PIPPIECPshouwlunde
Technische
HogeschodliR.
GEORGE LUEDEICE, JR. & MR. ROBERT B. FARNHAM
RCHIEF
GOIVIMERCIAL APPLICATIONS OF
ADVANCED MARINE VEHICLES
FOR EXPRESS SHIPPING
THE AUTHORSGeorge Luedeke, Jr., received his BS degree in Mechanical Engineering from Massachusetts Institute of Technology and his MS degree in Product Design from Illinois Institute of Technology. Early in his career, Mr. Luedeke joined General Motors Corporation as a designer responsible for develop-ment of people Mover and rail rapid transit systems. From 1964 to 1974, he was with Hughes Aircraft Company. At Hughes, he performed analyses and developed designs for a wide variety of program and proposal efforts, such as: High Speed Ground Transportation (DOT), Task Force Command Center (NAVY), Panama Canal Marine Traffic Control ter (Panama Canal Co.), Royal Iranian Navy Command Cen-ter (Iran), Tactical Information Processing and InCen-terpretation Center (Air Force), and WALLEYE, CONDOR and PHOE-NIX Missile Systems (NAVY). He also had marketing devel-opment responsibilities related to the diversification of Hughes resources in civil business areas, such as: Automatic train control (WMATA, BARTD, SCRTD), water/sewage treatment plant automation (Santa Clara County), Aqueduct Control (SWR), Hydrometeorological data collection (BPA, WMO), and Salton Sea basin systems analysis (Dept. of the Interior). He was responsible for combat system integration for the Hughes 2000T Surface Effect Ship (SES) proposal. He also conducted detailed studies concerning ship flexure for the Improved Point Defense Target Acquisition System Program and for the definition of operational High Energy Laser weap-on installatiweap-ons weap-on a series of cweap-onventiweap-onal mweap-onohulls (DLG, DD and CVN). Since 1974, Mr. Luedeke has been employed at RMI, Inc. (formerly Rohr Marine, Inc.). During this time, he has held several positions. His responsibilities have included directing a number of studies on advanced SES concepts, managing activities defining mission/cost effectiveness of mil-itary and commercial SES's including defining the operational benefits and enhanced survivability characteristics of cargo SES's for high speed military sealift for NATO and Southeast Asia; and analyzing operational capabilities of SES warships enhanced by large organic aircraft detachments VSTOL,
VTOL and CTOL. Presently, Mr. Luedeke directs program development activities at RMI that encompass SES's, ACV's, and SWATH craft. He is also directing design and construc-tion activities on a 50T SWATH craft for commercial and law enforcement applications. He has published numerous papers concerning advanced marine vehicle capabilities and is a mem-ber of ASME, SHAME, and ASNE.
Robert B. Farnham received a BSME degree in Mechanical Engineering from the University of Buffalo and studied The-ory of Plates and Shells at the University of California. Mr. Farnham was employed at Frederic Flader as Assistant De-partment Head in Applied Mechanics developing techniques for designing aircraft gas turbines. Mr. Farnham also worked for three years at Joy Manufacturing Co. as Chief of Techni-cal Design for five special application air compressors. While
employed for 13 years at Aerojet General Corp., Mr. Farn-ham worked as a specialist on advanced turbine and high pres-sure systems designs, designed the SES-100A lift system, su-pervised the rocket turbine design and the development of a method to determine solid propellant mechanical properties and as Group Leader, he approved Polaris structural designs. For three years, Mr. Farnham was employed at General Elec-tric working on special studies for application of the LM2500 gas turbines on NAVY ships. He prepared rotating elements for an LM3500 engine proposal and resolved special manufac-turing and quality assurance problems for CF6-6 and CF6-50 engine low pressure turbine. Mr. Farnham has spent the last 8 years at RMI, Inc. as Project Manager for subcontracts on 3KSE'S propulsion machinery and also Project Leader for design and evaluation of supercharged LM2500 gas turbine systems. He is currently involved in advanced ship machinery selection, ship performance and economic studies. The eco-nomic studies involve ship initial costs, operational and main-tenance costs, and revenue capabilities versus cash flow re-quirements to ascertain operational feasibility for various high performance ship types operating in domestic and internation-al waters. Mr. Farnham has published papers on strain distri-bution in solid propellants and reversing turbine systems, as well as patent disclosures on reversing turbine and .super-charged turbine systems.
ABSTRACT
This paper will present the results of a marketing, engineer-ing, and economic analysis of advanced marine vehides done by IMA Resources, Inc. and RM1, Inc., in support of a Mari-time Administration project to study "Multimode Express Shipping". The study was conducted in 1981 and examined
the economic benefits of using advanced marine vehicles as ex-press cargo vessels in domestic and international service. Com-modity characteristics, desirable express carrier rates, and po-tential high payoff service and route alternatives were identi-fied. Advanced marine vehicles were surveyed and sized to meet desirable deadweight and block speed objectives. The costs of operating these craft on a variety of trade routes were calculated using an advanced marine vehicle economic analy-sis program. Revenues, expenses, break-even, profit and loss, cash flow requirements, tax summary and economic indicators (i.e., cost/ton mile, etc.) were projected over the expected life of the vehicles as was return on investment. Traffic density and market penetration considerations narrowed the field of choice to smaller sized advanced marine vehicle carriers (i.e., 50 and 250 ton deadweight) and to three international and five domestic routes.
INTRODUCTION
THE
MAJOR MARKET FOR ANY COMMERCIAL SHIP, WHETHER conventional or advanced, is in cargo movement. Over the past decades, however, high speed ship technologyMARINE VEHICLES FOR EXPRESS SHIPPING
development in the United States has been devoted al-most exclusively to fulfilling military requirements with operational capabilities yet to be realized. Foreign com-mercial exploitation of advanced marine vehicles has been more aggressive although largely devoted to ferry service passenger and auto. Until now, express cargo shipping potentials have received the least attention of either foreign or domestic interests, public or private.
In 1980, the Office of Maritime Technology at the
Maritime Administration solicited a study that would quantify the benefits that could be expected to be de-rived from the use of advanced marine vehicles for line haul express cargo shipping. Specifically, the study was
to address," . . . multhnode operations in which an
ex-press shipping system can be operated in a low speed,
high economy commercial mode and then converted
rapidly to a high speed military or emergency mode". In
addition the study was to, " . . . look for valid com-mercial cargo applications where high speeds are eco-nomical in comparison to air freight or services not oth-erwise available by any means." [1] In essence the study was conceived to be a two part inquiry one address-ing rapid deployment force needs for very fast, high ca-pacity sealift and the other concerning the exploitation of express shipping as a commercially practical U.S. maritime development for both domestic and
interna-tional trades. The study is a key part of the Maritime
Administration's Advanced Ship Systems Program. The study was awarded to IMA Resources Inc. of Washing-ton, D.C. As prime contractor, IMA provided expertise
for commodity identification, trade route definition,
and express shipping market penetration analyses. RMI,
Inc. supported IMA, providing capabilities for
ad-vanced marine vehicle technology assessment, ship para-metric sizing, performance analyses and ship economics evaluation. The findings were published in a January
1982 report, "A Study of Multimode Express Ship-ping." This paper summarizes the major findings of
that report and highlights the specialized contributions made by both IMA and RMI.
STUDY APPROACH
A key step in the approach taken in conducting the study was to define desirable craft operating character-istics such as cargo deadweight, route length and block speed at the outset. Express shipping market penetra-tion analysis was to be used to drive advanced marine vehicle sizing and economic evaluation rather than the other way around. In the past, where a few studies have attempted to define commercial potentials for advanced marine vehicles, they have typically been based on spe-cific craft designs (as built or as conceived on the draw-ing board) that in many instances were initially optim-ized to satisfy either military or law enforcement and, hence, non-commercial roles. By defining high speed cargo ship requirements apart from advanced marine vehicle technology considerations, study findings would neither be unduly biased toward any specific vehicle type nor be affected by artificial vehicle limitations that could compromise express shipping market penetration 284 5.,
-
LLIEDEKE/FARNHANI 4 '"
"I.et 1.4etir
.objectives. Thus, the study, eyolyed along the following lines:
Five domestic and three international routes for very high speed express shipping markets were identified based on an indepth commodity flow and trade analy-sis.
Desirable advanced marine vehicle characteristics were defined to satisfy market penetration considera-tions initially with large payload ( > 1000 LT) and high speed (>40 knot), and finally for small payload (>501>250 LT) and high speed (>40 knot)
objec-tives.
Available advanced marine vehicle designs were sur-veyed and parametric analyses performed (using Froude scaling techniques) to size craft to satisfy de-sired operational criteria.
An economic analysis was conducted for each ad-vanced marine vehicle specified operating over the identified trade routes, noting their profitability or unsuitability for the applications.
MARKET POTENTIAL
The typically higher costs of building and operating high performance and hence high speed ships presumes carriage of three general types of cargoes:
Commodities of high unit value representing poten-tially high carrying costs.
Perishable commodities which could be totally lost on slower modes.
Seasonal or special cargoes where fast delivery results in a larger saving than represented by the added cost of transport.
TABLE 1. Representative Express Delivery Commodity Types Carries in U.S. Trade (1979) (Expressed as a Percentage of Total Traffic) EXPORTS Commodity Live Cattle Live Poultry Eggs in Shell Industrial Diamonds Ores, Concentrates of Precious Metals Natural Fabrics Flatware, Cutlery Jet Engines Typesetting Machines Special Machinery Telephone/Telegraph
Air Commodity Air
43 Tree Plants 55 76 Nursery Stock 33 49 Antibiotics 88 76 Glycocides, Vaccine 95 Medicinal Products 45 56 Pharmaceuticals 68 25 Tools 25 32 Semi-Manufacturers-Metal 34 69 Engine Parts 62 68 Printing Machines 54 44 Radio Transmit/Receive 80 60 TV, Radio Parts 62 IMPORTS
Fur Skins 88 Plants for Drugs
Nursery Stock 25 Seeds
Flowers, Buds 77 Specified Benzoids
Drugs, NSPF 45 Vitamins
Perfumes/Flavors 44 Leather
Precious/Semi-Precious Silver, Unworked
Stones 63 Calculating Machines
Parts Combustion Engines 24 Wire Current Carrying
ADP Parts 69 Rain Garments
Dresses 74 Electrical Instruments
Footwear 23
Source: US. Department of Commerce
Imports: ff 150. Exports: ff 450. For the year 1979. 39 24 38 51 83 as 29 50 42 64
PIIIIIIIIIIIIIIw-
LUEDE10E/FARNHAM!Is
DOMESTIC TRADE INTERNATIONAL TRADEFigure 1. Selected Opportunities for Express Shipping Trade Domestic and International.
Each of these may represent potential markets for ex-press ship service competitive with other modes such as air cargo and trucking. TABLE 1 shows (as a percentage of total traffic and by commodity) the already high pro-portions of air shipments in U.S. trade in 1979. Where volumes are high, these same commodities are likely to be handled by express shipping.
High performance also implies that the advanced ma-rine vehicles must have bigger power plants than used in conirentional ships of similar size. Their fuel fractions would necessarily be larger to transit between ports. If
cargo deadweight capabilities are to be kept high, as
part of total ship variable load, then initial market
pene-trations for express shipping would likely be made
where route lengths are short. Ideal route length for
ex-MARINE VEHICLES FOR EXPRESS SHIPPING
TABLE 2. Coalman Area Countries Trading with the U.S. in Commodities Showing High Use of Air Freight
Bahamas Barbados Belize Bermuda Cayman Islands Colombia Costa Rica Dominican Republic French West Indies Guatemala Guyana Haiti Honduras Jamaica Leeward/Windwards Mexico Netherlands Antilles Nicaragua Panama
Trinidad & Tobago Venezuela
press shipping was determined to be 1000 nautical miles or less to make same day, overnight, or two-day service possible. The longer haul trans-Atlantic and trans-Pa-cific routes were not considered. In fact, literature on the subject of commercial long haul express shipping
potentials developed during the 1950's and 1960's
showed no advantage for high speed ships vis-a-vis air freight, supporting this finding of our study.
Higher use of expensive advanced marine vehicles for express shipping would be more attractive for trade routes with high backhaul needs.
The capability of many advanced marine vehicles for beaching or amphibious operations (possibly eliminat-ing land conventional port facilities or overland move-ment) may provide a competitive advantage. Those
op-erational areas where inland transport networks and
ports are least developed might also be candidates for some kinds of high speed shipping. It is these kinds of express shipping commodity and route characteristics
that were evaluated to determine advantages of
ad-vanced marine vehicles to capturing a share of existing cargo markets. Both international and domestic mar-kets were selected with these in mind. Figure 1 shows the routes selected for study.
The Caribbean region has a large express shipping po-tential. It satisfies most of the criteria for express ship-ping market penetration. All U.S. ports on the Gulf of Mexico and on the East Coast as far north as Cape Hat-teras can be included as part of a range of a large
por-tion of the already large Caribbean shipping market.
Trade balances in the Caribbean are influenced by two broad situations:
Source: U.S. Dept of Commerce, FT450, FT'I50, 1979.
TABLE 3. Air Cargo Shipments With Major U.S. Trade Partners.
IMPORTS EXPORTS
AIRS Alit
TOTAL AIR VALUE AIR WEIGHT TONNAGE TOTAL AIR VALUE AIR WEIGHT TONNAGE
VALUE (000 lb) RANK VALUE (000 lb) RANK
Colombia 180,622 150,613 68,483 1 234,702 140,652 22,545 3 Dominican Republic 91,037 6.4.531 12,171 2 95.044 60,720 15,228 4 Haiti 83,749 82,828 10,819 3 71,719 40,425 9,488 6 HondUres 28,314 11,837 3,911 7 38,253 21,317 3,693 11 Jamaica 13,914 11,477 2,512 8 -28,128 11,062 6,334 7 Mexico 1,317,276 255.481 8,205 4 2,833,734 358,998 29,301 2 Griatemala 10,230 8,277 7,284 5 58,797 18,919 3,130 13 Costa Rica 41,384 38,812 6,990 a 65,712 38,192 5,388 9 Venezuela 8,315 8,160 365 14 851,892 387,086 29,254 . 1 TrinidadaTobago 2,163 1,880 339 13 103,766 33,893 - 9,552 5 TOTALS: 1,754,984 809,878 121,039 4,184,547 1,111,244 144,589 TOTALS FOR REGION: 1,829,501 677,544 125,992 4,675,032 1,245,307 167,805
Air and ship movements to and from the region are primarily with the United States to major load cen-ters.
Trans-shipment trades generally distribute cargoes generated outside the Caribbean to countries within the region, as well as carrying a small amount of intra regional traffic.
The application of fast ships to complement or
re-place existing sea service would, of course, be dependent to some degree on the development of a comprehensive regional transport network for the area involving simi-lar concepts of load centers and feeder services. High
speed ships that are more economic over longer
dis-tances could handle trades between U.S. ports and vari-ous load centers. Other types of high speed ships could handle feeder routes depending on specific ship charac-teristics that would have advantage in terms of existing port conditions, shipper locations, or other local condi-tions. In many instances, limited demand growth would not justify building or expanding of new port facilities; hence, the value of using high speed, relatively limited capacity ships which do not require elaborate port infra-structures.
Using this kind of approach, the inherent advantages of high speed ship candidates could be evaluated against requirements for both long and short distance routes, resulting from this type of transportation network.
This argument can be extended to the air transporta-tion situatransporta-tion in the region. Presently, smaller islands lack air terminal facilities to service a growing tourist and cargo trade. Aircraft capability in cargo capacity and economy on these routes are deemed inadequate by many users. To fully exploit the growing passenger and cargo trades in these smaller markets with usual modes, substantial new investments must be made in both ter-minals and air carriers. Considerably less investment may be required for high speed ships. TABLES 2 and 3 show examples of the already considerable investments in air cargo operations in the area. Fast ship routes were
defined between New Orleans, Houston, and Miami
and major ports or coastal areas in Colombia, Mexico, and the Dominican Republic. The routes were selected using the following criteria:
They connect large, existing markets in which high-value, time-sensitive cargo movement is prevalent. They qualify as load centers for trans-shipment
car-goes.
They are served by ship as well as cargo carriers, thereby allowing a realistic comparison of fast ship service versus existing services.
They allow for analyses of fast ship's performance over a number of discrete route lengths; in this in-stance, over approximately 700, 900 and 1500 nauti-cal miles.
TABLE 4 summarizes the operating characteristics that candidate high speed ships must have to be competitive. It shows that for a typical candidate vessel's minimum
40 knot speed, its carrying capacity should be large
enough to generate a service frequency of 100 to 195
round trips per year. This could equate to a cargo
throughput that would place express shipping in the
middle of the spectrum between air and existing ship
services. The candidate vessels would be at least two
times as fast as ships presently in service 40 knots ver-sus an average of 20 for other types of ships. The candi-date vessels would also carry over twice as much cargo as a wide-bodied jet on a per trip basis.
In order to better assess service and cost factors for candidate vessels, three potential domestic trades were also analyzed. Each trade entailed unique geographical, trade and transportation requirements. They are a mi-crocosm of the problems as well as the potential of do-mestic waterborne trade in the United States today.
The trades selected are as follows:
Lake Michigan Three ports, Chicago, Milwaukee and Muskegon, and their respective hinterlands cov-ering parts of Illinois, Wisconsin, and Michigan were examined to determine the feasibility of introducing a high-speed, year round, waterborne cargo service in TABLE 4. International _Trade Express Shipping Requirements.
_ . .
OPERATING PERFORMANCE NET CARGO CAPACITYa COMPARATIVE REVENU'
TRADE ROUTE
1,
umar TIME - p-oRTINE R. TRIP/TIMETOTAL _R.TRIPS/YEAR2 PER TRIP ROUND TRIP YEARS Ali RATE SHIP BATE
New Orleans -Barranquilla 1,458 nautical miles 37 hrs. 10 hrs. 04 hrs. 100 448,000 lb.. 896,003 lbs. 09,600 thousand lb.. 45./lb. 10.3`/Ib. Moult= - Campeche 660 nautical miles 16.5 hrs. 10 hrs. 13 km. 195 174,720 thousandlb.. 33c/lb. 8.46V1b.
Miami - Santo Domingo 935 nautical miles
23.2 hrs. 10 km. 56.5 hrs. 148 132,608
thousand lb,.
28°/lb. 11.53`/Ib.
,
(time is for one direction). year.
lbs. gross weight.
Source: I MA Resources, Inc.
Notes: (1) Speed =40 knots. UANay means underway
(2) Assumes 350 days of operation per (3) 10 - 40 ft. trailers - Each trailer= 57,250
TABLE 5. Lake Michigan Express Shipping -Requirements.
Source: 1MA Resources, Inc.
Notes: (1) Average speed = 40 knots. Uhvey means underway (time is for one direction). Assumes 350 days of operation per year. Total underway hours = 3,000/year. 4-20 ft. containers. Each container = 28,800 lbs. gross weight.
TICINT = Dollars per hundredweight.
TABLE 6. Hudson River Express, Shipping Requirement.
Source IMA Resources, Inc.
Notes: (1) Average speed = 40 knots. U/way means underway (time is for one direction). Assumes 350 days of operation per year. Total underway hours = 3,000/year. 4-20 ft. containers. Each container = 28,800 lbs. gross Weight.
TABLE 7. Miami-San Juan Express Shipping Requirement.
Source. I MA Resources, Inc.
Notes: (1) Average speed = 40 knots. U/way means underway (time is for one direction). Assumes 350 days of operation per year..
10 -40 ft. trailers. Each trailer = 57,250 lbs. gross weight.
direct competition with existing trucking services around the southern end of the Lake.
Hudson River This trade involves transportation of import/export containers in a feeder-type service stretching from Albany to New York City. It repre-sents a different kind of domestic trade (as compared to Lake Michigan) in that it involves the marine trans-portation of containers on a river system in
conjunc-tion with an upstate truck service and a subsequent in-ternational movement.
Florida - Puerto Rico This trade falls under the category of a non-contiguous domestic trade. As such, it is not subject to truck and rail competition. Existing shipping services are provided by marine companies utili7ing high technology vessels both self-propelled and tug/barge and are complement-ed by air cargo services.
OPERATING PERFORMANCE NET CARGO CAPACITY3 COMPARATIVE RATE TRADE ROUTE U/WAY TIME PORT TIME R. TRIP/TIME R. TRIPS/YEAR2 PER TRIP ROUND TRIP YEAR TRUCK RATE
_
Chicago - Muskegon 2.5 hrs. 2 hrs. 7 hrs. 600 4 TEU s 195, 200 117,120,000 S3.94
99 nautical Miles 97,600
lb..
lbs. lbs.
4,800 TEU s' CWT
-Mutkegan Milwaukee 1.75 hrs. 2 hrs. 5.5 hrs. 857 4 TEL) 195, 200 167,256,400 55.53
idnautical miles 97,600 lb.. lb.. lb.. 6,856 TEU s CWT .
Milwaukee - Chicago 1.85 hrs. 2 hrs. 5.7 hrs. 810 4 TEU s 195,200 158,112,030 $1.38
74 nautical miles 97,600
lb.-.
lb.. lb..
6,480 TEU s
CWT
OPERATING PERFORMANCE NET CARGO CAPACITY3 COMPARATIVE RATES TRADEIOUTE- U/WAY TIME I_ PORT TIME R. TRIP/TIME
_
R.TRIPS/YEAR2 PER TRIP ROUND TRIP YEAR BARGE RATE TRUCK RATE
--Alban. - New York 126 nautical miles 3.15 hrs. 2 hrs. 8.3 hrs. 476 4 TEU's 97,600 lb.. 195,200 lb.. 92,915,200 lb,. '3,808 Till's 8300-330 TEU' $450/1 EU
OPERATING PERFORMANCE NET CARGO CAPACITY3 COMPARATIVE RATES TRADE ROUTE U/WAY TIME PORT TIME R. TRIP/TIME. R.TRTPS/YEAR2 PER TRIP ROUND TRIP YEAR AIR PATE SHIP RATE Nand ... Son Juan
960 nautical miles 24 hr.. 10 hr.. 58 hrs. 145 448,000 lbs. 896,003 lb.. 1.29,920 thousand lb., _ _ 43c11bs 4.53e/Ilis
Market requirements imposed by these three domestic
trades led to the consideration of different advanced
marine vehicles for the routes studied; they were: A 50-ton payload capacity high-speed vessel for the Lake Michigan and Hudson River trades.
A 255-ton payload capacity vessel for the Florida-Puerto Rico trade.
The smaller capacity ship would lift a payload of 4 TEU (Twenty-foot Equivalent Unit) containers. For the larger capacity ship, the payload would be 10 40-foot trailers
(with chassis), as this system is prevalent
throughout the Caribbean trades today.. Aside from being much closer in size to most high-speed ships
in existence today, these candidates also afford a
realistic operational and economic comparison with competing modes. TABLES. 5 through 7 clef= the
operating requirements that were determined for their application on the routes identified.
In summary, then, the major potential market for ex-press freight shipping is in carrying those high-volume commodities that have high unit values and are time-sensitive. In addition, express shipping could serve for time-sensitive cargoes that have unique characteristics oversized, heavy lift
that rule out traditional
modes of transportation, particularly if destined for a remote and underdeveloped area. Underdeveloped
des-tinations might include those with no port, road, rail and airport facilities or those with marginal terrain
features such as shallow waters and swamps.
Identification of these types of commodities as prime candidates for a high speed waterborne freight service suggested early in the study that desirable market condi-tions would be characterized by limited traffic densities; hence there was a need to examined the practicality of employing smaller-payload advanced marine vehicles. Also, it was determined that high speed ships could bet-ter penetrate and capture part of these markets in ques-tion if they presented some of the operaques-tional character-istics of their main competitors, e.g., air cargo carriers in the foreign trades and trucks in the domestic markets. These payload characteristics led to consideration of a carrying capacity in the range of that of a heavy-lift aircraft in lieu of larger 1000-LT (long ton) payloads ini-tially addressed. The flexibility, speed, and frequency of
service which make air cargo and trucking services so
appealing could be attractive to U.S. shippers on the
high seas.
Market conditions affecting the transportation
re-quirements of the express shipping commodities identi-fied, as well as economic considerations in the operation of the craft, also led the study team ignore a multimode capability for high speed ships. Ships to handle military shipping needs are better specifically designed for that purpose.
The possible domestic and international routes above
were considered to be representative of those where
high-speed cargo ship applications could be profitable.
They are certainly not the only ones that are
pos-sible, but these do embody a variety where the speed and
service characteristics of advanced marine vehicles could provide an advantage over existing forms of
transportation services.
ADVANCED MARINE VEHICLE CANDIDATES
The advanced marine vehicles considered were divid-ed into categories basdivid-ed on lift 'principle: buoyant lift,
dynamic lift, and powered lift, as shown in Figure 2.
TABLE 8 shows a survey that represents the largest or fastest vehicles in each category existing today.
In general, the more advanced ships are quite small. Many are prototypes rather than operational craft. The relationships between their payloads, lightship weights, fuel fraction and installed power were considered good indicators for the sizing of express shipping craft.
A number of advanced marine vehicle designs also ex-ist in larger scale. These are lex-isted in TABLE 9. Some of these advanced marine vehicles were designed for mili-tary roles and were not directly usable for cargo. These were 4KSWATH, 3KACV and the Hydrofoil. Table pa-rameters for these were modified to reflect pseudo cargo ship concepts. The 10.5K and 15K SES cargo ships were basically commercially oriented as was the 3KSES cargo variant. A typical large SES cargo ship is portrayed in Figure 3.
Performance Assessment For Express Shipping The selection of vehicles that would meet desired op-erational criteria is a difficult task since the design
char-118S188801
"1-7X--1774,
,7.71-717"t'-Figure 2. Classification of Multi-mode Express Ship Candidates by Lift Principles. 288
SWATH MONOHULL MONOHULL PLANING FULLY SURFACE WING- IN- AIR CUSH I ON SURFACE A BOAT SUBMERGED PIERCING GROUND VECH I CLE EFFECT SHIP
FOIL FO I L
--q1111111111=
MARINE VEHICLES FOR EXPRESS SHIPPING LUEDEICE/FARNHA
11111111.11111111111.P-
LUEDEKE/FARNHAM MARINE VEHICLES FOR EXPRESS SHIPPINGTABLE 8. Sample of Existing High Speed Marine Vehicles.
era.
Figure 3. Conceptual Surface Effect 1000 LT Cargo Ship.
pROPULSION LIGHTSHIP SHIP DRAG*
SSO
SHIP LIFT GROSS WT aiaWI' WT PAYLOAD WT FUEL WT @ MAX SPEED OVERALL LENGTH SPEED PROPULSION PRIME
4',. EITE "IP LT HP/13' CROSS WT CROSS WI CROSS WT
GROSS WT OVERALL BEAM KID PRIME MOVER PROPELS,... HOVER Buoyancy
Monohull A
- African Comet 20315 1.108 .363 .477 .147 .00366 7.62 22 Steam Turbine
Single Water Screw - Pres. Van 21425 1.12 .401 .480 .110 .00354 7.00 23 Steam Sgl air nor
Buren Turbine
- Eagle Courier 34480 .593 .231 .632 .1334 .0024 7.63 18 Steam Sgl air scr
r.91.00L9.11.!'
Turbine
- Sealand 7 42000 2.86 .587 .301 .112 .0061 8.43 33 Steam Twin Wtr Scr Turbine
SWATH
- Suave Lino 42.3 19.34 .871 .086 .043 .0844 2.33 20 Diesel Twin Sir Scr - Kaimalino 217 30.5 .76 .176 .073 .091 1.978 25 Gasturbine/ Twin Wtr Scr
Diesel
- Mess 80* 145 23.3 .841 .116 .043 .076 2.099 27 Diesel Twin Sir Scr Dynamic
Lift YiRecip:PsPyRg
.(!q9.
- Experimental .32 - 7 70-145 .52 .28 .2 .105 1.52-1.18 68-70 Recip. Eng. Air Screw
- Current .49-1.3 154 .33 .34 .3 .073 1.45 70-101 Can Turbine Ducted Fan - Caspian Sea 313 479.2 .38 .3 .32 .214 2.286 300 Turbo Fan Turbo Fan
Fogs.
Pylispf2JJ
-Submerged Diesel Engs/ Foils 115 38 .61 .25 .17 .055 2.9 50 Can Turbines Waterjet - Surface Pierc- Diesel Engs/
tog Foils 175 43 .58 .25 .17 .078 4-5 40 Gas Turbines Waterjet Air
Pressure Air Cushion
"-Y.f.!.'jS1
-NAVIPLANE
8500 260 61.5 .596 .322 .082 .042 2.2 75 Can Turbine Air Prop. Can Turb. - SR-N4MK2 200 63 .625 .291 .084 .046 1.7 70 Gas Turbine Air Prop. Can Turb. - SR-N4MK3 300 50.7 .627 .306 .067 .047 2.4 65 Can Turbine Air Prop. Can Turb. Surface Effect
5DP
-Hovermarine
600 309 24.27 .52 .435 .045 .05 5.23 35 Diesel 2 Sir Sere. Diesel
- Bell Halter
157 380 40 .75 .12 .13 .0698 2.91 50 Diesel 2 Sir Scrs. Diesel FourNarEs: . Drag was misused equal co thrust ea ability where thrust equals:
I PropOsfun SHP x 550 x EFF.
.688 x KTS dater screw efficiency assumed .6 Waterjet efficiency assumed .5
kir Propeller efficiency assumed .35 *Revised from original report.
acteristics depend on many variables. Furthermore, al-tering a given variable to satisfy design requirements in-fluences and changes the established characteristics of related parameters. A thorough evaluation would re-quire use of a well developed multiple degree-of-free-dom computer program for each .vehicle. Such a study was considered too costly.
A second alternative was developed at RMI, making use of RMI experience in this field and the availability of candidate concepts that are close to representing
de-sired express cargo ships (e.g. the data contained in
Tables 8 and 9). The method employed a technique for deriving a scaling factor from existing designs
(opera-tional craft or designs only). This scaling factor was
used to project new designs.
Since this normally involves vehicle size, speed, and range, the search for a range parameter and velocity pa-rameter in terms of gross weight, range, and velocity
that would be mathematically impervious to Froude
scaling leads to the following:
(Range x Velocity)2 WG
Velocity Parameter .= (Proportion to Froude Number in terms of full load displacement) =
V
we
Hence, if one has available the range versus velocity
characteristics of a candidate concept, a plot of
(Range x Velocity)2 V
WG wg6
can be developed.
This plot is impervious to Froude-scaling provided the relative geometry and arrangement are maintained
in a true Froude-scaling fashion. It is permissible to trade off fuel weight for payload weight in order to
achieve a desired range at a desired payload and speed condition. For example, if the range objective is 1000 NM, one must first determine the range of the Froude scaled counterpart, degrade the range to 1000 NM and trade fuel weight for payload weight in order to main-tain the proper Froude-scaled gross weight. Range
ver-sus Froude number plots for each candidate express
shipping concept (except the WIG vehicle which does not Froude scale) were obtained from selected designs that were closest in design and performance to the
de-sired objectives.
By means of an iterative procedure, a scale factor
(XL) was determined necessary to degrade or improve the performance of the selected design relative to that desired. Thus, Froude-scaling the design characteristics of an existing craft or design could lead to cargo ship point design characteristics.
Using initial design criteria for large cargo ships of 1000 nautical miles range, 1000 long ton payload, and 40 knot speed and the scaling methodology previously
discussed, advanced marine vehicles were sized and
Range Parameter
compared. The Table indicates that vehicles could be sized to meet the desired point with the exception of the WIG which required a higher velocity to develop lift. This, in fact, eliminated the WIG from further consider-ation. It should be noted that only the hydrofoil, ACV, and SES increase in range with speed beyond 40 knots, while the remaining craft show rapidly decreasing range with increased speed. TABLE 10 lists the characteristics of all the designs.
The scaling procedure was also used to develop ad-vanced marine vehicle concepts for the following condi-tions:
Condition (2) 1000 LT payload, 3000 NM range at 40 knots (expanded range).
Condition (3) 1000 LT payload, 1000 NM range at 90 knots (higher maximum speed).
Condition (4) 500 LT payload, 1000 NM range at 90 knots (reduced payload at a high maximum speed). This scaling is shown diagrammatically in Figure 4 in relative displacements, fuel weight ratios, and power
ra-tios. It is significant that the ACV and low LIE SES
configurations required to meet conditions (1) and (2) are inherently overpowered and oversized. They are ca-pable of much larger ranges at higher velocities. Point designs operating at higher velocities on the other hand, result in significantly smaller ACV's and SES's. These
1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 (6) 1000 IT PAYLOAD NonMI RANCE Al 40 KNOTS ITT F)
RELATIVE CROSS WEIGHT
RELATIVE POOL WEIGHT
REIATIVE POWER
figure 4. Comparison of Weight, Fuel Weight, and Power of Large Advanced Marine Vehicle Cargo Ships Candidates for Different Design Conditions.
(A) 1000 LT PAYLOAD 1000 NM BRACE (c) AT 40 KNOTS 1000 LT PAYLOAD (TYT) 1000 NM RANCE (d) AT 90 KNOTS (TOP) 500 LT PAYLOAD 1000 124 RANCE
--
--1-1 AT 90 KNOTS (TfP) .q '': 1 :il e. E'Z' ''',",' 1 k F 4 1 Ms1441.1111111=
MARINE VEHICLES FOR EXPRESS SHIPPING LUEDEICE/FARNHA
1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2
...-I.
1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2craft, however, would exhibit ranges slightly lower than 1000 NM (approximately 800 NM) at 40 knots, but re-main good express shipping candidates. The high L/B SES is anticipated to provide performance equivalent to, but slightly inferior to the hydrofoil in the 40 to 60
knot range. The stringent power requirements on the SWATH, planing craft and monohull designs made them impractical for speeds above 40 knots and they
were eliminated from further consideration.
TABLE 11 provides a ranking of candidates employ-TABLE Sr. Sample of Love Advanced Marine Vehicle.Desilms. .
PROPULSOR POWER INSTALLED . LIFT POWER INSTALLED FULL LOAD (HP) aiP)
LIFT PAYLOAD DISPLACLNENT SPEED LOA BOA HIGH SPEED LOW SPEED HIGH SPEED LOW SPEED
CATEGORY SHIP (LT) (LT). (KTS) (PT) (FT) PROPULSOR
-BUOYANT 4KSWATH 370 3,400 - *37 75,000 5-.000 0 0 305 104 WATERSCREW DYNAMIC 1,066 2,362 - 52 - -74,000 4,650 0 365 81 WATERSCREW HYDROFOIL POWERED 3KSES 850 3,600 90 . . :200,000 - 73,000 265 106 WATERJET 10.5KSES 2,700 10,500 60 220,000 - 110.000 - 627 126 WATERSCREW 15.0KSES 3KACV 6,000 410 15,000 3,000 35 90 120,000 160,000 14,000, -42,000 80,000 0 0 686 277 105 136 WATERSCREW WATERSCREW
*Revised from original report.
.TABLE 10. Comparison of Candidate Large Advanced Marine Vehicle Cargo Ships.
Desig Vehicle
Characteristic
_
Monohull SWATH Planing
Craft
Hydrofoil ACV SES
0
. WIG-Gross Weight (LT) 3857 5512 2966 2903 3997 3386 2045 Empty Weight (LT) 2417 3443 1566 1620 2222 1831 78 Payload .(LT)
0
10.00 1000 1090 1000 1000 1000 1000 Fuel (LT) 440 * 1069 400 283 775 555 287 Range at 40 Knots (NM)0 1000 - 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 Length (Ft.) 452.4 358.0 345.3 388.7 304.8 259,2 . . ' 342.2 Beam (Ft.) 51.5 122.1 63,5 86.5 149.6 105.31 (span)131Maximum Draft (Ft.) 20.8 30.5 23.5 19.2 3.06 21.5 Unknown
Max. Speed (Knots) SS 0 43,8 40.1 65.6 54.8 111.7 104,6 2.29
Range at Max. Speed (NM) 937 1000 754 1035 2088 1511 1433
Total Useful Vol. (Ft.3) 606,000 893,000 590,000: 463;000 897.000 679,000 Unknown
Payload + Fuel Vol.(Ft.3 ) 292,000 463,000 260,000 299,000 ' 434,000 273,000 Unknown
Max. Prop. Power 145,865 131,414 324,990 92,248 176,056 18.2,777 iVetYra)
Max. Lift Power ' - - - 88,028 73,111
, L/B 8.78 . 2.93 5.44 4.50 2.04 2,46_ 2.61 W /w -C .6267 ,6247 .528 .558 . .556 .541. .3706 W /W P G .2593 .1814 .337 .344 .250 .295 .4891 .1140_ .1939. .135 .098 .194 .164 .1403
0
Point design objective. .*Revised from original report.0
40 knOts cannot be met, requires minimum speed of 160 knots.0
Point design Shown is Froude scaled from jKSES. Use of a higher L/B vehicle will improvethe lower speed .performance (40-66 knots) considerably and will tend to lower the maximum speed.
292
figure 5. Conceptual 50 LT Payload ACV.
TABLE 11. Ranking of Large Cargo Ship Concepts against design Conditions.
, Ranking 1000 LT Payload Low Speed (<20 Kts) Long Range (3000 NM) 1000 LT Payload Medium Speed (20 <V< 50 Kts) Medium Range (1000 NM) 1000 LT Payload Medium Speed (20 <V< 50 Kts) Long Range (3000 NM) 1000 LT Payload High Speed (50 <V< 100 Kts) Short Range (500 NM) 1000 LT Payload High Speed (50<v<100 Kts: Long Range (3000 NM) 1000 LT Payload Very Hi Speeds (150 <V< 200 Kts) Medium Range (1000 NM)
1 Monohull Hydrofoil High L/B SES ACV Low L/B SES WIG
2 SWATH High L/B SES Hydrofoil Low L/B SES ACV SES .
3 Planing Craft ACV Planing Craft Hydrofoil Hydrofoil ACV **
4 High L/B SES Planing Craft ACV Planing Craft Planing Craft Hydrofoil**
5 Hydrofoil SWATH SWATH* SWATH SWATH**
**
Planing Craft
6 ACV Monohull4 Monohull 4 Monohull
** Monohull ** SWATH 7 WIG** WIG ** _
WIG ** WIG ** WIG** Monohull** ** IMPRACTICAL DUE TO POWER REQUIREMENTS AND/OR STATE-OF-ART TECHNOLOGY CONSTRAINTS
* MARGINAL FOR THE ABOVE REASONS
01 '..,.. ' Ill r-!: ..-PLI . ' ,11111,..; :.-.-iQ{,' ' , ii , 1111:11 .??, q \ ...., '1111111 i _ " i lir '1' . ---"' .1 .. ..,
-
-""
t,
,/, Rpp-w_,. ^--f.Z.1, "7
0 .. .--aagOP-II . 1 11, ''
1
'
, i _c:: --10,...' .,...," i 4. -' 111 111111114 telq 11010 -..,, ,
. ,;pr v..71-1,-,..".;--=;-...,41:.
...-..-Tnii,Blr'IF.;47,iltivilW..7.t..--,, ,,,... r...-.-.0:t4 :"1 'w=4--"I . '--.7.- 7 4":"R. T,,,:!--...*I' 1."!111211.1milliiii, F IIIribio,.., fd!!!!01000111,.1--, ---_ 4,,,),'.----.
.11-usainittliill-L ' ,.--...,,,, _40,--...7.:,-tTtuallo.-11011 ...., .... r1Pr' 10
0 II' 1110110/
,)11!111 14t4 II ei --,-,,Lutay...,.._00/
Alm , 1111k: ,,r---4111, 1, 1 - 11110,
,64001,11:1111 ..4 1114144 1,.1.r T, '14 - -,:.,m, 0,s.-4-,iir_.:._ -.,--.... 110111i110; f- -, 'Amikt.2.11442'.12 ''' -'2.' ---1,11!1,14di . ' .1.,,ii1Nniw '1, . . ,.._:_:.- --..., -4_.-;- -47--'
7,-,_
4, .-1111111 1 odr,---,L--.4w41,,,.,4, ,Tiol 11 ,., ,-,, ---__
---__ --,t,:ti0111! ,k' a"'" '''''r
' . Ali. --'---,---____:".---.-____--,
' ,,,e- -. _-., , -. uir . --' b* --,
. A° . 1 .1 h. ''-'711'" 51 .... .,:,..-_ a - ;MMP ,...mw,
-
,-
-1,14----.-i'l-i{- ' --- .--... ,1 11101 .-1.-'. ,--' ' ' --ii 11.10 , . -lip,-,
f _ .. .-.
..i, ..---- 4.r -" 1....,. r-
... iln -1010 ",7 717r-, .H111110!7." Stillgirs .41"Mill1111111=
111.1111PPIPIPP--
LiJEbEICE/FARNHAMing only the 1000 LT payload for the various operation-al conditions. It can be seen that the hydrofoil, ACV, and SES rank highest for the express shipping market design conditions described.
Market analysis eventually showed that smaller
pay-load advanced marine vehicles could have a greater
probability of success in penetrating available markets rather than large payload designs.
Again, the three smaller advanced marine vehicles se-lected for further evaluation were the hydrofoil, ACV, and SES. Each of these vehicle types were conceptually
designed for 50 foot LT and 255 foot LT payloads.
Speed and range performance (in various sea states) was determined for each.
Point designs for the 50 LT payload vessel category were derived by means of scaling and a requirement that they employ two 5000 SHP gas turbines for the
propul-sion power plant. Again, an iterative procedure was
used to arrive at the desired 50 LT payload meeting a 160 NM range objective in Sea State 3. The propulsion System weight trade-off parameter employed was .0013 LT/horsepower. The resulting ship characteristics are presented in TABLE 12. A typical 50 LT payload ACV is illustrated in Figure 5.
Point designs for the 255 LT payload vessel category were also developed and ship characteristics are listed in TABLE 13. For these vehicles, two 25,000 SHP gas tur-bines were selected for the propulsion power plant. A typical 255 LT payload SES is shown in Figure .6.
Since SES's have been studied in more detail than
other craft, length-to-beam (L/B) ratios ranging from 2.5 to 7 were investigated. The optimum L/B for a 50
MARINE VEHICLES FOR EXPRESS SHIPPING
LT payload SES was found to be 3 and for the 255 Li payload SES to be 5.
Ship velocities in increasing wave heights are com-pared in Figures 7 and.8 for the 50 LT and 255 Li' pay-load candidates. In both categories, the SES and hydro-foil were found to excel, with the SES providing slightly higher velocities up to Sea State 3. The SES furthermore offers reduced off-cushion draft and potential beaching capabilities. The hydrofoil, On the other hand, offers superior maneuverability. The ACV, although requiring more fuel (due to a larger lift system demand) offers po-tential operations over regions covered with ice (Great Lakes and Hudson River) and possibly amphibious op-eration to inland sites (Caribbean area).
EXPRESS SHIPPING ECONOMICS
Advanced marine vehicles were compared for each
proposed trade route with acquisition and operating
costs, fees, and revenues defined in order to determine the most suitable vehicle type for those routes. Each ve-hicle was analyzed using an RMI Economic Analysis Program (REAP). After introduction of all operating costs, initial purchase costs and fees, the freight rate was
varied until an arbitrary profit margin was obtained.
TABLE 13. Comparison of 255 LT Payload Cargo Ships.
PARAMETER SES L/B .. 5 HYDROFOIL WG (LT) 1590 1550 1420 WE (LT) 998 777 817 W. (LT) 312: 523 323 W (Lt) P 255 255 255 AWCrew& (LT) - 25 25 25 Supplies L (OA) (FT) 367 ' .194.5 306 B (OA) (FT) 82 100.8 68
Draft (FT) 12 off- 2.8 Off- 36.9 Hullborne
Cushion Cushion Foils extended
2.00- I On- 15.1 Foilborne Cushion Cushion V Cruise: MAX SSO (IC) 54.5 - 77.5 50.3 553 (NM) 51.0 - 64.0 49.8 10', 1/3 Highest (EN) 44.5 44.0 48.9 Range: SSO (NM) 1709 1938 1616 SS3 (NM) 1600 1600 1600 10, 1/3 Highest (NM) 1396 1100 1571 Cushion: Le (FT) 273.3- 203 --Be. (FT) 54.7 91 --H (FT) 20.0 10 Air Propeller Main Prop. 2, LM2500 2, LM2500 2, LM2500 Total H.P. 45,000 45,000 45,000
Lift ( cruise) Diesel 2, LM2500 1, ilisoo
Total H.P. 5200 45,000 4,650
_
TABLE 12. Comparisonof SO LTPayload Cargo Ships.
PARAMETER (in_ .3) ACY
- -' HYDROFOIL (LT) 245.0 210.0. 216.0 WE (LT) 101.3 136.5 153.1 Ur (LT) 10.3 20.1 9.5 WPAYLOAD (LT) 50.0 50.0 50.0
'GREW AND SUPPLIES (LT) 3.4 3.4
L (OA) (FT) 126.4 100.0 163.6
II(OA) (Fr) 48.4. 51.8 36.3
DRAFT(PD) `') -tg,7-glIgN'" -.t g:I'clinl'. .- 6171.1.0001 POD).700010150
8.1 8011150E2 9,,,x CRIISE, .
(09) 57.0 55.0 48.0
(II 004) 46.0 40.0 47.0
ID.. 1/.1 HIGHEST (Oil 33.0 5.0 45.0 (ASSLDICS NO
MILL 80.818)
RANG,
SSO (RN) 196.0 238.0 171.0
SST (NM) 160.0 160.0 157.0
10.. 1/3 HIGHEST 000 117.0 37.0 ' 132.0 (ASSUMES 10 HULL
51.821 ON 80AT) 13,111.N. (rr) 106.5 95.6 (Fr) 36.5 50.7
-(F7) 10.0 6.0 --. HAP, PROP 2 2/1500 2 06500 2 22450070TAL POWER (DPI 10.000 10.000 10.000
LrFT/ 1CRIAGE 4 DO 1649274 2 124500 2 DD 1649274 . 018003
MARINE VEHICLES FOR EXPRESS SHIPPING
Figure 7.50 LT Payload Cargo Ships Speed in Waves. 294
Figure 6. Conceptual 255 LT Payload SES with Beaching Ramp.
--"411111111111111111.1.111
LUEDEKE/FARNHAMFigure 8.255 LT Payload Cargo Ships Speed in Waves.
tn E. 2 2 ei t r.T1 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 ACV HYDRO SES 0 2 4 6 8
WAVE HEIGHT - FEET
10 12 80 70 60 50 5. E 40 g s. . 30 20 10 0 HYDROFOIL SES
1
ACV 0 2 4 6 8 10 12P111111111111111111".-
LUEDEICE/FARNHAM MARINE VEHICLES FOR EXPRESS SHIPPINGThe profit margin for the inland routes and the 50 LT payload craft was set at approximately 26 percent.
The REAP analysis requires cost input such as the
costs of purchase, administration, maintenance, spares, operating fuel, crew, docking fees, taxes, terminal fees and interest. Craft operating characteristics inputs such as total payload weight, payload loading factors, oper-ating speed at sea state, fuel consumption at sea state, maintenance hours per operating hour, engine time be-tween overhauls and overhaul time must also be speci-fied. The route characteristics such as percentage time of each sea state, route length, slow speed niileage,
ex-pected operating days per year and docking time are
also added. An input sample is shown in Figure 9. The final input is the revenue per ton which is varied to ob-tain the desired profit margin.
The manufacturing costs for small advanced marine vehicles were estimated by use of CER's (Cost Estimat-ing Ratios) and SWBS (Structural Weight Breakdown Structure) data developed in the Navy Advanced Naval Vehicle Concepts Evaluation (ANVCE) study of 1979. The results of the analysis are shown in Tables 14 and 15 for the 50 LT payload, and 255 LT payload ships, re-spectively. It can be readily seen that the ship costs are comparable.
On each route the payload capacity was held constant for each of the three vessel types. Initial vessel cost was
estimated using its displacement and power
require-ments to provide the established payload.
Other initial costs were estimated. Operating costs were based on fuel consumption and prices, labor costs, other direct expenses, and estimated indirect costs,
In-Naval EnglneersJournal,May1983 295
TABLE 14.50 LT Payload Cargo Ship Weights and Costs.
_
SES HYDROFOIL ACV
MOS WEIGHT CER $M/LB WEIGH]. CER $M/LB -$M WEIGHT CER $M/LB 100 104.08 .074 7.66 55.25 .053 2.91 79.93 .074 .89 200 27.54 250* 2.50 24.11 250* 2.50 20.00 250* 5.00 300 7.24 .078 .57 6.89 .078 .54 4.42 .078 .35 400 2.74 .090 .25 2.62 .090 .24 1.68 .090 .15 500 15.57 .056 .87 21.62 .056 1:21 11.68 .056 .65 567 14.48 .246 3.57 34.36 .246 8.47 13.09 .246 3.22 600 9.65 .056 .54 8.25 .056 .46 ,' 5.70 .056 .32 _ *---..._ 15.58 TOTAL 181.30 .."---... 15.96 153.10 ...---..._ 16.33 136.50
* $ PER TOTAL HORSEPOWER
_
TABLE 15. 255 LT Payload Cargo Weights and Costs.
SES ACV . HYDROFOIL
SWBS .__ WEIGHT LT CER $14/LB WEIGHT LT CER $M/LB $M WEIGHT LT CEE $14/LB $M 100 572.6 .074 42.17 455.0 .074 33.51 295.4 .053 15.58 200 152.1 250* 12.55 113.8 250* 22.50 127-2" . 250* 12.41 300 39.8 .078 3.12 25.2 .078 1.98 36.7 ;078 2.89. 400 15.1 .090 1.55 9.6 .090 .86 14.0 .090 1.25 500 85-7 .056 4-80 '66.8 .056 3.72 115.6 .056 6.47 567 79.7 .246 19.63 74.5 .246 18.35. 183.7.. .246 45.27 600 53.1 .056 2.98 32.5 .056 1.82 44.1 .056 2.47 TOTAL 997.9 '...---... 86.60 777.4 *..---*--...,..._ 82.74- 816.8 ...\ 86.35
IFivire 9. RMI Economic Analysis Program Input.
cluded in the latter were estimated costs of terminal
rental. Financing assumed 12-1/2 percent equity. Debt was assumed to be at 14 percent interest. Debt on the larger payload vessel (255 tons) was serviced over 20 years; the smaller vessel (50 tons) debt was serviced over 15 years. Cash flow after tax was calculated, based on an assumed 50 percent tax rate, with straight line depre-ciation. No tax credit or bonus depreciation was consid-ered.
REAP placed a requirement for revenues to break
even with cash flow after taxes in the first year of oper-ation. Required revenues to attain this breakeven level were calculated. The REAP then calculated the reve-nue/ton/trip. This required revenue/ton/trip was then compared to the rates charged by existing carriers truck, conventional ship, or air cargo to see if the ex-press ship service had competitive potential.
The output of the REAP analysis shows the craft av-erage speed, craft travel time, craft trip time (includes maintenance time), total expenditures, total revenues, profit before taxes, pr6fit after taxes, cost per ton mile, breakeven analysis with 100 percent load factor, cash flow rate of return after taxes. Various economic analy-296 Naval Engineers Journal, May 1983
0343.4,14444 4047'. (41304-03=7;070.0 30 330.... 03767,0 7 7033110, 00 4231170.. 324 4127710.44770.4 /033 044/0v .44400 07 743 4 747 Me 400747 400743 400747 VP
Figure 10. RNLI Economic Analysis Program Output. sis reports are shown in Figure 10. The REAP analysis is quite versatile and can be used to accommodate various
craft financing methods such as down payment with
equal annual payments or lease payments. Lake Michigan Operations
Lake Michigan is well suited to advanced ships and could potentially employ existing designs. An ACV is driven by an air propeller and therefore could traverse moderate ice packs which occur from Chicago to Mus-kegon in the winter Months. Figure 11 shows icing con, ditions for a normal winter and the tendency to build up ice along both the western and eastern lake shores. The SES and hydrofoil would be limited in ice packs and could require ice breakers to clear a path. Therefore, the ACV would be expected to operate 350 days per year while the SES and hydrofoil would operate 282 days. The wave heights expected in Lake Michigan for the highest percentage of time were determined to be 3 to 5 feet. The ambient temperatures Were assumed to vary between -10 degrees F to 80 degrees F, an assumption allowing full gas turbine engine power ratings.
The fees for wharfage, handling, dockage, and rental are listed in TABLE 16 as are port fees, terminalfees,
OREM ELT
ICE COVER LEGEND
Lome= 1111 OPEN WATER
in 4/y.0:EH:gout. )
%114"te o Wawa. I
MOSIEGON
Wriecroi
MIDIAIMEE fni2V'E? PACK
CHICAGO,
ESGAEMA
TRATE=
CITY
Figure 11. Normal Lake Michigan Mid-Winter Ice Cover (February 20-28).
dock fees, and rent for each Lake Michigan route
the
cargo for each ship is assumed to be four TEU's weigh-ing a total of 50 tons. Each ship would require twelveTEU's to maintain operation, four loading, four on
ship, and four unloading. The docking charge based on ship length would be $32 for 24 hours for ships less than
225 feet long. The dock charge only addresses the time in port.
These charges and operating conditions were input to REAP. The load factor was considered as 100 percent in all cases as the freight rate would increase directly with a load increase. REAP accepts one annual payment and considers either straight line depreciation or double
de-clining balance, but not both at the same time. The
straight line depreciation method was used. The down payment was considered as 12.5 percent With an 87.5 percent balance. The borrowing rate was set at 14 per-cent and the tax rate at 50 perper-cent. Maintenance labor rate was defined as $25 per hour and the overhaul labor rate at $20 per hour. Fuel costs were $0.91 per gallon and oil costs $5 per gallon. The cost of spares, cost for onboard extras, cost for initial maintenance, cost of ini-tial management, miscellaneous iniini-tial costs, and cost of delivery, are based on percentages of initial ship cost, ship size, cost of machinery and quotations received on equipment for. similar ships. Craft life was assumed to be fifteen years and financing with fifteen annual pay-ments.
The results of the economic analyses for Chicago to Muskegon, Chicago to Milwaukee, and Milwaukee to
Muskegon trades, are compared in TABLE 17 with
quoted trucking rates. It can be readily seen that none of the advanced marine vehicles were competitive on the routes from Chicago to Milwaukee or from Chicago to
Muskegon. However, the Milwaukee to Muskegon
route showed a sizable rate margin in favor of the ad-vanced marine vehicles over truck transportation. Also, the hydrofoil and SES have the most favorable rates de-spite the additional operating days of the ACV.
Hudson River Operations
The Hudson River freight operations would appear to
offer an excellent opportunity for express shipping.
There are no significant waves which would reduce
max-TABLE 16. 50 LT Payload Cargo Ship Fees..
CHICAGO-MILWAUKEE cnicAoo-musEEcutl MILWAUKEE-MS=0W NEW YORK-ALEANT
TEU IDLE TRIP IDLE TRIP IDLE TRIP Irme TRIP
OPER. PER TRIP TIME/ PER COST TRIP TIME/ PER COST TRIP TIME/ PER COST TRIP TIME/ PER COST
FEE CRAFT DAYS TRIP TIME DAY DAY ANNUAL TIME DAY DAY ANNUAL TIM DAY DAY ANNUAL TIME DAY DAY ANNUAL PORT SES _ 282 13 _2.19 4 42276 2.76 4 42276 2.10 4 42276 3.03 4 42276 ACV 350 13 4 2.69 4 38740 3.26 '4 38740 2.52 4 38740 3.03 _4 38740 HYDRO 282 la 4 2.10 4 42276 2.65 4 42276 1.99 4 42276 3.03 4 42276 TERN SES 282 25 4 2.19 4 56400 2.76 4 56400 2.10. :54400 3.03 4 56400 ACV 350 25 4 2.69 4 70000 3.26 4 70000 2.52 70000 3.03 4 70000 HYDRO 282 25 4 2.10 4 56400 2.45 4 56400 1.99 56400 3.03 4 56400 DOCK SES 282 32 4 2.19 15.24 4 8386 276. 4 7529 2.10 8522 3.03 4 7123 ACV 350 32 4 2.69 13.24 4 6659 3.26 4 5595 2.52 6976 3.03 4 6024 HYDRO 282 32 4 2.10 15.60 4 8522 2.65 4 7694 1.99 8687 3.03 4 7123 RENT SES 282 4 12921 12921 12921 12921 ACV 350 4 12921 12921 12921 12921 ' HYDRO 282 4 12921 12921 12921 12921
UEDEKE/FARNHAM MARINE VEHICLES FOR EXPRESS SHIPPING
imum speed capabilities. Speed would only be limited by
other traffic. The river is kept open in the winter
months, which might affect the SES and hydrofoil if the cleared opening was too narrow and other slower traffic was using the same channel. The ACV would not be af-fected as it could maneuver over ice. The temperature variation was assumed as -20 degrees F to 90 degrees F which allows maximum gas turbine engine power at all times. The ship fees are the same as for the Lake
Michi-gan analysis. All other factors except trip length and
percent of sea state time were the same as Lake Michi-gan.
The economic analysis results showed that all of the
advanced marine vehicles on this route required a
freight rate 3 to 4 times higher than truck rates.
There-fore, this route did not warrant further consideration
for advanced marine vehicles. Caribbean Sea Operations
The Caribbean Sea routes, shown in Figure 1, present a challenge to the advanced ships with high sea states
and wide temperature variations. The sea state and swells in the upper Caribbean Sea routes along the
United States coast, along the northern edges of Cuba,
Dominican Republic and Puerto Rico, are relatively
mild with wave and swell heights primarily below 5 feet.
The lower Caribbean Sea routes near Colombia and
Venezuela, have much higher sea states. For the New Orleans to Barranquilla route, an average sea state was TABLE 17. Great Lake Economic Analysis Summary.
SHIP
TYPE
RATE PER TON
RATE PER LB ANNUAL FUEL COST $ MILLION TRIP TIME HOURS AVERAGE SPEED KNOTS DOWN PAYMENT $ MILLION LOAN AMOUNT $ MILLION CASH FLOW $ MILLION RETURN AFTER TAXES PERCENT TRUCK SHIP
SES 127.72 .0394 .0539 CHICAGO TO MUSKEGON
SES 127.72 .0394 .0539 3.096 2.60 47.4 4.164 29.152 13.762 26.25 HYDROFOIL 116.25 .0394 .0519 2.522 2.61 47.0 4.258 29.804 14.076 26.26 ACV 144.02 .0394 .0643 7.858 3.25 36.0 4.071 28.495 13.446 26.25 CHICAGO TO MILWAUKEE SES 109.87 .0138 .0490 2.32 2.07 47.4 4.164 29.152 13.78 26.25 HYDROFOIL 106.89 .0138 .0477 1.89 2.08 47.0 4.258 29.804 14.074 26.25 ACV 123.57 .0138 .0552 5.862 2.55 36.0 4.071 28.495 13.447 26.25 MILWAUKEE TO MUSKEGON SES 108.09 .0553 .0482 2.196 1.99 47.4 4.164 29.152 13.754 26.25 HYDROFOIL 105.40 .0553 .0470 1.794 2.00 47.0 4.258 29.804 14.078 26.25 ACV 120.30 .0553 .0537 5.543 2.44 36.0 4.071 28.495 13.446 26.25 -
-TABLE 18. Caribbean Sea Cargo Ship Annual Fees and Charges.
-PEE CRAP? CRAFT LENGTH (Fr) FEE PER DAy OPEN. DAYS TRAIL. PER TRIP
NW mums -.BARRANQUILIA HousioN-cAmpECHE HUNT-SANTO maNco MANI -sAN JUAN
TRIP TINE IDLE TINE/ DAT TRIP PER DAY COsT ANNUAL TRIP TINE ON.E ma/ DAY TRip PEN DAY 00ST ANNUAL TRIP TINE IDLE Tim/ DAY TRIP PEN DAY coST ANNUAL IDLE TRIP TINE/ TIM DAY TRIP PER DAY CoST ANNUAL PORT SES 307 24 350 10 33 2 .667 224000 13.2 10.8 1 336000 20.7 3.3 1 336000 21.3 2.7 1 336000 Acv 194.5 24 350 10 33 2 .667 224000 13.2 10.8 1 336000 20.7 3.3 1 336000 21.3 2.7 1 ,336000 HYDRO 306 24 350 10 28.6 4.9 .667 224000 13.2 10.8 1 336000 18.6 5.4 1 336000 18.8 5.2 1 336000 SES 307 45 350 10 33 2 .667 420030 13.2 10.8 1 630000 20.7 3.3 1 630000 21.3 2.7 1 630000 ACV 194.5 45 350 10 33 2 .667 420000 13.2 10.8 1 630000 20.7 3.3 1 630000 21.3 2.7 1 630000 HYDR0 306 45 350 10 28.6 4.9 .667 520000 13.2 10.8 1 630000 18.6 5.4 1 , 630000 18.8 5.2 1 630000 DOCK SEE 307 114 350 10 33 '2 .667 10469 13.2 10.8 1 22925 20.7 3.3 1 22925 21.3 2.7 1 11460 Acv 194.5 52 350 10 33 2 .667 14574 13.2 10.8 1 22925 20.7 3.3 1 12309 21.3 2.7 1 10651 HYDRO 306 114 350 10 28.6 4.9 .667 14574 13.2 10.8 1 22925 18.6 5.4 1 15282 18.8 5.2 1 14999 RENTAL SIZ 307 350 10 33 2 .667 84315 13.2 10.8 1 84315 20.7 3.3 1 84315 21.3 2.7 1 84315 ACV 194.5 350 10 33 2 .667 84315 13.2 10.8 1 84315 20.7 3.3 1 84315 21.3 2.7 1 84315 HYDRO 306 350 10 28.6 4.9 .667 84315 13.2 10.8 1 84315 18.6 5.4 1 84315 18.8 5.2 1 84315 _ __
used for an input to the economic analysis program re-flecting more adverse sea states. The remainder of the Caribbean Sea routes use the calmer conditions.
The estimated temperatures run from 50 degrees F at night in Houston, New Orleans, and Miami, to 80 de-grees F during the daytime. For Campeche, San Juan, and Santo Domingo, the estimated temperatures are 70 degrees F at night and 110 degrees F daytime. The oper-ating ambient temperature affects the available horse-power and fuel consumption of the gas turbine horse-powered ship, but has little effect on diesel engines.
. The cargo for these longer Caribbean Sea routes was
ten 40-foot trailers weighing 25.5 long tons each. A sin-gle ship requires thirty trailers to maintain operation: ten loading, ten on the ship, and ten unloading. The an-nual trailer rental is $84,315. This was introduced as an annual general and administrative cost in the Economic Analysis. The wharfage charge was set at $24 per trailer. This charge based on 20 trailers being at each port at any time. The wharfage charge was introduced as port fees in REQP. The handling charge was $45 per trailer and was also based on the existence of 20 trailers at each port. This was introduced as terminal fees in the REAP. Docking charges varies with ship length, as shown in the table below. The docking charge includes 296 operating days plus 54 days for downtime and 15 days for over-haul.
SHIP LENGTH, FT COST PER 24 HOURS,
These charges were introduced as dock fees in the REAP. The annual fees and charge for each ship on
each route are shown on TABLE 18. The annual
insur-ance premiums, property tax, and annual licensing fees are lumped as 7 percent of total costs. Three operating vessels were considered for all Caribbean Sea routes ex-cept on the Miami to San Juan route which used two ships. The load factor considered in all cases was 100 percent, since as the rate can be determined as a direct function of the 100 percent rate.
Maintenance labor rate was defmed as $25 per hour and the overhaul labor rate was $20 per hour. The fuel costs were $0.91 per gallon and oil cost $5.00 per gallon. The cost of spares, cost for on-board extras, cost for ini-tial maintenance, cost of iniini-tial management, miscel-laneous initial costs and cost of delivery were based on percentages of the initial ship cost, ship size, cost of ma-chinery, and quotations received on equipment for simi-lar ships. The craft life was assumed to be 20 years with 20 annual payments.
The number of trips per day based on craft speed,
route distance, slow speed time and minimum port time of two hours. The craft was planned to operate for 350 days per year. In addition, it was assumed that 10 per-cent of the trips would be cancelled due to mechanical problems and 5 percent due to storms or poor visibility. The crew size and composition allowed for operation on a continuous basis as the trip time exceeded eight hours. A full time live-on-board crew would be used for the
New Orleans to Barranquilla route. The other
Carib-bean Sea routes would provide minimum shipboard fa-cilities with quarters at the dock site.
An examination of the route from New Orleans to
Barranquilla showed that the first eight miles from New Orleans were in the Mississippi River delta which re-quired a reduced speed. A speed of 20 knots (normally 5 knots for displacement ships) was assumed for the
se-lected craft as they produce minimum wake and are
highly maneuverable. The first half of the trip was in
299
-TABLE 19. Caribbean Sea Economic Analysis Summary.
SHIP TYPE REVENUE PER TON REVENUE PER LB FUEL COST $ MILLION TRIP TIME HOURS AVERAGE SPEED !MOTS DOWN PAYMENT $ MILLION LOAN AMOUNT $ MILLION CASH FLOW $ MILLION RETURN AFTER TAXES PERCENT SHIP AIR STUDY SHIP NEW ORLEANS-BARRANQUILLA SES 695.85 0.103 0.45 0.311 44.849 31.51 50.7 34.74 243.19 129.62 24.85 HYDROFOIL 673.09 0.103 0.45 0.30 45.914 32.02 49.8 34.65 242.56 129.28 24.85 ACV 752.89 0.103 0.45 0.336 57.116 25.64 64.7 33.30 233.06 124.22 24.85 HOUSTON-CAMPECHE SES 386.56 0.0846 0.33 0.173 30.403 15.04 51.3 34.74 243.19 129.63 24.85 HYDROFOIL 378.30 0.0846 0.33 0.169 30.911 15.38 49.9 34.65 242.56 129.30 24.85 ACV 402.43 0.0846 0.33 0.180 37.193 12.34 66.7 33.30 233.06 124.23 24.85 _ MIAMI-SANTO DOMINGO SES 447.33 0.1158 0.28 0.1997 42.65 18.53 51.3 34.74 243.19 129.63 24.85 HYDROFOIL 434.74 0,1158 0.28 0.1941 43.44 19.05 49.9 34.65 242.56 129.29 24.85 ACV 476.41 0.1158 0.28 0.2127 53.15 14.36 66.7 33.30 233.06 124.22 24.85 MIAMI-SAN JUAN SES 456.07 0.0453 0.43 0.2036 29.33 19.12 51.3 23.16 162.13 86.43 24.85 HYDROFOIL 443.22 0.0453 0.43 0.1979 27.29 ' 19.65 49.9 23.10 161.70 86.19 24.85 ACV 486.44 0.0453 0.43 0.2172 36.55 14.81 66.7 22.20 155.38 82.83 24.85 DOLLARS <225 32 <250 52 <275 89 <300 114
MARINE VEHICLES FOR EXPRESS SHIPPING
mild seas and the second half, after passing through the Yucatan channel, assumed increasing wave heights with
the maximum near the Colombia coast. The ambient
temperature variation was assumed to be 50 degrees F to 80 degrees F in New Orleans and 90 degrees F to 110 de-grees F in Barranquilla.
The route from Houston to Campeche includes
ap-proximately 60 miles in Galveston Bay leaving Houston which requires low speed operation. A 20 knot speed was assumed for this portion of the route. The ambient temperature was assumed to vary between 50 degrees F and 100 degrees F.
On the Miami to Santo Domingo route, one mile of reduced speed operation (20 knots) is included for enter-ing each port. The route would skirt the Great Bahama Bank, pass south of Great Inagua Island, pass north of
Haiti and the Dominican Republic to Mona Passage,
and then west to Santo Domingo. The ambient temper-ature was assumed to vary between 50 degrees F and 100 degrees F.
For the Miami to San Juan route,one mile of reduced
speed operation was also included for entering each port. The route would skirt the Great Bahama Bank,
pass south of Great Inagua Island, pass north of Haiti and the Dominican Republic, and north of Puerto Rico to-San Juan. The ambient temperature was assumed to vary between 50 degrees F and 100 degrees F.
The economic analysis results are summarized in
TA-BLE 19. On the New Orleans to Barranquilla route,
trade revenues of over $100 million per year far exceed-ed the expectexceed-ed $40.3 million marketing projectexceed-ed reve-nue available. Therefore, either the number of ships
op-erating would have to be reduced or more revenue
sources developed such as increased freight, passenger or car traffic. A two-ship operation would only increase freight rate less than 1 cent per pound. A one-ship oper-ation was not deemed practical. Combining the New Or-leans to Barranquilla route with the Houston to Campe-che route would seem to be more practical. It would also provide access to lower fuel costs (approximately $0.20
per gallon) which could reduce annual fuel costs by
nearly $35 million.
For Houston to Campeche operations, the required revenues are $80 to $90 million for a three-ship opera-tion, again exceeding the expected available marketing revenue of $57.6 million. A two-ship operation would drop the required revenue to $59.9 million with a freight rate increase of 0.003 dollars per pound. Miami to
San-to Domingo would require annual revenues of about
$124 million compared to projected marketingrevenue levels of $37.1 million. A two-ship operation would re-quire about $74 million in annual revenues.
Finally, for Miami to San Juan trade, the required an-nual revenues for the two-ship operationare about $86 million with an expected available marketing revenue level of $55.8 million. The annual revenues could be
in-creased by adding passengers or autos as the tourist trade might be attracted by a low fare and overnight
cruise accommodations. In addition, the Miami to San Juan and Miami to Santo Domingo routes could possi-bly be combined to satisfy a three-ship operation.
300
CONCLUSIONS
The study showed that:
Of the three general categories of candidate advanced marine vehicles - buoyant lift, dynamic lift, and pow-ered lift - the latter two were the most promising for commercial express shipping applications.
None of the designs could economically or readily switch from high to low speed.
There are trades where high speed vessels could pro-vide time and cost competitive service.
Of the five domestic trade routes studied:
- Favorable economic results were projected for the Milwaukee-Muskegon route.
Marginal results were projected for the Miami-San Juan trade route.
- Required freight rates calculated for the remaining three routes indicated high speed shipping service was not competitive with other modes.
Of the three international trade routes studied: - The Houston-Campeche route represented an ideal
application fo; high speed ships, for required freight rates and service characteristics.
- Required freight rates for the other two routes were comparable to existing air cargo rates but delivery time was not competitive. Further study, however, is required with regard to market and trade volumes which would be generated by a small capacity, rapid delivery ship with lower than air fare freight rates. There has been little success in introducing high speed
marine craft in U.S. trades due to dominant
alternative transportation systems.
Shippers tend to offer positive comments about ex-press shipping but point to administrative problems that must be overcome. Recent changes in the U.S. Tax Code might help: accelerating depreciation schedules, allowing longer term carryovers for oper-ating losses, capitalizing on the 10 percent investment credit, and gaining credit for increasing research and development activities.
Finally, the study revealed two characteristics of an ex-press shipping service which would play an important role in any practical implementation.
Relatively large initial capital expenditure for the ships.
Near-capacity use rates to provide adequate return on equity.
It must be realized that the study results are basedon estimated and generalized values for costs, fees, ship performance, ship size, and route conditions. An analy-sis using more exact values, as would be available for a
more specific route study, might reveal operational
economies not evident in the more generalized analysis. These economies might be expected in ship costs, tax rates, depreciation, financing, and administrative fees.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors are deeply indebted to their colleagues,
J.R. McCaul and S.W. Phillips of IMA, and Dr. M. Richards and Dr. J.J. Edwards of RMI. The study re-flects their major contributions and professional dedica-tion. Special acknowledgment is given to Mrs. Sherry Fitzgerald who typed the paper and prepared the tables and illustrations for publication.
