mile Bbl/Day Bbl/Mile Gal/Day Gal/Mile Pounds per SHP SHP SHP SHP 2.98SHP SHP SHP-Hr 93.33 2240VK 14.08 337.9VK 8.04VK Tons/Day 93.33 1 1 6.63 1 278.5 11.6 SHP 24VK 362VK VX Tons/Mile 22VK 24VK 1 159.1VK 6.63 6683V 278.5 SHP ____VK_._ Bbl/Day 14.08 1 1 1 42 1.75 CalDay1 1 1 1 1. 15 GaBbl/Mile 84vK K 12 VK 1 24V 1 2.98 SHP 278.5 6683V 5 117 4 -100

TABLE XVI REDUCTION IN FUEL CONSUMPTION PER THOUSAND TONS REDUCTION IN DEADWEIGHT VK Tons Barrels per per ~fi 100 Miles 100 Miles 0.50 0.120 0.80 0.55 0.146 0.97 0.60 0.178 1.18 0.65 0.217 1.44 0.70 0.266 1.76 0.75 0.323 2.14 0.80 0.396 2.63 0.85 0.482 3.20 0.90 0.587 3.89 0.95 0.718 4.76 1.00 0.877 5.81 Idle Status Fuel Fuel used in the round trip to the repair yard and during the repair time adds an increment to the annual fuel bill. The amount is relatively small but will vary widely depending on circumstances. Excluding this item from preliminary design studies is usually acceptable. Feed Water Marine engineers traditionally plan on make-up feed water to the extent of one percent of the water rate. Assuming average steam conditions and converting to convenient units, this comes to 0.887 long tons per 1000 SHPN per day. Domestic Water Potable water and washing water are usually combined into a single system referred to here as domestic water. An allotment of 45 gallons or 0.167 ton per person per day is generally considered appropriate. See References 54 and 58. -101

Evaporators Earlier studies such as those of Reference 58 have long been accepted as ample justification for the installation of evaporators in most ships. Reanalysis of these studies, however, shows that assumed interest rates were much lower than what would be considered minimum in these days of high corporate profits tax. If realistic before-tax interest rates are applied, evaporators lose much of their appeal. This is part of a developing realization that our innate urge to decrease fuel rates has in many instances carried us beyond the economically optimum steam conditions. The future may see a movement toward simplified propulsion plants with somewhat higher fuel rates. This is particularly germane to the development of automated steam plants. Most operators find it prudent to carry considerable reserve fresh water, both feed and domestic, even though evaporators are installed. An average reserve, measured in rate of utilization, seems to be sufficient for about ten days. While this may seem overly generous, there are probably few home offices that can influence the chief engineer to carry any less. Except under unusual circumstances, a 40-day supply of water appears to be satisfactory for ships without evaporators. This may easily be reduced in many trade routes. Lubricating Oil As regards the weight of lubricating oil, extensive research leads to inexorable agreement with Lord Basingstoke's well-known remark that the subject is indeed a slippery one (11). Practice varies to an extreme and some operators carry a supply which should last for several years. There is also a pronounced contrast in the requirements of the various types of machinery. After unsuccessfully attempting to relate weight of lubricating oil to horsepower, sea days and so forth, it was finally found desirable to estimate it simply on a basis of the type of propulsion plant; see Table XVII. However, some fairly reliable figures for utilization were uncovered and these are also included in the table. These should be of value to anyone comparing operating costs of differing types of machinery. See References 59 and 117. Newell and Chwirut (95) used an average lubricating oil cost of 90 cents per gallon in 1959. -102

TABLE XVII LUBRICATING OIL WEIGHTS Utilization in pounds per 1000 SHP-Days Tons Type Machinery _ Carried Min. Recommended Max. (arbitrary) for General Estimates Steam Turbine 3 10 10 10 Gas Turbine 3 7 10 10 Free Piston Gas 80 90 100 30 Turbine Direct Connected 17 25 61 15 Diesel Medium Speed 46 65 80 20 Geared Diesel High Speed 130 155 180 40 Geared Diesel Emergency Diesel Generator Oil The weight of fuel required for the emergency diesel generator is almost negligible. An arbitrary allotment of five tons is ample for most cases. Provisions and Stores The required amounts of both provisions and stores are largely a function of the number of persons carried and the days between replenishment. The total weight is not large and it is probably best to allow for a complete round trip. A figure of 0.01 ton per person per day is reasonable. -103

Passengers, Crew and Effects The weight of the people carried plus their personal belongings may be estimated on a basis of one-sixth of a ton per person. Dunnage The final item to be considered in this chapter is the weight of dunnage. This usually runs from 1.5 to 2 percent of the cargo carried. Summary and Parametric Study The cumulative impact of the foregoing lost deadweight items is analyzed for a number of hypothetical ships on typical voyages ranging from zero distance to 20,000 miles round trip. It is assumed that fuel oil is loaded only once per round trip but that other necessities are added at reasonable intervals. Other assumptions of the study are as follows: 1. Twelve passengers but no cadets are carried. 2. Ship-. with evaporator carries a ten-day supply of fresh water, and ship without carries a 40-day supply. 3. The ship always operates at full load and full normal power when at sea. 4. A five percent margin is allowed over total calculated fuel requirements. (The optimism of item 4 above is intended to offset the pessimism of item 3.) S5 All ships are propelled by steam turbine machinery. Table XVIII summarizes the above plus other assumptions used in the analysis. The conclusions of this phase of the project are presented in Figures 10A through 10D in Chapter I. Reference 52 may be consulted for further information on this subject.

TABLE XVIII ASSUMPTIONS FOR LOST DEADWEIGHT ANALYSIS (Z = Length of voyage in nautical miles) Item Calculation Sea Days per Voyage Z 24VK z Port Days per Voyage 10 + 1.5 1000 Crew See Figure 37 (add 2 for passengers) Passengers 12 Cadets O Sea Fuel, all-purpose, (10+ 5.18 N(sea incl. reefer cargo, 1000 long tons days per voyage) Port Fuel, long tons 0.678 (1000 ) (portl days per voyage) Fuel Margin 5% over total sea and port fuel per voyage Lubricating Oil plus 15 Diesel Oil, long tons Passengers, Crew and (1/6)(persons) Effects, long tons Provisions and Stores, (1/100) (persons)(total days long tons per voyage) Dunnage, long tons 1.75% (cargo weight) Evaporators yes no SHP SHPN Feed Water, long tons 8.8 000 N 000 1000 Domestic Water, Domestic Water, 1.67 (persons) 6.7 (persons long tons 105~

CHAPTER VIII OPERATING COSTS AND REVENUE Introduction Published information on cargo ship operating costs is fairly plentiful as witnessed by References 2, 4, 6, 24, 27, 41, 43, 46, 59, 66, 69, 74, 76, 77, 79, 82, 94, 96, 102, 110, 117, 122, 128, 130, 132, 136, 139 and 145. Unfortunately, however, much of what is available is less than satisfactory for use in parametric studies. It was therefore felt desirable to bolster the published data with fresh figures, particularly in the categories of wages, maintenance and repair, and stores and supplies. To this end 11 ship operating companies were asked to estimate the above costs on each of six imaginary ships of widely ranging sizes and horsepowers. Nine companies responded and their replies form a valuable and unique basis for much of the work reported here. Individuals in the Maritime Administration and Maritime Cargo Transportation Conference also contributed useful information. Entire books could be written about such cost categories as cargo handling or crew wages. For preliminary design purposes, such elaborateness of detail is neither necessary nor desirable. This chapter therefore essays to relate operating costs to only the most basic parameters; it concentrates on those costs which have the greatest potential influence on technological-economic decisions and gives only short shrift to costs, such as agency fees, which have negligible impact. Accounting Procedures Elden (38) calls attention to the fact that our sacred-cow accounting procedures fail to give a meaningful breakdown of operating costs. For example, many ships carry a crew which is considerably larger than that required for operation, the extra men being employed primarily in routine maintenance which could alternatively be done ashore. Dollars paid to these men should, logically, be charged to maintenance and repair rather than to operating wages. -106

Carrying this reasoning further, the maintenance and repair account should absorb all other costs incidental to the presence of these extra men. Such costs would include prorated increments of subsistence, fuel for hotel services, capital costs of accommodations, insurance, and overhead. In addition, every three to five maintenance men require one more man in the Steward's Department and his wages, subsistence, accommodations, etc., should in turn be charged to maintenance and repair. Many other examples could be cited to illustrate the complete lack of logic in our dogmatic accounting methods. Of course not all owners make a practice of carrying the aforementioned maintenance men on their ships. These owners' books would show lower costs for wages, etc., but higher costs for maintenance and repair. Thus, while individual cost categories may show wide variation between owners, the differences would tend to cancel one another and the total costs would be less divergent. Operating Subsidy Table XIX shows operating differential subsidies in the form of percent paid by the government. Column A is based on actual averages (presented in Reference 94) for the year 1959. Column B is from Reference 69 and presumably represents estimated averages over the next 20 or 25 years. It may be noted that wages are currently subsidized to the extent of 70 to 75 percent whereas maintenance and repair is subsidized to less than half these amounts. This fact, coupled with the observation that subsidized U. S. ships seem to be more heavily manned than unsubsidized U. S. ships, leads to the implication that the subsidy law inadvertently encourages shipboard maintenance that would normally be done by shoreside labor. Most of the operating companies which furnished cost data for this study are subsidized and the aforementioned economic factor no doubt has an appreciable influence on the conclusions of this chapter. Cost Trends U. S. tax laws do not permit recognition of changing dollar values in the computation of depreciation or capital gains. Replacement decisions are thereby frequently distorted by inflation. Optimization decisions, on the other hand, are seldom influenced by variable dollar values, it being logical to expect that freight rates will adjust to meet changing operating and replacement costs. Certain

TABLE XIX OPERATING SUBSIDIES Percent Paid by Government Category A B Reference 94 Reference 69 Wages 71 75 Subsi stence 20 25 Maintenance & Repair 33 20 Stores, Su-pplies, etc. 0 0 H: & M Tnsurance 18 20 P 7. I Insurance 68 20 P G I Deductible 43 20 Fuel 0 0 Port Charges 0 0 (C.argo H:andling. 0 0 costs, however, have shown historic trends of growth which far exceed general inflation. Figure 36, based on References 37, 69, 94 and 132, shows that crew wages and stevedoring costs are the two principal villains in this respect,. Since the most meaningful economy studies are based on future rather than current annual costs, it follows that crew wages and stevedoring costs should be projected to some appropriat.e future datee. Such extrapolations should spring from historic costs but not before corr:ect'ion for inflation. Automation'The subj ect of shipboard automation will not be discussed here except: to supplement what has already been said elsewhere (69, 78 anrd 96' Jhe chapters on weights and building costs make reference t'o possible savings thr ough reduction in crew accommodations. The section of this chapt'er dealing with wages touches on the potential savings in.n that' category as well. Wages T'ihe f:irst: step in estimat:ing wages is to figure the crew size. Thi.s:s best done by departmnen and, for each such division, actual pr;atc.tce,va:ri.e s w:idely..amrong d:if ferent operators. After careful -108

study of all available data, the following relationship is suggested: CN 1/6 SHPN1/5 NC = CST CDKC 1000 + CENG: 1000 + Cadets 2 where NC = total number in crew, including officers CST = coefficient for steward's department CDK = coefficient for deck department CENG = coefficient for engine department CN = cubic number SHPN - normal shaft horsepower Table XX lists appropriate values for the various coefficients. TABLE XX CREW SIZE COEFFICIENTS Item Notes Min. Aver. Max. CST Steward's Department 1.20 1.25 1.33 CDK Deck Department 11.5 13 14.5 CENG Engine Department: Steam turbine, single screw 11 12 15 Steam turbine, twin screw 13.75 15 16.5 Diesel, single screws 8.5 10 11 * For diesel machinery substitute for the second term within the parentheses in Equation 52 CEN B 1000 CENG 1000 where BHPN = normal brake horsepower. -10o9

FIG. 36 w OPERATING COST TRENDS COST LEVELS SHOWN MRE. AT M\I-YEAR 0 ) AN D AkRE B/ASED ON 1\94 COST = 100. ALL LEVELS H AVE BEEN CORRECTED a FOR IN=L-aTION. z o00 LO NGS - OREEIENS S LABOR COSTS PER o TON OF CARGO TOTAL \AAGCE lO EXP E SE5 o/ ALL tiNSURF/kN C\ MAtNT7ENANCE AND REPAR - 20 (RISE'MAY E LARGELY OWING | TO INC RE, AING AGE OF FLEET) 100 80 1948 50 5 54 56 5s 19SO -110

Figure 37 shows the relationship between ship size, horsepower and number in crew. It is based on average values from Table XX assuming single screw, steam turbine machinery, no passengers and no cadets. If 12 passengers are carried, add two to the crew. Under current levels, the average annual total crew cost including fringe benefits but not subsistence is about $10,800 per man. Reference to Figure 36 makes it appear reasonable tQ estimate an annual cost per man of at least $17,000 by ship's mid-life, say 15 years hence. However, the mere possibility of shipboard automation may in the future attenuate this historical gradient. If automation is introduced aboard ship, it will primarily replace men in the lower end of the wage scale. The average wage per man will therefore immediately rise. Estimates of total wages for various crew rosters leads to the following approximation, for current total wage levels, including overtime and fringe benefits: Total Annual Crew Cost = $23,300 NC) 4/5 53] The following references may be consulted for further information on crew costs: 2, 4, 69, 74, 93, 94, 96 and 128. Subsistence An average figure for annual subsistence costs is $770 per person. Fuel Fuel consumption is discussed in the previous chapter. A good average figure for Bunker C is $2.50 per barrel or $16.575 per ton. Actual costs vary widely between different parts of the world and this particular cost item deserves special attention in actual trade route studies. Reference 14 shows that bunker oil costs are relatively stable when measured in constant dollar values. -111

| || I1-. Lii- 4- tm- Sr4I m} m 4 -4-if~i m 2-t-i Et-l~~~0Xt ft~~~~~~~~~~~~~i~~~~j -v —-._-I4 —-4 —I TTJ I i~ L 41-4 ~~r =X rm-rt~t Xm m X t>Xl 0 4 l —t e I L, m11 +1t, f1 *hXt i nC tr mlt I'~:~ I~ I~ 3~ i~ J~ I.i.;L, |~... +T - 0+ -L 7 B r Y1! LL1 M l ll I' CI 4 141W Wt hl m 1[1 t H- 1 I 1I Ff b X ti h~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~- -1l$:ltitht=i 04W X LW lM f m mX1+ >t +7 tIIIM'ZFI~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~d~~- 44+ TlR +4+14il~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~14 F I-.,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~-IA-i- - ~ -i-~~~~~~ms~~~~~~~ I,lR~~~~~~~~~~ 4'' IITT T- - -I -it lL ~l llE~l -1t t r t tt m E N1 W -4 I,t 1i8 I'Li 0t-Wttttttit1 t 0XAAl i- e 1 — t 1 I I I1A I1! I1l! lt gilIl W JSS~llilF m t = S t K~kE XX13th ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I m I 1 I:+~+X X |[i![|til [[1i[,0 i ttttk~t+ t H h ttf-t~t I22liI Ire[| irt[! i,!r I |rurI||| 1 wIrr i +H-+tH-t1{ffitt0[ii-L~i-~ cl-cittt|T-c~c~cul+HL etPtlttliF~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r ltil,.ll I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~gtt~~~~~~~gt 1 1l1 > <~~~~~~~~~PI L~~~~~~~~l i>HW~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~!+t +iSSt-i' l l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1+ti! t ~t +X+t WrttrX~.+ 14WX "i 141~;_Cil ~C'I 1 i i I tS I I I I |llI 1 + ttli +_ t L 1 1\1 1 1 1 I L Il L I I!I I LLLL UI I I Il I_ Il I'Sr!+ HL II!Slt i*li LtT l ^^: lL~ tfi t~crt: ~~++CLLLLLLLLLLC~tCCCg-C~tttt-t l t-tfttttttt~t~~~f+tr( tA 333tkm tL C t0 I mtrl T lqinttl I tll, r t i 1 I L I rlIL I 5 MttWtt >;~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I I L I L ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~4.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I I I i 114 U~- I, *, I - 0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~IX - NI - I %I I ~ I -W~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ — ~.1 r''I -II:l:f:r'' I~'Zi rIf"IIIII'~I IIIIIIIIZI''~I'III'" I II ~:':I II l-r" I'- ~ 1 KlIIl~l - I..r'1''~ ~:I -II"~ 4- 4'I li.U re~~~~~1 1 I Li Hi+~~~~~~~~~~~~~iI iilIiI I~

Maintenance and Repair (o-;: of maintenance and repair vary widely. Some trade routes involve more storm damage than others. Some owners assign much maintenance work to the crew, which disguises that cost under the headings of wages, and stores and supplies. Some owners are satisfied with lower standards of upkeep than others. Some hull forms are more prone to slamming damage, and so forth. This item, then, is one of the most difficult to analyze. For estimating purposes, the following approximations are suggested for mid-life averages: 2/3 Annual Cost of Hull M & R $10,000 1ooo) 100[54] and 2/3 100SHPN Annual Cost of Machinery M & R _ $4,800 N) i 55] Figure 38, based on the above formulas, may be found convenient. See References 38 and 97. Stores and Supplies This category comprises paint, cleaning materials and lubricating oil. Most of these items are used for maintenance and are applied by the crew. Hence the annual cost should be a function of the crew size, NCo Analysis of many widely scattered data points leads to the following approximations. For crews of 50 men or less: 4 Annual Cost of Stores and Supplies, $80 ) [56 For crews which number over 50 Annual Cost of Stores and Supplies a $50,000 + $4,000 (NC - 50) -113

+-7r~~~~~~I I I N~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I I I V ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ If I I I N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r~~~j I I V I i I x t I I~~~~~~~~~~~- - I I f AL I~~14 - -1 I IX 1 1 11 1 1 N, I 7-1 ff a I -I4 N I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~~~~ I - I I -4- - - - I 1 -- 0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Ii+

These costs are shown in Figure 39 in terms of dollars per man per year. Protection and Indemnity Insurance Protection and indemnity insurance is carried to protect the owner against law suits, most of which arise from his own crew members. While rates are quoted on a gross tonnage basis, actual levels are more logically related to crew size: Annual Cost of P & I Insurance ". $965(NC) [587 In the case of semi-automated ships, the above formulation might be tempered as follows: Annual Cost of P G I Insurance 9] GT $770 (NC + 1000 where NC = number in crew GT = gross tonnage Gross tonnage, in turn, may be estimated on a basis of cubic number and block coefficient as shown in Chapter IV, Equation 19. Hull&Machinery Insurance The cost of insuring the hull and machinery against damage or total loss will vary with the owner's past safety record. Also, some companies prefer self-insurance; but even so, funds should be allocated to this cost category. An average figure may be estimated on the following basis: Annual Cost of H & M Insurance [60] $10,000 + 0.7% of Invested Cost -115

War Risk Insurance War risk insurance can be taken as 0.1 percent of invested cost. Overhead and Miscellaneous This category includes office expenses, telephone and telegraph costs, crew transportation, survey fees, laundry and other miscellaneous administrative costs. Some authorities estimate this as a percentage addition to the total of all direct operating costs; others use a fixed amount regardless of other costs. A survey of many estimates leads to the following approximation: Annual Cost for Overhead and Miscellaneous Items = r61J $65,000 + C(CN) where C is approximately $2 and CN = Cubic Number. Port Expenses This category includes pilotage, customs entrance fees, tonnage tax, immigration fees, tug service, line handling, and quaratine inspection. It excludes cargo handling and terminal use charges. Most of the costs in this group would vary with the ship size; some would vary with the number of port calls, others with the time spent in port. Walton (74) presents contours based on the above considerations. His values, modified for differences in definition of cubic number, are shown here as Figure 40. These may be expressed analytically as Port Expenses per Call L62] $233 + $19.25 1000 plus Port Expenses per Day =63 CN $20 +1 $8.2 000 -116

UV73A )JJgd NV W 133 l C1 -~ — 1 V...- -.447<- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -1 —r~~~~~~~~~ 4 -I-Ft -1 1+ 44~~~~~~~~~~~~1 4- -4- 1 4 + - 4.1 4.I H I. 4 f 2I I LI - I I- I w-P -t~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ II~ ~~~L I I A ILt t I I,. I I X -4 II-L -. LLI 4 I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~-~~~~~~~~~- 4~~~~~~~~~ Ki 4 4 1-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-HI —tII C -- L~'''C - -LL -,~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~..1.I

Canal fees, if any, would be added to the above. Reference 15 contains a convenient summary of certain canal charges~ Cargo Handling Costs C:argo handling costs include non only stevedore costs but also terminal 1u3se charges, receiving clerks and checkers, watchmen, dunnage, fire insurance and other miscellaneous expenses. This subject is already well covered in References 69, 74, 102 anrd 105 so w7ill be treak ed only in ou:tline form here. Regarding stevedore costs, Walton (74) found the following conditions in. INew York Hilarbor in 1959. The average gross loading rate for break-bulk general cargo was 18o.75 long tons per ganghour (19-man gang). The hourly cost to the shipowner for such a gang was $85 for straight time and $122 for overtime. Discharge rates were estimated to be 85 percent of the rate given above. For straight time work., then, Walton's average figures would come to $4.53 per long ton loading and $5~34 per long ton unloading. These total $9.87 per long ton in-and-out, The average foreign stevedoring cost was estimated to be only 53 percent of the above or $5~2.4 per long ton. in-and-out, assuming no overtime. These figures are from points-of-rest withirn terminals. In addition, Walton found that cleani:.ng, dunnage, marking and other miscellaneous costs added about $2.40 per long ton. in-and-out. This did not inc.lude terminal. u.se charges, however. MacMi..llan and West:fa.ll (69) (-concllude that cargo handling costs are actually higher than the foregoing figures from Reference 74. They show an average in-and-out figure of $12o20 per revenue ton- ($1.9.50 per long ton at 64 cubic feet per ton). This assumes a normal amount: of overtime and operation out of New ZYork and other East C'oast ports to ports abroad. T:t also includes miscellaneous costs other than terminal use charges. Redal (102), having studied operations in the Seattle area in 1961, concluded that average in-and-out costs per long ton were $7.63 from 8AM to 3PM, $10.15 from 3 to 5PM and $10.83 during eA revenue ton is usually a long ton or a measurement ton (40 cubic feet) whichever yields the higher figure. -118

nights, weekends, and holidays. The average loading rate was 12 long tons per gang hour; the average discharge rate, 15. These figures are from ship side to ship side and must be increased for additional handling into and out of the shed before comparing with figures given by Walton. Redal also found the following costs, in addition to stevedoring: Wharfage (terminal use): 80/ per short ton or measurement ton of 40 cubic feet, whichever yields the larger figure. This averages $1.02 per long ton of cargo at 51 cubic feet per ton. Double these costs for in-and-out. Cargo handling (from shipVs gear to first place of rest on the wharf): $2.46 per short ton or measurement ton. This averages $3.14 per long ton of general cargo at 51 cubic feet per ton. This charge is frequently handled directly by the stevedore, in which case it would be added to the figures previously given. Double these costs for in-and-out. Miscellaneous service charges (lighting, facility use charges, documentation, etc.): $2.99 per long ton of cargo in-and-out. All three of the foregoing references may be consulted for details of containerized cargo handling costs. See also References 7, 27, 36, 74, 76, 77, 79 and 114. The influence of hull design on cargo handling costs is discussed in References 20 and 34. Figure 36 indicates historic upward trends in the cost of longshore labor. In studies where cargo handling cost is of critical importance, mid-life projections would therefore be desirable. One fact worth noting, however, is that the Maritime Cargo Transportation Conference has had an encouraging beginning in its efforts to increase the productivity of longshore labor (75). In many ship economic studies cargo handling cost will be the same in all of the various alternatives, When such is the case it is best to omit such costs from the study since their magnitude tends to obscure the other cost factors. This practice is actually followed in some charter parties where the charterer deals directly with the stevedore and pays the shipowner only for transportation services. -119

Other Cargo Costs This category includes brokerage fees and cargo damage claims. Reference 69 uses 40 cents per revenue ton as an average value for cargo claims. Reference 74 uses 30 cents per long ton for breakbulk cargo, zero for containerized. Reference 102 uses $1.25 per long ton for break-bulk cargo, 25 cents for containerized. Brokerage fees are usually figured as a percentage of the revenue. This cost category is of little interest in engineering economy studies. The only instance where it would influence design decisions would be in a comparison between break-bulk and containerized cargo ships. Revenue and Economic Criteria Grossman's volume on ocean freight rates (48) offers direct proof that entire books can be written on this one subject. Normally the owner can give the naval architect estimated revenue per ton of cargo inbound or outbound. Other typical rates may be found in Reference 69. Where freight rates are unknown it is probably safe to assume that free market competition will bring them to such a level that the average foreign operator's after-tax profits will repay his investment at about ten percent interest over the life of the ship. Foreign operating costs vary widely. They can be estimated by deducing the subsidized U. S. owner's share of costs from Table XIX. Foreign building costs are discussed in Chapter VI. Foreign corporate profit taxes provide another complication. A brief study of typical maritime nations leads to the tentative conclusion that 40 percent of profits is an average tax burden among our foreign competitors. Reference 17 explains the principles involved in the various economic criteria which may be applied to ship design. The only additional complication worth mentioning is the certitude that there will always be ups and downs in the availability of general cargo. Thus, it would be advisable to predict the nature of future cargo availability and to find, by trial and error, the most economic size of ship. -120

CHAPTER IX SAMPLE STUDY Introduction Most of the foregoing presentations are in a logical sequence of development. They are totally out of order, however, for a person who wishes to use them for an operational analysis. The purpose of this sample study, then, is to demonstrate a sequence in which the curves and formulas may be used to convert a functional specification (speed, cargo, etc.) to a technical specification of a suitable ship. In addition, estimates are made of building costs and other pertinent characteristics. The sample ship is arbitrarily taken as one generally similar to the EXPORT AMBASSADOR (C3-S-38a design)> In most cases, the known value for the actual ship is placed in parentheses immediately following the estimated value. Overall agreement is shown to be fairly close although individual differences do, of course, exist. Draft, displacement, etc., refer to the design conditions in each case. Supplementary steps illustrating methods of analysis of operating requirements for fuel, water, etc., could have been presented. And further steps might also show how the operating costs could be estimated. However, these factors are relatively easy to dig out of the paper and therefore are not illustrated with an example. Statement of Problem An owner specifies the following functional requirements for a new ship: Cargo capacities: Dry cargo: 6100 tons with average stowage factor of 82.5 cubic feet per ton. -121

Reefer cargo: 240 tons with average stowage factor of 89 cubic feet per ton Liquid cargo: 1360 tons with average stowage factor of 39 cubic feet per ton (Stowage factors are before correction for broken stowage) Round trip distance: 15,000 nautical miles Nominal see speed: 18.5 knots Maximum permissible draft: 29.5 feet Passengers: 12 Other specifications are typical of modern U. S. design: steam turbine, single screw machinery located amidships, conventional cargo gear. Evaporators are fitted and there is a forecastle of 20 percent of the vessel's length. Solution 1. We first summarize the cargo weight and volume requirements as shown in Table XXI. TABLE XXI CARGO WEIGHTS AND VOLUMES FOR SAMPLE SHIP Item |Weight Cu. Ft. per Ton Vol. Factor EBC Cargo Stowed 1000 cu.ft. 100 cu.ft. Dry Cargo 6100 82.5 95 580 1.00 580 Reefer 240 89 100 24 1.21 29 Liquid 1360 39 39 53 0.90 48 Total 7700 6 57 657 | eIdentical values by coincidence only. -122

2. Figure 12 shows that our sample ship coincides almost exactly with the B-1 Series; therefore, interpolation will not be required in this particular example. 3. From Figure 10A we find, that for 7700 tons of cargo, 18.5 knots and 15,000-mile voyage, the required deadweight is 11,000 (vs 10,210). 4. Figure 9A shows a deadweight coefficient of 0.622. Thus, displacement would equal 11,000 + 0.622 = 17,700 (vs 16,810). 5. Figure 1 shows a length between perpendiculars of 485 feet (vs 470). The calculated value from Equation 4 is 485 feet, also. 6. Figure 2 shows a freeboard of 13.7 feet (vs 15.2). 7. Figure 3 gives a draft of 29 feet (vs 27). (If this were greater than the minimum allowable, it would be appropriate to use the minimum value and to make a corresponding increase in the beam determined in Step 9 below. And the freeboard, Step 6, should be decreased by the same percentage if cargo stowage factor is to be held the same.) 8. Summing Steps 6 and 7, we obtain a depth of 42.7 (vs 42.2). 9. Figure 4 indicates a beam of 71.5 feet (vs 73). 10. Figure 5 shows a block coefficient of 0.616 (vs 0.634). The calculated value is (35 x 17,700) ~ (485 x 71.5 x 29) = 0.616 also. 11. Figure 6 indicates a cubic number of 14,600 (vs 14,500). This is checked by the calculated figure of 14,800. In subsequent steps the cubic number will be takes as 14,800. 12. Length-depth ratio = 485 ~ 42.7 = 11.35 (vs 11.13). 13. Beam-draft ratio = 71.5 ~ 29 = 2.46 (vs 2.7). 14. Figure 19 shows a normal shaft horsepower requirement of 12,800 (vs 12,500). 15. Figure 11 A indicates an equivalent bale capacity of 37.3 cubic feet per ton of displacement. Thus, bale capacity = 37.3 x 17,700 = 660,000 cubic feet. This is probably close enough to -123

the required 657,000 cubic feet. The comparative actual ship has an equivalent bale capacity of about 650,000 cubic feet. 16. Figure 24 shows that the minimum freeboard requirement would be 10.3 feet. This compares with the designed value of 13.7 feet and indicates the appropriateness of a scantling draft design. 17. Figure 26 shows a steel weight coefficient of 0.2625. The net weight of steel would then be 0.2625 x 14,800 = 3885 long tons (vs 3830). 18. Figure 27 shows an outfitting weight of 1170 long tons (vs 1380). 19. Figure 28 shows a hull engineering weight of 600 long tons (vs 550). 20. Machinery weight, by Formula 29 would equal 247 12.8 or 885 long tons (vs 840). 21. Light ship would equal the sum of Steps 17 through 20, or 6540 long tons (vs 6600). 22. Deadweight would equal displacement minus light ship, or 11,160 (vs 10,210). This compares with the figure of 11,000 found in Step 3. 23. Figure 37 shows a crew of 52 or 53 men (vs 55). 24. The building cost may be estimated by reference to Figures 13 or 14. Figure 13 indicates a cost of $12,100,000. Figure 14 shows a unit cost of $830 per cubic number or $830 x 14,800 = $12,280,000. Table XXII summarizes the components of cost derived from Figures 29 through 32 with assumptions of $3 per hour wage rate, 70 percent overhead and 5 percent profit. Miscellaneous costs are included in each case. The total figure arrived at by this method is $11,851,000. Using an average factor from Table XI, the cost for each of two ships would be 0.933 x $11,851,000 = $11,060,000. This is in excellent agreement with the published contract cost of $11,000,000 for each of two ships of C3-S-38a design which was charged by an East Coast shipyard in 1958. The above cost estimates are further confirmed by Equation 38 which yields a prediction of $12,185,000 and Equation 39 which predicts a cost of $11,882,000, each for single ship contracts. -124

TABLE XXII SUMMARY OF COSTS FOR SAMPLE SHIP (All in thousands) Hull Item Steel Outfitting Hul Mach'y Total Engineering Mat'l $ 941 $1263 $1634 $2230 $ 6068 (MH) (380) (243) (244) (156) (10,230) Labor 1140 729 732 468 3069 70% Overhead 798 511 513 328 2150 Subtotal 2879 2503 2879 3026 11,287 5% Profit 144 125 144 151 564 Total $3023 $2628 $3023 $3177 $11,851 -125

CHAPTER X SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER WORK As stressed throughout this paper, much further research remains to be done. In order to keep the current project within reasonable size, several major and minor paths have been left largely or totally unexplored. As stated in the General Introduction, future studies shouldmethodicallyshift the restrictions imposed in the present endeavor. A number of the more important possibilities are listed below. 1. Length should be allowed to vary from the value imposed by Equation 4. 2. Curves of block coefficient vs speed-length ratio should be tried at locations above and below that shown in Figure 18. 3. The speed and horsepower relationship should be more carefully analyzed as was done in Reference 16. 4. Comparative economics of twin screw propulsion should be fully explored, especially for highepeed ships. 5. Diesels, gas turbines and other types of machinery should be studied relative to their impact on hull design and choice of optimum characteristics. 6. Simplification of steam turbine machinery deserves serious consideration. In particular, elimination of freshwater evaporators may prove desirable in many operations. 7. The impact of automated operation on optimum ship and machinery characteristics should be studied. 8. Most of the findings of this report would require modification before proper application to containership design. Several of the references (7, 46, 47, 69 and 114) -126

give helpful clues, but a definitive study would be valuable. Reference 114 is the most advanced in this direction. 9. The quantitative influence of sea state and other weather conditions on ship speed is still imperfectly understood. Once the researchers have solved that problem, its application to economic analysis will be welcome. See References 65, 66, 116 and 135. 10. Major trade route requirements should be analyzed with a view to determination of optimum ship characteristics and sensitivity to departures therefrom. Such information might be used in the development of a limited number of standard hulls and standard propulsion plants which could be used in various combinations leading to important economies in the U. S. maritime industry. 11. For any given trade route requirement, the optimum general cargo ship can be found only through analysis of hundreds of combinations of alternative proposals; the need for computer aid is therefore obvious. The conclusions of this report, plus future findings, should be programmed for computer and the flow diagrams made available to the industry. Steamship companies could then easily apply this powerful tool to their own individual needs and other researchers would be encouraged to carry out further useful investigations. This recommendation transcends all others. Most of the findings of this study are presented in equation.s well as graphic form so that translation into computer language should be fairly straightforward. Of course, anyone using this paper should make intelligent modification in the various inputs to suit the special conditions of his company or client. -127

APPENDIX I CHARACTERISTICS OF DEADWEIGHT AND BALE CAPACITY WITH VARIATIONS IN FREEBOARD This subsidiary study shows that changes in freeboard (as specified in the B-1& B-1o 8 Series relationship) cause changes in deadweight and bale capacity which have nearly straight line characteristics. Thus it is concluded that a good understanding of all the technical and economic characteristics, over the entire range of practical freeboards, can be established through analysis of but two related studies such as the B-1 and B-1.8 Series. This part of the investigation considers two families of hypothetical ships of widely differing displacements. The ships of the smaller family have displacements of 7000 long tons and horsepowers of 2000. The larger ones have displacements of 50,000 long tons and horsepowers of 30,000. In each case, freeboards are allowed to vary from 80 percent of normal (as defined by the B-1 Series) to 200 percent of normal. At each of several points along the way beam and draft are found as are deadweight and bale capacity. Length, displacement, block coefficient and horsepower are held constant for each family. Figure 41 summarizes these findings in non-dimensional form. In each case freeboard, deadweight and bale capacity are related to corresponding values for the B-l1 Series. The near-linear relationship is obvious. -128

VI CUL I I I l a ] [ -I I I I T-T I L I IT-1 I f I I T — A- w 3 An II I"I ILI I N.4it i f i l l Li I J I Li I 1 LI LLLLI HLI LL I -L Hill FT7-!

APPENDIX II SAMPLE USE OF FREEBOARD CURVES Figure 22 shows drafts allowed by minimum freeboard requirements (based on geometry of the ship) while Figure 23 shows corrections based on block coefficient and length of superstructure. Both figures are derived from Reference 129. The following examples illustrate the use of these two figures. The first example starts with a known depth and finds maximum allowable draft. The second starts with a known draft and finds minimum allowable depth. The rules (129) were written with the first sequence in mind so the figures are more easily understood when used in that mariner. However they are still valid for the second requirement. Problem 1: Given a cargo ship of the following characteristics, find the maximum allowable draft: LBP = 390 feet Depth = 30.5 feet CB = 0.711 Superstructure length = 0.494 LBP (Superstructure includes a detached bridge) Solution: feet Uncorrected draft, Figure 22............ 23.20 Superstructure correction, Figure 23.... + 1.75 CB correction, Figure 23................ - 0.20 Estimated freeboard draft............... 24.75 -130

Problem 2: Given a cargo ship of the following characteristics, find the minimum allowable depth: LBP = 390 feet Draft = 24.75 feet CB = 0.711 Superstructure length - 0.494 LBP (Superstructure includes detached bridge) Solution: feet CB correction, Figure 23............... - 0.20 Superstructure correction, Figure 23.... + 1.75 Total correction........................ + 1.55 (Since the corrections are to be applied to what is already a corrected draft, the sign must be reversed as shown below.) Draft.................... 0........ 0 24. 75 Total correction....................... - 1.55 Uncorrected draft for use in Figure 22.. 23.20 Depth, Figure 22.o o.................. 30.5 The above examples are taken from the detailed freeboard calculations shown in Reference 106. -131

APPENDIX III INFLUENCE OF FREEBOARD ON BEAM-DRAFT RATIO REQUIRED FOR CONSTANT STABILITY The B-1 Series establishes a family of ships of average proportions and hull form. Other related families (such as the B-1.8 Series) have, for corresponding designs, the same displacement, length and block coefficient. Freeboard however is changed and since this will affect the vertical center of gravity, it is important that beam and draft be adjusted as required to maintain stability. The influence of freeboard on beam and draft is analyzed here. Assume that our ship is equivalent to a homogeneously loaded rectangular barge as shown in section below with traditional identification of vertical centers (except that center of buoyancy is called b). Letters without subscripts refer to the B-1 Series. e -.. -,a. - W A K-132 -132

By observation Kb d [64] and KG D [65] From classical naval architecture I LB3 B2 V 12 LBd 12d and KM = Kb + bM [67] therefore 2 M -2 + 12d [68] The metacentric height (GM) is normally quite small in a loaded cargo ship. If we assume it is zero, then: GM = O [69] therefore KG = KM [70] Substituting Equations 65 and 68 into 70: D d B' 7 -7+ -12d D d + 6d [72 therefore 2 6D - = D - d 3] 6d but D-d=f [74] therefore 2 f 175] 6d or B2 =6df [76 -133

In our standard series, length, displacement and block coefficient remain unchanged as we vary freeboard. Therefore, the product of beam times draft must also remain unchanged. Or Bd = constant [77 If r is the ratio of any new freeboard to the original freeboard (in this case that of the B-1 Series) and if we identify new dimensions with the subscript r, then f r fr 8so fr = rf [79] and, based on Equation 77 Brdr - Bd [80] therefore Bd 81] dr Br while, from Equation 76 2 2 B 6df dr 8r2] so 2 dT B3 r [83 df drfr and 2 B [842 r df drfr Substituting Equations 79 and 81 into 84: 2 B2 Bd [853 Br df B r

or Br =B3r L86] therefore Br =B / 87] and d dr = [88] In the case of the B-lo8 Series B1 8 = B /Y-8 = B x 1.216 ~89] and _ d 1.8 3 90 1.216 -135

APPENDIX IV STOWAGE FACTORS Two stowage factors must be considered. One is a function of the density of the material and the wasted volume within its crate, box, barrel or whatever. The second accounts for the empty space between the outside of the crate and inside of the ship. The latter factor is influenced by the shape of crate; shape of ship; interference from webs, pillars, shaft tunnels, ladders and pipes; amount of dunnage; access aisles and so forth. Table XXIII, from Reference 133 provides estimates of the percentage of bale capacity which is lost to the second factor. As stressed in Reference 34, however, such lost space is not necessarily uneconomic if it allows quicker port turnaround. TABLE XXIII PERCENTAGE OF BALE CAPACITY LOST TO BROKEN STOWAGE IN AN AVERAGE GENERAL CARGO SHIP Type of Cargo Percent Miscellaneous Package Freight (average probably 15 percent) 10 - 25 Standard Package Freight: Bales 2 - 20 Sacks 0 - 12 Barrels 10 - 50 Hogshead 17 - 25 Cases 4 - 20 Carboys 10 - 22 Drums 8 - 25 Rolls 10 - 25 Pails 10 - 40 Coils 10 - 25 -136

Containerships have double broken stowage with another loss of about 15 percent between internal units and container. Table XXIV cites stowage factors for a number of typical commodities. These are for the material as packed for export shipment and before correction for broken stowage. Reference 133 appears to be the definitive work in this area (although somewhat dated) and should be consulted for further details. TABLE XXIV STOWAGE FACTORS FOR VARIOUS COMMODITIES AS PACKED FOR SHIPMENT Cubic Feet per Long Ton Commodity Packing Ref. 106 J Ref. 133 Ref.57 Apples Boxes 80 95 90 Autos Disassembled & crated 110 127-308 Autos Assembled & uncrated 270 303-406 Bananas Stems 1.22-130 90 Barbed Wire Rolls 55 Barley Bags 61 59 Beans Bags 60 52 Beef Frozen, packed 46 93 Beef Hung in quartersi 125 Butter Cases 60 60 70 Canned Goods Cases 48 50 Cement Bags 35 27 Cloth Goods Cases 70 87 (Cont'd.) -137

Cubic Feet per Long Ton Commodity Packing Ref. 106 Ref. 133 Ref. 57 Coal Loose, average 46 42-48 43 Coffee Bags 58 55-107 61 Cotton Bales, average 52 63-152 114 Dry Goods Boxes 100 182-283 Electric Motors Boxes 34-61 Electric Fans Cartons 100-247 Fish Barrels, iced 50 60 Fish Boxes 100 95 Flour Bags 48 52-69 47 Flour Barrels 73 65 60 Furniture Crated 156 156 Glassware,Assorted Crated 151 Grapefruit Boxes 70 62 Hardware Boxes 50 25-138 Hides Bales,compressed 80 86 Iron, Pig Neat stowage 10 10 10 Jute Bale 58 58 Lead, Pig Neat stowage 8 6-11 8 Machinery Crated 50 29-162 Meat Cold storage 95 90 Nails Kegs 17-51 21 Newspapers Bales 120 64-90 (Cont'd.) -138

Cubic Feet per Long Ton Commodity Packing Ref. 106 Ref. 13.3 Ref. 57 Newsprint Rolls 44-74 Nitrate Bags 26 35 32 Oil, Petroleum Barrels 50 Oil Drums 45 Optical Goods Boxes 78 Oranges Boxes 78 75 90 Oysters Barrels 60 61 60 Paint Cans 36 31-33 Paper Rolls 120 Potatoes Bags 60 55 55 Radios Cases 113-331 Railroad Rails Neat stowage 15 15 Refrigerators Cases 126-284 Rice Bags 58 50-65 48 Rope Coils 90 86 Rubber Bundles 140 Rum Hogsheads 70 77 70 Rum Casks 60 65 Salt Barrels 52 52 Shoes Boxes 116-268 Silk Bales 110 125 Soup Cartons 43-47 (Cont'd.) -139

Cubic Feet per Long Ton Commodity Packing Ref. 106 Ref. 133 Ref.T57 Steel Bolts Kegs 21 Steel Plates Loose 7 Steel Sheets Crated 36 15-21 Sugar Bags 47 51 56 Sugar Barrels 54 50 Tea Cases 100 109 54 Textile Machinery Crates or boxes 62-149 Timber Fir planks 65 65 Timber Oak planks 39 Tires, Auto Boxes 76-132 Wheat Bulk 47 47-49 Wheat Bags 52 42-53 52 Wool Bales, pressed 122-160 100 Reference 87 also contains valuable information on cargo stowage requirements.

APP END I X: (F\G. 42) D E.ADW\A E GHT DIST R BUT ON ONh TYPICAL'ROUN- WORLD SCHEDOLE ~j MINOR DEADWEIGHT ITEMS ARE NOT SHOWN. - B_5A.LLkAST SHOWN O ASSUMES HO(M OGE.NEOUSLY i z LOADeD CARC O. ~2 _ 2Md AMxINMuv DWT. 1J, 0ri IJ0 ui~~~~io 0 DESLGN CWT. 0 Z 4f %9..,' 2 z 4:, ~ma~~~~~ I z o FUP_ OIL_ 0 4 8 \% I 20 Z4 26 THOUSANDS OF N Ag TO CAL M ALe. S-111

REFERENCES Abbreviations INA: Institution of Naval Architects (now RINA) RINA: Royal Institution of Naval Architects SNAME: Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers 1i Adair, L. P., "What is the Correct Speed for Ships?" Marine Engineering / Log, Feb0 1960 20 Allen, W, G,, and Sullivan, E0 Ko, "Operation in Service of the Mariner-Type Ship", Trans. SNAME, Vol, 62, 1954 30 American Bureau of Shipping, Rules for Building and Classin Steel Vessels, 1962 4o American Merchant Marine Institute Research Department, Impact of Maritime Collective Bargaining on the Maritime Industry, May 1961 5. American - Standard, Economics of Nuclear and Conventional Merchant Shis, Report to the Maritime Administration Atomic Energy Commission, June 30, 1958 6 Andreson, Ho, "Economics of Diesel-Powered Tankers", Marine Engineering / Log, July 1959 7. Argyriadis, Doros A0, "Cargo Container Ships", Trans. INA, Vol0 101, 1959 80 Arnott, David, ed0, Design and Construction of Steel Merchant Ships, SNAME Publicatio0'n," -- 90 Atkinson, Paul E., Shipbuilding Costs as Seen by the Shi builder, Paper, SNAME N. Y. Metropolitan Sect0, March 1961

10.. Baker, George P. and Germane, Gayton E., Case Problems in Transortation Management, McCraw-Hill o BookCo,- 1957 110 Basingstoke, V. I, "Notes on Lubrication with Particular Reference to Problems Encountered in Ships of the Merchant Fleet", Proceedings of the Third International Congress of Lubricat E nineers, Karachi, July 1951 12. Bates, J. L., "Basic Design", Shipbuilding Cyclopedia, Simmons- Boardman Publ. Co., N -?. 1920 13. Bauman, H. Carl, Ratio Cost Engineerin, Paper, Annual Meeting American Assoc, of Cost Engineers, June 1958 14, Benford, Harry, "Economic Goals for Nuclear Ships", The Role of Nuclear Propulsion in Merchant Shipping, Atom'iFcs Industrial Forum, Inc,, 1960 15. Benford, Harry, "Engineering Economy in Tanker Design", Trans0 SNAME, Volo 65, 1957 16. Benford, Harry, "Ocean Ore Carrier Economics and Preliminary Design", Trans. SNAME, Vol. 66, 1958 17o Benford, Harry, Principles of Engineering Economy in Ship Design, unpublis he manuscript 18, Broad, R, Outfit Estimating Coefficients for Ships, Masters Thesis, University of Michigan, May 19 19o Bross, Steward R., Ocean Shipping, Cornell Maritime Press, 1956 20. Buck, P. Ba, Systems Research and Break-Bulk Cargo Ship Desi Paper, SNAME Gulf Section, April 9 210 Budd, W. Io H., and Praznik, 0., A Comparison of Recent High Pressure Marine Installations, SNAME, New England Section, Feb. 1948 22. Bustard, E. E,, "Preliminary Calculations In Ship Design", Trans. of the North-East Coast Institution of Engineers and Shipbuilders, Vol... 7,.94'0-194 -143

23, Casey, Ralph E,, "The Maritime Industry and Its Problems", U, S. Transportation- Resources, Performance and Problems, Natm"ional -cademy of Sciences - Natzonal Research Council, Publication 841-S, 1961 24~ Cheng, TH. M., and Dart, C. E., "Cycle and Economic Studies for a 25,000 - Maximum - SHP Steam Power Plant for Single - Screw Tanker Installation"', Trans. SNAME, Vol, 66, 1958 25. Committee of American Steamship Lines, Technical Committee, "How to Tailor Make a Ship", Marine Engineering / Log, Aug, 1956 26. Comstock, Tohn P., Introduction to Naval Architecture, Simmons - Eoardman Publshn Corporation 27, Cooley, Henry B., "Water Transportation Operation Analysis", Marine News, Oct, 1946 28. Corlett, E. CO B., "On Design of Economic Tramp Ships", Trans, INA, Vol, 989 1956 290 Corlett, E, Co Bo, "The Prospect for a Nuclear-Powered Dry Cargo Liner", Joint Panel on Nuclear Propulsion; Oct. 1959, reprinted in The Shipbuilder and Marine Engine-Builder, Annual InternatlYo en-a, -,l.. 30, Corlett, E. Co B. and Hawthorne, E. PO, "Nuclear Powered Liner Design", The Shipping World, Oct. 14, 1959 31. Davis, A. WO, "Trends in the Choice of Machinery for OceanGoing Merchant Vessels", Trans. Institute of Engineers and S hibui1ders.'in Scotland 19 32. Dickie, W. H,, "High-Powered Single Screw Cargo Liners", Trans, INA_ Volo 94, 1952 33, Diede, CG, "Entwurf von Linienrissen fur moderne Handelsschiff Schiff und Hafen, Feb. 1956 34. Dillon, Eo Scott,Ebel, Francis C,, and Goobeck, Andrew R., Ship Design for Improved Cargo Handling, Paper, SNAME Chesapeake Section, Oct. 1961

35, Dorman, W. J., and Henry, J. J., "A Naval Architect and Ship Operator Spotlight Ways to Cut Building Costs", Marine Engineerin g /Log, June 1961 36. Ebel, FP GC, "An Analysis of Shipboard Cranes", Trans. SNAME, Vol. 66, 1958 37, The Economic Almanac 1962, National Industrial Conference Boar and Newsweek 380 Elden, Rodney M., Ship Management: A Study In Definition And Measurement, Cornell Maritime Press, 1962 390 Erwe, Eric, "European Shipbuilding Methods", Marine, Engineerin / Lo Nov0 1961 40O Evans, J0 Harvey, "Basic Design Concepts", Journal A,S.N.E., Nov 1959 41 Farmer, Norman R,, "Trailership Construction Costs and Operating Characteristics", Recent Research in Maritime Transportation, National Academy of Sciences- Natioa Research Council, Publication 592, 1958 42. Ferguson, Allen Ro, et al0, The Economic Value of the United States Merchant Marine, TheTransportati Center at North"wes tern Universi ty,-r9 61 43o Gebbie, J0 Ramsey, "The Evolution of the Cargo Ship During the Last 35 Years, With Some Thoughts on the Years to Come", Trans0 INA, Vol0 100, 1958 44~ Gebbie, J0 Ramsey, "Fast or Less Fast Ships", Trans0 of the North-East Coast Institution of Engineers and ShibU 45, Giblon, Robert P0, and Stott, Chester W,, "Effect of Steam Conditions and Cycle Arrangement on Marine Power-Plant Performance as Determined by the Electronic Computer", Trans0 SNAME, Vol. 69, 1961 460 Goldman, Jerome L0, "Designed to Cut Cargo-Handling Costs", =3,eEnfer /Log, Jan. 1958 -145

470 Goldman, Jerome Lo, Ship Design for Partial Containerization, Paper, Cargo Handling Symposium, International Cargo Hardling Coordination Association, September 1960 48. Grossman, William L0, Ocean Freight Rates, Cornell Maritime Press, 1956 49, Hadler, Jo B., Stuntz, Go R., Jr., and Pien, P. Co,'Propulsion Experiments on Single-Screw Merchant Ship Forms - Series 60", Trans. SNAME, Vol. 62, 1954 50, Haldeman, Robert C0, Potential Effects of Sto Lawrence Sea yway on Costs of TransDortnG, U. So Department of Agriculture, Marketing Research Report No. 319, April 1959 51s Halley, Go B., "Machinery for Large Tankers", Trans. NorthEast Coast Inst0 of Engineers and Shipbuilders, Vol.7 6 52. Hauschildt, Maurice Ro, "Considerations Affecting the Design Endurances of Naval Ships", Trans. SNAME, Volo 65, 1957 530 Hay, William Wo, Introduction to Transportation Economics, John Wiley & Sons,-Inc0, 1961 54. Hoffmann, L, CO and Tangerini, Co C0, "Reducing Costs of American Ships", Trans. SNAME, Vol. 69, 1961 55, Hoctsen, A., "The Stork Engine", Trans~ of the North-East Coast Institution of Engineers and Shi bullders, Vol. 73, 56. House, Eo Co, and Wooden, B, J,, Numerical Methods and the Optimization Problem in Engineeri'n.'s ems[ —SNA New England Section, May 1 059 570 Hughes, Charles Ho, Handbook of Ship Calculations, Construction and Operation, McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1942 580 Ireland, Mark L,, Jro, "Economic Features of Low-Pressure Evaporating and Distilling Plants for Merchant Ships", Trans, SNAME, Vol0 53, 1945 590 Johansen, Helge, "The Factors Involved in a Comparison Between Direct-Driven Diesel Installations and Geared Steam Turbine Installations", Internatonal_ Shipbulding Po.ress. Vol. 2% Oc+ther _955, -146

60. Kari, Alexander, Design andCost Estimating of All Types of Merchant and Passenger Ships, The Technical Press Ltdo,$ 19'48 61, Kassell, Bernard M., "Marine Engineering Notes From the Soviet Press", A.S.N.E. Journal, May 1959 620 Kendall, Lane C0, "Experience and Judgment are Basic for Good Steamship Schedule", Marine Engineering / Log, April 1956 63. Kurfehs, George L,, "The Cost of Ships - USA vs Foreign", Marine Enineering / Log, April 1960 64, Lachowski, Michael M,, "Notes on Preliminary Ship Design", Marine Engineering and Shipping Review, March 1947 65. Lewis, E. V., "Increasing the Sea Speed of Merchant Ships", Trans. SNAME, Vol, 67, 1959 660 Lewis, E. V., "Optimum Fullness for Deadweight Cargo Ships in Moderate-Weather Service", SNAME Journal of Shi Research, Vol. 1, No. 3, Nov. 1957 67o Long, C. L., Stevens, J. L. Jr,, and Tompkins, Jo To, Jr., "Modern High-Speed Tankers", Trans. SNAME, Vol. 68, 1960 680 MacMillan, Douglas C,, "Basic Details of First Nuclear Ship", Marine Engineering / Log, Oct. 1957 69, MacMillan, Douglas C., and Westfall, T. B., "Competitive General Cargo Ships", Trans-. SNAME, Vol. 68, 1960 700 MacTier, R. Stewart, "Future Development of Merchant Ships", The Shipping World, April 6, 1960 71o Manning, George C., The Theory and Technique of Ship Design, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1956 72 Marine Engineering / Log. Recent issues containing descriptions of the new Maritime Administration ships -147

73. Maritime Cargo Transportation Conference, Cargo Ship Loading, National Academy of Sciences - Natonal Research Council, Publication 474, 1957 74, Maritime Cargo Transportation Conference, Maritime Trans portation of Unitized Cargo, Nationalc A-;emy of Sc-i ences - Natlonal Research Council, Publication 745, 1959 75, Maritime Cargo Transportation Conference, Minutes of the Joint Meeting - Port Study Committee and the Advisory Committees, San Franclsco Port Study Pro ect, 76. Maritime Cargo Transportation Conference, The NEAC Study - A Comparison of Conventional versus Un" tized Carrgo Systems, nationa *-'cca emy o - Sciences N- t-ational Research Cncil, Publication 389, 1956 770 Maritime Cargo Transportation Conference, The S.S. WarriorAn Analysis of an Export Transportation SysTei.om Shlpper to Consgn ee, NationaAcademy o Sclences Natlonal Research Council, Publication 339, Nov. 30, 1954 78. Maritime Research Advisory Committee, Proposed Program for Maritime Administration Research, Natf6n Aadt my of Seiences National Research Council, 1960 79, McDougall, John and Mallett, Daniel T., "Comparative Ship Types for Handling General Cargo", Trans. SNAME, Vol. 63, 1955 80. McDowell, Carl E,, and Gibbs, Helen M.,Ocean Transportation, McGraw-Hill Book Co, 1954 81. McMullen, J. J., "Designs for Our New Fleet", The Log, August 31, 1955, Vol. 50, No, 9 82, McMullen, John J., Future of the Diesel Engine in the American Merchant Marne, Paper, Diesel Engine Manucturers ssoc iaati on,,'~'April 1955 83, McMullen, JO J., "The Gas-Turbine Installation in Liberty Ship John Sergeant", Trans. SNAME, Volt 63 1955,.. ~ ~48

840 Minorcky, Vo, "A Nomograph for the Preliminary Powering of Merchant Ships", International Shiplbu[~ding _PProgress, Volo 2, No0 9, 1955 85. Moor, D. I., Parker, M. N., and Pattullo, RP N, M., "The BS oRA Methodical Series - An Overall Presentation", Trans, RINA, Vol, 103, 1961 86~ Moor, D. I. and Small, V. F., "The Effective Horsepower of Single=Screw Ships", Trans. INA, Vol, 102, 1960 87. Munroe, H. F.,o Cargoliners for Multi-Port Extended Trade Routes, Paper, SNAME, Northern California Secton, April 88, Munro"Smith, R,, "Merchant Ship Design", Shipbuilding and Shipping Record, May 29, 1947 890 Munro"Smith, R,, "Ship DesignsPreliminary Determination of the Dimensions and Other Technical Character..stics", The Shipbuilder and Marine Engine-Builder, October, 1956, 90. Murray, JT M,, "Merchant Ships, 1860-1960", Trans. INA, Vol. 102, 1960 91. Murray, JO M., "Size and Speed of Cargo Ships", The Sh pingWorld, May 25, 1960 92o National Academy of Sciences - National Research Council, Selected Statistics on the Transportation System of the U.SA;,, 1960 93. National Academy of Sciences - National Research Council, Transportation Design Considerations, Publication 841, 1961 94o National Academy of Sciences - National Research Council, UO SO TransDortation Resources Performance and Problems, Pub: catTon 81S, 1966 95. Newell, Robert Y,, Jr., and Chwirut, Theodore J., Service Experience with the Marad Liberty Shi p Moderni.zatioRn Program Invo vng Four Different Proul sion Systems, on, April 959

96. Norden Division, United Aircraft Corporation, Merchant Ship Automation Study, Report to Maritime Administration, 97. Panel 0-29 of SNAME Ship Technical Operations Committee, "Ship Maintenance and Repair", Trans. SNAME, Vol, 67, 1959 980 Parkinson, J. Ro, The Economics of Shipbui ld"ing in the United Kingdom, Cambridge University Press, 1960 990 Pennypacker, J. A., "Cost of Cargo Ships", Marine Engineeri and Shin Age, Oct. 1931 100 Powell, S. C,, "Estimation of Machinery Weights", Trans. SNAME, Vol. 66, 1958 101, Rawlins, Edward B., et al., "The Burning of Bunker Oils in American Diesels", Trans, SNAME, Vol. 59, 1951 102. Redal, Torleif T., Containerized Cargo for Coastwise Traffic, Paper, SNAME Pacific Northwest Section, Marcn 103. "Replacement Program of Subsidized Operators Features Specialized Designs", MarineEngineeing Log, July 1961 104. Ridgely- Nevitt, C., "Development of Graphic Aids to Preliminary Design", Journal American Society of Naval Engineers, Vol. 62, No. 6, May 1950 105, Rohn, Arthur C., "Cargo Handling and Its Relationship to Overseas Commerce", Trans, SNAME, Vol. 53, 1945 106, Rossell, Henry E,, and Chapman, Lawrence B., eds,, Principles of Naval Architecture, SNAME Publication, 107. Russo, Vito Lo, and Sullivan, E. Kemper, "Design of the Mariner-Type Ship", Trans. SNAME, Vol. 61, 1953 108, Sauerbier, Charles L., Marine Cargo Operations,,John Wiley g Sons, 1956 -i~o

109, Saunders, Harold E,, Hydrodynamics In Ship Design, SNAME Publication, 1957 110o Sawyer, Myron R., A Study of the Economic Life of a Shp, Master's Thesis, MIT, September 1960 111 Sawyer, W. T., "The Marine Gas-Turbine Plant in 1951", Trans. SNAME, Vol. 59, 1951 112, Schaeffner, CO Richard, "Cargo Ship Schuyler Otis Bland Goes Into'Round-the-World Service", Marine Eineering and Shipping Review, Septo 1951 1130 Schokker, Jo CO Arkenbout, et al., The Design of Merchant Shis, De Technische Uitgeverij 1953 1140 Scott, Robert J., Containership Design, Paper, SNAME Great Lakes and Great Rivers Section, January 1962 1150 Seward, Herbert Lee, ed., Marine Engineering, SNAME Publication, 1942 1160 Sibul, 0. Jo,, Ship Resistance & Motions in Uniform Waves as a Function o- oc oCffic-ient, University of Calitornia Inst. of Eng. Research Report To Bureau of Ships, June 1961 117o Simpson, R, T,, "Economics of Steam vs Diesel Tanker", Marine Engineering / Log, Oct. 1959 118, Somes, Ao D., "Forecasts Higher Steam Conditions", Maritime Reporter, May 1, 1960 119, Sullivan, E YX., and Scarborough, WO G., "Machinery Design of the SS. Schuyler Otis Bland", Trans. SNAME, Vol. 60, 1952 120o Svikis, Edgar, "Some Operating Conditions Affecting the Design of Merchant Ships", Marine News, August 1948 121. "Symposium on Advanced Machinery Installatiors Designed for the Maximum Saving in Weight and Space", Trans. INA, Vol. 97, 1955 122o Tanaka, Yoshltane, Recent Japanese Developments in Large Diesels for Ship..PropUSion, SN'AME- Gulf. SectionApril 1958 -151

1230 Telfer, Eo V,'"The Structural Weight Similarity of Ships", Trans. North-East Coast Inst. of Engineers Shi ilders, Vol 72, 1955-56 124. Thweites, R, M0, "The Economics of Ship Time", Trans. North-East Coast Inst, of Engineers & Shipbuilders, Vol, 75, 1958-59 125. Todd, F, H0, "Some Further Experiments on Single-Screw Merchant Ship Forms - Series 60", Trans0 SNAME, Vol. 61, 1953 126, Todd, F. H,, Stuntz, Go R., and Pien, P. C., "Series 60 The Effect Upon Resistance & Power of Variation in Ship Proportions", Trans. SNAME, Vol0 65, 1957 127. Troost, Laurens, "A Simplified Method for Preliminary Powering of Single Screw Merchant Ships"', Trans. SNAME, Vol. 65, 1957 128. U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, The Earnings and Employment of Seamen on U.S. Flag Ships, U, S. Department of Labor Bulletin No 1238, November 1958 129, U, S. Coast Guard, Load Line Regulations, 1958 130. U, SO Department of Agriculture, Potential Effects of St. Lawrence Seaway on Costs of Trans p _rting-Grain, Ma-rketln-i Research Report No0 319 131. U. SO Department of Commerce, Annual Report of the Federal Maritime Board and Maritime AdmiAnistra~t To: n i —96T0. 132. U. SO Department of Commerce, Maritime Administration, Office of Ship Statistics, Chronology of Wage and Fringe Benefit Cost Increases - Class B Cargo_ Ship., 1947-196, November 1961 133, U. SO Department of Commerce, Modern Shp Stowage,42, U, S. Gov'to Printing Office 1340 U. S. Gov't. Printing Office, The Merchant Marine Act, 1936, 1957 135. Van Mater, Paul, et alo, Hydrodynamics of High Speed Ships, Stevens Institute of Technology ReportMaritime Administration, October 1961 -152

1360 Vincent, Sydney Ao, "The Economics of Future EuropeanGreat Lakes Freighter Service", Trans. SNAME, Vol. 64, 1956 137o Vincent, Sydney A., "Merchant Vessel Lines, Marine Engineering, March 1930 138. Vlahavas, G, N,, "Economic Speed Considerations", The Motor Ship, April 1960 139, Walsh, Michael W., A. Seafarer Looks at Ship Desigri, Paper, SNAME Chesapeake Section, December 140. Watson, John F., "Basic Design", Chapter IIA in Design & Construction of Steel Merchant Ships by Arnott, et al,, SNAME$ 1955 141, Watts, E. H., "A New Cargo Liner Design", Trans. INA, Vol. 93, 1951 142, White, A. 0,, and Smith, W. C,, Jr, An Analysis of Steam Propulsion Plants for Minimum Weight, Paper, SNAME Phila, Section, Nov. 1956 143, Whiting, W. R. G., "A Preliminary Design Chart", Shipbuilding _ S hipping Record, Dec. 26, 1935 1440, Williams, Ernest W,, Jr0, [ederal Trans~portation Poli and Program, U. S. Department of Commerce, March 1960 145, Wright, W. T., "Slow Down the Port and You Slow Down Main Street", World Ports, January 1952 -153

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN 3 901111111111 1150231111188311111 3 9015 02223 1883