Curvas Regresionales para Buques

BTE Publication Summary
Regression Analysis of Ship Characteristics

Occasional Paper
This Paper presents the results of statistical analyses of ship characteristics
which have been undertaken to provide input to models of ship costs and
operations in particular trades. Standard least squares regressions were
performed on the data to relate particular ship characteristics to deadweight.
Deadweight was selected as the common denominator for the regressions
because of its universal acceptance as a measure of ship size and because of
its wide use in the reporting of statistical information.
Subject
Series
Date
A to Z
Search
Results
Print
Exit
GO BACK
Regression Analysis
of
Ship Characteristics
G.P. Piko
@ Commonwealth of Australia 1 9 8 0
ISBN
0 642 05820
Printedby C.J. THOMPSON,

Commonwealth
Government
Printer,
Canberra
FOREWORD
This paper has been published to disseminate information on

statistical analyses of ship characteristics undertaken by the
Bureau of Transport Economics. While information
of a similar
nature has been published, it is considered that the
comprehensiveness of the results presented in this paper \:ill
be of general interest.
The analyses were undertaken to provide input to supply oriented
studies into port infrastructure and port and shipping
operations. Because of this application the characteristics:
. length;
. breadth;
. draught; and
container capacity;
which all influence port infrastructure and operating costs,
have each been modelled as a function of deadweight tonnes; the
nearest measure to the economic usefulness of a ship. In
addition, the following characteristics have each been regressed
against deadweight:
. gross registered tons;

. net registered tons;
. age;
. power;
. speed.
and
Standard minimum least squares regression techniques were used

to generate models for each of the above characteristics for
each of the following ship types:
. container ships;
. roll on-roll off
. bulk carriers;
ships (ro-ro) ;
iii
.ore carriers;
. tankers;
. general cargo ships; and
. passenger ships.
Computer data tapes of Lloyds Register of Shipping (current
at May 1977) were used as the data source for the analyses.
Hence, the ships on which the models were
based are
representative of the world fleet. Details of the data
extraction, which required considerable computing effort, are
also described in the paper.
The analyses were performed and the report prepared by
Mr G.P. Piko of the Planning and Technology Branch under the
general supervision of Mr C.R. Sayers.
R.W.L. Wyers
Assistant Director
Planning and Technology
Bureau of Transport Economics
CANBERRA
December
1980
iv
CONTENTS
Page
iii
FOREWORD
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER 2 DESCRIPTION OF THE DATA AND OUTLINE
OF THE ANALYSIS
CHAPTER 3 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
Length, breadth and draught
17
18
Tonnage
Age
Power
Speed
Container capacity
19
22
24
CHAPTER 4 CONCLUDING REMARKS

General
Limitations o f the results
ANNEX A MAIN CONTENTS
SHIPPING
ANNEX B
15
90
90
90
OF LLOYD'S REGISTER OF
10 2
DATA PREPARATION AND ANALYSIS
ANNEXCALTERNATIVEMODELS:REGRESSION
COEFFICIENTS AND STATISTICS
109
113
TABLES
Page
1
Length:
Regression
Coefficients
2Breadth:Regression
and Statistics
Coefficients and Statistics
Draught:
Regression
Coefficients
GrossRegisteredTons:RegressionCoefficients
and Statistics
and Statistics
92
93
94
95
NetRegisteredTons:RegressionCoefficients
96
and Statistics
RegressionCoefficients
and Statistics
97
Age:
7.1
Power:RegressionCoefficients
7.2
Power: Regression Coefficients and Statistics
Speed:RegressionCoefficientsandStatistics
100
Container
Capacity:
Regression
101
and Statistics
Coefficients and
Statistics
vi
98
99
FIGURES
Page
1
Fixed Format Card Image
10
VariableFormatCardImage
11
3 (a) Program DATAPREP1
12
3 (b) Program
DATAPREP2
13
3 (c)
Program DATAPREP3
14
Length v Deadweight.
Container Ships
26
II
l1
RO-ro Ships
27
I1
11
Bulk Carriers
28
11
I,
Ore Carriers
29
I1
11
Tankers
30
II
I1
General Cargo Ships
31
10
II
,I
Passenger Ships
32
Breadth v Deadweight. Container Ships
33
11
12
l1
,I
RO-ro Ships
34
13
I,
II
Bulk Carriers
35
14
I,
11
Ore Carriers
36
15
I1
II
Tankers
37
vii
Page
II
',
16
II
17
II
18Draught
Ships
Cargo
General
It
38
Ships
Passenger
39
40
v Deadweight.ContainerShips
RO-ro Ships
19
I1
20
11
21
11
11
Ore Carriers
43
22
II
II
Tankers
44
23
11
II
Ships
General
Cargo
45
24
11
II
25
41
Carriers
Bulk
42
Ships
Passenger
46
v Deadweight.Container
Ships
GrossRegisteredTons
26
II
11
11
II
27
11
II
11
II
RO- ro S h i p s
11
II
I1
I1
29
II
II
I1
30
11
11
II
49
Ore
Carriers
50
Tankers
51
General
Cargo Ships
viii
48
Bulk
Carriers
28
47
52
Page
31
Passenger
Ships
32
Net Registered Tons v Deadweight.
Container
Ships
54
55
33
II
It
IIII
RO- ro Sh i PS
34
II
II
II
Bulk
Carriers
35
II
36
II
37
l1
38
II
II
l1
II
II
11
11
l1
11
56
Ore
Carriers
57
Tankers
58
General
Cargo Ships
59
Passenger
Ships
39
53
Age v Deadweight. Container Ships
60
61
40
11
II
RO- ro S h i p s
62
41
11
Bulk Carriers
63
42
11
I,
Ore Carriers
64
43
11
It
Tanker-s
65
44
11
General Cargo Ships
66
ix
Page
45
46
II
Passenger
Ships
I1
67
Horsepower v Deadweight. HP
U.
(DWT)fi.E
Container
47
II
I1
48
II
I1
49
11
I1
50
I1
51
II
Carriers
Carriers
Ships
68
RO- ro Sh i ps
69
Bulk
70
Ore
71
Tankers
72
11
General Cargo
73
Ships
52
I1
II
Passenger
74
Ships
53
Horsepower v Deadweight. HP
U.
(DWT)fi.( V ) y
.E
Container
54
55
Ships
75
RO- ro Ships
76
Bulk
Carriers
77
56
Ore Carriers
78
57
Tankers
79
58
General Cargo
Sh i ps
80
Page
59
Horsepower v Deadweight.
60
Speed
61
11
62
81
Container Ships
82
I,
Ro-ro Ships
83
11
I1
Bulk Carriers
84
63
II
II
Ore Carriers
85
64
,I
I1
Tankers
86
65
I1
It
General Cargo Ships
87
66
It
I,
Passenger Ships
88
67
Deadweight.
Passenger Ships
Container Capacity
Deadweight
X1
89
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
The Bureau of Transport Economics(BTE) is currently undertaking

a number of shipping and port facility studies which require
the development of modelsof ship costs and operations in
particular trades.
This paper presents the results of
statistical analyses of ship characteristics which have been
undertaken to provide input to these models.
The source of the dataused in this project was Lloyd's Register
of Shipping, which consists of detailed information on over
60 000 ships and is considered to be representativeof the world
fleet. Lloyd's Register of Shipping records a comprehensive
range of data items. However, for some ships information is
not presented for every data item. The Register of Shipping
was obtained in the form of magnetic tape for computer analyses:
the version used for this project was current at May 1977.
Standard least squares regressions were performed on the data
to relate particular ship characteristics to deadweight.
Deadweight was selected as the common denominator
for the
regressions because of its universal acceptance as a measure
of ship size and because of its wide use in the reporting of
statistical information. The ship
characteristics which were
each regressed against deadweight were:
length;
. breadth;
draught;
gross registered tons (GRT);
.
.
. net registered tons (NRT);

. age;
. power;
. speed; and
. container capacity.
The length, breadth, draught and container capacity of ships

are of interest because they each influence the port facilities
required to handle a given ship. The power and speed
of ships
affect such factors as fuel consumption and travel time, and
therefore are of interest in many shipping studies.
Regressions on age are included to provide an indication of the
trend over time in the size of ships built. However, ships are
deleted from Lloyd's Register as they are withdrawn from service,
hence, the data consist of the ships stillin service at May
1977 rather than all the ships built before that time. This
means that the data do not necessarily provide
an accurate
description of the range of sizes of ships built in any given
year.
Deadweight is a more common measure of the carrying capacity
of a ship than either gross registered tons (GRT) or net
registered tons (NRT), hence, deadweight hasbeen used as the
independent variable. However, regressions have been carried
out which provide an indication of the relationship between
deadweight and GRT, and deadweight and NRT.
Regressions on the ship characteristics described above were
performed separately for seven ship types:
. container (fully cellular);

. roll on-roll off (ro-ro) ;
. bulk carrier;
. ore carrier;
. tanker;
. general cargo; and
. passenger.
The variation in the characteristics of ships from these

different categories is sufficiently great to justify analysing
each ship type separately.
Also, most port studies, including
those of the BTE, need to consider separately the facilities

for various ship types.
While the major aim of this project wasto provide a data base
which satisfied the requirements of the dependent BTE shipping
and port projects, an endeavour has been madeto present the
results in a format suitable for use by others working in related
fields. The presentation of results includes tabulation of the
regression coefficients and statistics for each model. However,
to further assist interpretation of the results a series of
figures is included which shows each regression model, together
with its 95 per cent confidence interval, superimposed on a plot
of the sample data. These figures not only illustrate the
relationship derived between each variableand deadweight, but
also provide other valuable information including:
. the
spread of the sample data on which the regression model

was based;
. the
range of the variables over which the regression

is valid;
. the
width of the 95 per cent prediction confidence intervals;
and
. the
upper limit o f the variable that occursin the sample data.
The information presented in this paper is intended to assist

those examining investment in shipping and port infrastructure.
For example, for a given increase in the depth of a channel a
regression equation will provide an indication of the maximum
deadweight of ships (of a given type) that would then be able
to use the channel. The plot of the sample data would indicate
whether there are, in fact, many ships of that size in service,
and therefore the likely demand for additional channeldepth.
CHAPTER 2
DESCRIPTION OF THE DATA AND OUTLINEOF THE ANALYSIS
Lloyd's Register of Shipping has been pubiished for many years.

It is constantly updated, newly built shipsbeing added and ships
withdrawn from service being deleted, in order to maintain an
accurate description of the vesselsin service around the world.
The version of Lloyd's Register purchased by the BTE was current
at May 1977 and is now held by the Department of Transport as
part of the sea transport information system.
Lloyd's Register attempts to provide extremely comprehensive
data on each ship. The full range of specifications sought for
inclusion in the Register is shown in Annex A, however, the
information on each ship falls broadly into the following
categories:
. name;
. owner and manager's name;
. detailed specification of
. detailed specification of
. ship type;
I
the hull;
the equipment and propulsion systems;
ship builder;
builder; and
country of registry.
. engine
This information is stored as a series of computercard images

which are each identified by a card type code and a sequence
number. The card

type code indicates the ship characteristics
that are to be found on a particular card.
In the event of the
information for a given ship characteristic filling a number
of cards, each card is distinguished by a sequence number. Annex
A shows the characteristics recordedin the Register and the
code number of the card on which each is to be found. The file
is structured so that all the information for the first ship
is recorded on a series of these cards which is then followed
by all the cards for the second ship, and so on.
Most data items are recorded in a clearly defined numeric or

alphanumeric field, which makes computer analysis convenient.
An example of a typical fixed format card of data is shown in
Figure 1. Characters 4-10 contain a Lloyd's Register number
which identifies the ship, and the data items are recorded in
fixed locations after the card type
code. Occasionally, however,
an item of data is recorded in a field without fixed content
or format. An example of a variable format field is shown in
Figure 2.
It is difficult to extract the data from a field of
this type because the information does not always occur at the
same position on the card.
The ship characteristics extracted from the filefor analysis
in this project were:
. deadweight
(DWT)- the weight in tonnes of cargo, stores, fuel,
Passengers and crew carried by the ship when loaded to the

summer loadline;
. length -
the extreme length of the ship;
. breadth -
the extreme breadth, which is the maximum breadth;

to the outside of the ship's structure
. draught -
in most cases this represents the summer loadline
draught amidships, but in some ships the maximum draughtis

at the aft end and then this figure is recorded;
. gross
registered tons (GRT) - the capacity in cubic feet of
the spaces within the hull and of the enclosed spaces above
the deck, all dividedby one hundred;
registered tons (NRT) - derived from the gross tonnage
by deducting spaces used for the accommodation of the master,
officers, crew, navigation, propelling machinery and fuel;
. net
25474180--2
. age
years since the ship was built (to the time of

publication of the data, 1977);
. power -
total brake or shaft horsepower depending on propulsion

type (it was assumed shaft horsepower equals brake horsepower) ;
. speed -
the speed (in knots) that the ship is stated to be

capable of maintaining at sea in normal weather, and at normal
service draught; and
capacity - capacity is measured in twenty foot
equivalent units (TEUs)
. container
The degree of accuracy for individual items of information

depends on the availability of the data. Certain items of
information are recorded for all ships, while other items are
only available for some ships. In
the item the better fhe coverage.
general, the more fundamental

Lloyd's Register provides
a scale which indicates the overall quality of the data recorded

for each item of information. There may be variations within
ship types and within year of build, but the scale gives an
indication of the overall reliability of an item of information.
The graduations of the scale are:
very good;
good ;
acceptable for analysis purposes;
should be treated with caution if used in analysis; and
poor.
The data for deadweight and speed are described as being
'acceptable for analysis purposes'. The data
for all other
quantities used in this project were described as either 'good'
or 'very good'. An
attempt was made to further ensure the
reliability of the data used by only including a ship in the
analysis if figures were available for all the ten
characteristics taken from the Register (except TEUs which are
only relevant to container ships), i.e. ships with incomplete

data were excluded. By using only ships for which all the
relevant information was available, the sample was restricted
to ships for which the data were likely to be most reliable.
The sample was further restrictedby excluding ships which belong
to more than one of the ship type categories listed above, i.e.
only ships which operate in purely one fashion were considered
in the analysis. This restriction is intended to normalise the
data to consistent design criteria.
It would be unreasonable
to expect, for example, that fully cellular container ships
exhibit the same characteristics as ships which handle both

general cargo and containers. These latter ships are likely
to be general cargo ships, designedto different criteria, which
enable them to carry some containers.
The sample sizes which remained for analysiswere:
289
107
2462
277
3014
4146
39
10334
container ships
ro-ro ships
bulk carriers
ore carriers
tankers
general cargo ships
passenger ships
total
The nature of the original data setand the culling criteria

used to derive the analysis data must affect the relationships
obtained. Account should be taken of the extent to which the
composition of the sample data is likely to affect its relevance
to any particular application. In summary, the principal
features of the sample data are:
. representative of the world fleet;
. contains
those ships in service at May 1977;
. contains
only ships which operate in purely one fashion; and
. ships
which do not contain all relevant data items have

been
excluded.
The data files were very large, therefore, the first step
of the analysis was to delete all the ships that were not
relevant so that the subsequent data preparation was performed
on much smaller files which were simpler and cheaper to
manipulate.
The data preparation was performed using three
computer programs:
DATAPREPl, DATAPREP2 and DATAPREP3. Figures
3(a) , 3(b) and 3(c) illustrate the major functions of these
programs in diagrammatic form.
Broadly, the first program locates those ships that areto be
included in the sample and creates seven output files which each
contain the information for one ship type. The second program
locates the specific information to be analysed for each ship
and performs some checks on the data. The third program
carries
out further checks on the data, converts it to a form suitable
for regression analysis and creates seven files for input t o
the statistical package. These three programs
and the analysis
performed are described in more detail in A,nnex B.
Standard linear regression techniques were then used to determine
the line of best fit for each set of data. All regressions were
performed
sample
the
sizes
on
shown
above.
!
The output presented for each regression consists of a point
plot of the sample data with the regression relationship and
9 5 per cent prediction confidence interval superimposed. These
plots are shown in Figures 4-67. The point plots are generated
such that an asterisk signifies one data point; a '2' denotes
two coincident data points etc.; and a '9' denotes nine or more
coincident data points.
Tables 1-9 contain information on the form of the regression

model recommended in each instance, together with the regression
estimates of the coefficients and the It' and IR21 statistics.
For large samples, if the absolute value of the t-statistic is
greater than 1.96 then the regression coefficient is
significantly different from zero, i.e. that term in the
regression is making a significant contribution in explaining
the variance of the sample data. The R 2 statistic represents
the proportion of the variance in the data that can be explained
by the regression model.
However, the R 2 statistic cannot be
compared from one regression model to another.
CARD
TYPE
T21
1
2 3
5 6 7 4
8 9 1011 12131415
LENGTH
OVERALL
FEET
DRAUGHT
MAX
B R EADTH
EXTREME
INS
mm
FEET
LENGTH
BETWEEN
PERPENDICULARS
INS
FIGURE 1 FIXED FORMAT
FRACTION
FEET
LARGER/OR ONLY
INS FRACTION
33343536
37 3839 4041
DEPTH
MOULDED
BREADTH
MOULDED
FEET
mfflae EI41m
282930 31 32
23 24 25 26 27
REGISTERED
LENGTH
SMALLER
FEET INS
FRACTION
CARDIMAGE
SOURCE:Documentation of Lloyd's Register Book File of Shipping.
42434445
LENGTH
SEQUENCE
CARD NUMBER
TYPE
T370 1
/
OF CONTAINERS
NO.OF CONTAINERS
9 5 0 / 2 0 '
"
A0 2
1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415
FIGURE 2 VARIABLE FORMAT

SOURCE:Documentationof Lloyd's
CARD
IMAGE
Register Book File of Shipping.
BUFFER IN THE INFORMATION

FOR ONE SHIP
f
LOCATE SHIP TYPE
I
IS THIS A "PURE" SHIP

OF A RELEVANT TYPE?
I
YES
LOCATE CARDS WITH RELEVANT

INFORMATION
l
LOAD THESE CARDS INTO THE
OUTPUT ARRAY
I
NO
BUFFER OUT THE INFORMATIONTO

FILE FOR THAT SHIP TYPE
IS THISTHE
THE
FINALSHIP
ON FILE?
S
STOP
FIGURE 3(0) PROGRAM
12
DATAPREP1
BUFFER IN THE
INFORMATION
FORSHIPONE
l
l
1
1
LOCATE
CARDS
WITH TONNAGE, DIMENSIONS
AND
AGE
LOADTHE
INFORMATION
INTO O U T P U T
DETERMINE SHIP PROPULSION
ISTHIS A
ARRAY
TYPE
l
LOCATE
INFORMATION
CONTAINER
CAPACITY
CONTAINER
SHIP?
NO
GIVEN SHIP PROPULSION

TYPE,
LOCATE
CARDSWITH INFORMATION
ON
POWER
ON
LOAD
INFORMATION
INTO
OUTPUT
ARRAY
IS INFORMATION
AVAILWLE
POWER?
ON
YES
LOAD
INFORMATION POWER
ON
INTO O U T P U T
ARRAY
,
LOCATE
I I
l
CARD
WITH
INFORMATION
ON
LOAD INFORMATION ONSPEED INTO OUTPUT

ARRAY
B UFFER
OUT
INFORMATION
SPEED
FOR
SHIP
ONE
IS THIS THE FINAL SHIP ON FILE?
FIGURE 3(b) PROGRAM
13
DATAPREP2
INPUT INFORMATION ON
TONNAGE
DIMENSIONS FOR ONE SHIP
AND
CONVERT INFORMATION TO INTEGER FORMAT
+
CONVERT INFORMATION ON DIMENSIONS AND
DEADWEIGHTTO METRIC
UNITS
c
I
INPUT INFORMATION FOR

POWER
SPEED AND AGE
FOR
ONE SHIP
(IFRELEVANT)
ARE THERE ANY BLANK FIELDS?
TO TEUS
CONVERT CONTAINER
INFORMATION
(IFRELEVANT)
OUTPUT INFORMATION
NO
FOR
ONE SHIP
IS THIS THE FINAL SHIP ON FILE?

YES
STOP
FIGURE 3(c) PROGRAM
14
DATAPREP3
YES
CHAPTER 3
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
LENGTH, BREADTH AND DRAUGHT

Figures 4-24 show length, breadth and draught plotted against
deadweight for each of the seven ship types. Table 1-3 present
the regression coefficients and statistics for the models:
. Length =
a. (DWT)3 .E
. Breadth =
a. (DWT)B
. Draught =
a. (DWT)B .E
.E
The summary statistics in Tables1-3 show that these models do,

in general, indicate a strong correlation between each dimension
and deadweight for each of the ship types considered. Although
it was clear from the graphs of the sample data that a model
of the form shown above should fit the data,it was also possible
that a quadratic function may be appropriate. Hence, models
of the following form were also regressed:
. Length =
+ 8. (DWT) + y .(DWT)2 +
. breadth =
a +
. Draught =
CL
8. (DWT) + y .(DWT)
a.
(DWT) + y .(DWT)2 +
Although the t-statistics suggested the coefficients were

statistically significant (at the 95 per cent confidence level)
they were very smalland had little influence on the estimates
of length, breadth and draught. It was considered that the
former functions provided accurate estimates of the parameters
over a wider range of deadweight and, therefore, they are the
recommended relationships. (The regression coefficients and
statistics of the quadratic functions are recorded in Tables
C.1 to C.3 in Annex C) .
15
There are a number of physical relationships which determine

the length/breadth and length/draught ratios for a ship which
minimise the resistive force a ship experiences asit progresses
through the water.
However, the relationships derived between
deadweight and length, deadweight and breadth, and deadweight
and draught do not reflect any such physical relationship.
Rather, they are the result of designing the lowest cost ship
to handle a particular. trade given that length, breadth and
draught are constrained by factors such as the physical
dimensions of the ports at which the ship is intended to
operate. Some of the effects of these constraints on the sample
d.ata are readily apparent- in Figures 4-24. The most obvious
of these effects is the clear upper limit of thirty-two metres
for the breadth of a container ship (Figure 11). This obviously
corresponds to the 'third genera,tion' container ships which are
constrained by the width of the Panama Canal. A number of other
graphs (for example Figures 6, 8, 16, 22 and 23) also seem to
be bounded by an upper limit. It
is apparent, therefore, that
the relationships derived in this paper reflect the combined
influence of the many criteria that the designer of a ship must
consider, for example:
. minimum
cost;
carrying capacity; and
. constraints on length, breadth, draught.
. maximum
Tables 1-3 show the relationships which describe the line of

best fit for the plots of length, breadth and draught against
deadweight.
However, a fuller explanation of the distribution
of the sample data is obtained if these equations are considered
in corijunction with the 95 per cent confidence intervals shown
in Figures 4-24. Inspection of these graphs will show that the
width of the confidence interval does vary considerably with
ship type. This should be taken into account in any study which
aims to generalise across shiptypes.
16
TONNAGE
The volume of a ship is expressed in volumetric tons and is
referred to as its tonnage (1 ton = 100 ft3) .
The charges for
berthing and docking a ship, for passage through canals and locks
and for many other facilities are usually basedon a ship's
tonnage. The
two tonnage measures of prime interest are the
gross registered tons (GRT) and net registered tons (NRT).
Figures 25-38 show GRT and NRT plotted against deadweight for
each of the seven shiptypes.
As tonnage is broadly a measure of the volume of a ship's cargo,
and deadweight is broadly a measure of the weight of a ship's

cargo, one would expect a positive correlation to exist between
these variables. Examination
of Figures 25-38 shows that the
data do, in fact, exhibit such a correlation.
A linear
regression model was therefore used for each of GRT and NRT.
The resulting regression coefficients and statistics are
presented in Tables 4 and 5. The t and R2 statistics verify
the fact that a correlation exists between tonnage and
deadweight.
a. (DWT)B .E
As a check, power functions of the form GRT =

were also fitted to the data and theresultant
regression coefficients and statistics are presented in Tables

C.4 and C.5.
The regression estimates of the exponent, 3 ,
are all close to unity which further suggests that the
model is appropriate.
linear
It should be noted that it is not statistically valid to use

the information in this paper to derive, by substitution,
relationships between tonnage and any o f the other ship
characteristics. The questionable reliability of relationships
derived in this manner should be taken into account in
quantitative analysis.
17
AG E
The age of a shipin years, at 1977, wasplotted against
deadweight for each of the seven ship types and is shown in
Figures 39-45. These graphs do, in general, illustrate the
expected trend; namely, that the size of ships has been
increasing with time. Although larger
ships are being built
with time, a variety of smaller ships is still being built to
service that trade which does not justify the
use of larger
ships. This trend
to build larger ships
is exhibited most
clearly by bulk carriers, ore carriers and tankers. For the

remaining ship types it is still seen that the larger ships tend
to be of newer construction.
The fact that ships are deleted from the Register as they are
withdrawn from service suggests that the sample on which the
regressions were performed probably provides aclose
approximation to the ships constructed in recent years, but for
earlier years a smaller proportion of ships actually constructed
would remain in the sample.
Due to the fact that there is a large range of ship sizes built
in any one year, it is not reasonable to generate an equation
which will describe age for a ship type simplyas a function
of deadweight. Therefore, a linear model was fitted
to the date
purely to check whether or not there is a trend for the size
of ships being built to increase with time. Table 6 shows the
regression coefficients and statistics for the model
Age
CI
+ B. (DWT) +
An F-test of the joint null hypothesis that N = O and fi=O was

carried out at the 95 per cent confidence level to test for a
relationship between age and deadweight.
The test indicated
that a significant correlation existed between age and deadweight
for five of the seven ship types. The analysis found no
significant relationship between deadweight and age for either
18
ro-ro or passenger ships while for all other ship types the
regression was significant and showed a negative correlation
between age and deadweight, i.e. the larger ships tend to be
newer.
These results really only provide a statistical verification
of what can be seen by inspection of the graphs. There is, in
general terms, a significant trend toward larger vessels
for
bulk carriers, ore carriers, tankers, general cargo ships and
container ships, while no suchtrend is apparent for ro-ro
or passenger ships.
A model of the form
Age
CL
+ B.(DWT)-l
was also fitted to the data, and the regression coefficients

and statistics are tabulated in Table C.6.
The form of the
graphs of sample data suggested this model may be able
to explain
more of the variation in deadweight with age, however, it
provided no better results than did the simple linearmodel.
Hence, all that can be claimed is that for five of the seven
ship types there is some correlation between age and deadweight.
POWER
Figures 45-52 show total power plotted against deadweight for
each of the seven ship types.
It is evident from these plots
that the data exhibit considerable scatter for eachship type.
There does, however, appear to be a strong correlation between
power and deadweight for ore carriers, tankersand to a lesser
extent bulk carriers. The following model
was fitted to the
data
Power
= CL.
(DWT)9 .E
The regression coefficients and statistics are presented in Table

7.1.
The regression coefficients indicate a marked difference
between the data for container ships and the data for the
remaining ships, i.e. the exponent, B , is in excess of unity
for container ships but less than unity for the remaining ship
types. A number of contai,ner ships have been designed to travel
at 25-30 knots and these, having high power, would tend to move
the regression line up, giving it an increasing slope with
deadweight. Given
current fuel prices, however, these ships
have not been proving economic at such high speeds. Hence,
it
is thought analysis of the container ships currently

being
designed may well show a significantly lower exponent for a
regression of power on deadweight.
These variations in the form of the regression models are, in
fact, due to the differing economic considerations present over
time or between ship types. It should be noted, therefore, that
the regression models presented-in this paper are the result
of interaction between all the factors that must be considered
in the design of a ship. They do not represent fundamental
physical relationships in their own right.
Although the regression models presented in Table 7.1 are
significant for each ship type, it is clear that individual data
points are sometimes scattered far from the line of best fit
such that the confidence intervals are wide and diverge at large
values of deadweight.
In an attempt to determine a relationship
which gives a better explanation of the variance in the data,
alternative models were tested. The regression coefficients
and statistics for the following made1 are shown in Table C.7:
Power
+ 6. (DWT) +
None of these regressions provided any better explanation of

the data than did the previous model. Figures 53-59 show the
regression line for a model which includes the term 'speed' (V)
20
superimposed on a plot of the sample data contained

in Figures
46-52. Table 7.2 shows the regression coefficients and
statistics for this model, which is of the form
Power
a. (DWT)6. (V)Y
.E
The relationships obtained for bulk carriers, ore carriersand

tankers using this model are very similar to those derived using
the previous model. This result is due to the fact that all
ships, within each of these ship types, travel at almost the same
speed and therefore the speed term in the regression virtually
becomes a constant. (Figures 62-64 show
the speed versus
deadweight plots for these ship types.) On
the other hand,
various container ships have been designed for different
operating speeds. Figure
53 shows that the variation in power
can be more fully explained by including speed as a further
explanatory variable. Considering this figure
in conjunction
with the plot of speed against deadweight (Figure 60),
it is
clear that the ships designed to travel at around sixteen knots
tend to lie close to the power regression generated with speed
equal to sixteen knots. Similarly, the ships designed for
twenty-three knots fall close to the regression with speed equal
to twenty-three, and twenty-eight knot container ships lie close
to the twenty-eight knot regression.
Thus, as one would expect,
speed is seen to be an important factor in explaining the
variation in power for container ships.
Figure 61 indicates that a number of ro-ro ships travel at
about seventeen knots while a number of others travel at about
twenty-two knots. The
ships from each of these two groups tend
to fall close to the regression using the corresponding value
o f speed (Figure 54) .
General cargo ships travel at a range of speeds from ten
to
twenty-three knots (Figure 65), however, a number of these ships
travel at about fifteen knots and tend to fall around the
regression with the corresponding value of speed (Figure 58) .
25474/80--3
21
The sample is small for passenger ships. However, there are
'number of ships that travel at twenty to twenty-one knots and

these tend to lie just above the regression with speed equal
to twenty knots (Figure 59) .
In general, it is clear that the variation in speed for a g i v e n
ship type is a major factor
in explaining the variation
in power.
However, the design speed for bulk carriers, ore carriers and
tankers is virtually a constant and, hence, omission of the speed
term does not have a major effect on the regressions for these
ship types. On the other hand, container ships show the largest
systematic variation in speed, and this results in the speed
term being very significant
in explaining the variation
in power.
The 95 per cent confidence intervals of power modelled on

deadweight alone are quite wide and divergent at extreme values
of deadweight for all ship types. However, when power is
modelled on deadweight and speed, we find that the confidence
intervals for all ship types are improved.
SPEED
Figures 60-66 show speed plotted against deadweight for each
of the seven ship types.
As discussed in the previous section,
these graphs indicate that there is very little variation in

operating speed for bulk carriers, ore carriers and tankers which
means that the rate at which these ships move freight may be
quite accurately predicted.
Table 8 shows the regression coefficients and statistics for
the model
Speed
a + 8. (DWT) +
E..
A positive correlation was found between speed and deadweight

for all ship types. However, the slopes of the bulk carrier,
ore carrier and tanker regressions are so small that for many
22
practical purposes they may be considered negligible. The

regression for container ships shows a pronounced positive
slope. The data exhibit a distinctly linear relationship between
5000 deadweight tonne ships which travel at fifteen knots and
35 000 deadweight tonne ships which travel at twenty-fiveknots.
For ro-ro ships
positive slope,
larger ships to
to be a quantum
(see Figure 61) the regression line shows a
but the data do not show a steady trend for

operate at a higher speed. Rather, there
appears
jump at 14 000 deadweight tonnes : ships less
than 14 000 DWT travel at about seventeen knots, while ships

greater than 14 000 DWT travel at about twenty-two knots. Such
irregularities in the data illustrate the need to consider the
plot of the sample in conjunction with the regression
coefficients and statistics in order to obtain a fuller
understanding of the relationship between the two variables.
The regression model for cargo ships (Figure 65) provides only
a broad indication that a positive correlation exists. The data,
in fact, are scattered over a quite wide range of speeds. The
data for passenger ships (Figure 66) shows that most ships in
excess of 1500 deadweight tonnes travel at about twenty knots.
The implication of the regression model, that the larger the
passenger ship the higher will be its operating speed is not,
in fact, true. Notwithstanding this fact, examination of Figure
66 will show that the regression model still provides an
indication of the operating speed that couldbe expected of a
passenger ship of a given deadweight.
An alternative model was examined to see whether it provided
a better explanation of the data. The form of
Speed
a.
the model was
(DWT)S .E.
The regression coefficients and statistics for this model are

shown in Table C.8, but it provided no better correlations than
the simple linear model.
23
The confidence intervals for bulk carriers, o,re carriers and

tankers are quite narrow and do not diverge at large values of
deadweight. The confidence intervals for the other ship types
are not encouraging: they
are all wide and the passenger ship
confidence limits diverge at extreme values of deadweight.
CONTAINER CAPACITY
The pkot of container capacity against deadweight shownin Figure
67 suggests that there is a linear relationship between the
number of containers carried by a ship and its deadweight.

Hence, the following model was fitted
TEU
a +
where TEU
B .(DWT) +
to the data:
= twenty foot equivalent units.
The resulting regression coefficients and statistics are shown

in Table 9. These indicate the presence of a strong positive
correlation between TEUs and deadweight. It is reasonable that
there would be a linear relationship between these two variables
as deadweight gives an indication of the carrying capacity of
a ship, and the number of TEUs is the carrying capacity of
l
a container ship.
An alternative model
TEU
CL
.( D W T ).E~
was also regressed and the regression coefficients and statistics

are presented in Table .C.9. The exponent, 6 , resulting from
this regression is very close to unity which reinforces the
hypothesis that thjere is a linear relationship between container
capacity and deadwkight .
24
The confidence interval shows that although the data do show

a direct correlation between the variables, there is still a
degree of scatter about the line of best
fit.
This relationship, together with those for length, breadth and
draught, can be used to determine what size container ships are
likely to be able to enter a port, berth and have their
containers handled and stored efficiently.
For example, the
draught will limit the size of ship that can use the channels,
(when fully loaded), length will affect the berthing of the ship,
breadth will affect the handling of the cargo and the container
capacity will determine the adequacy of storagefacilities:
The relationships may then be used to determine the effect of
a given change to the port's operating characteristics.
25
384.0
376.0
368.0
360.0
352.0
344.0
336.0
328.0
320.0
312.0
304.0
296.0
288.0
280.0
272.0
264.0
256.0
248.0
240.0
232.0
224.0
216.0
208.0
200.0
192.0
184.0
176.0
168.0
160.0
152.0
144.0
136.0
128.0
120.0
DEADWEIGHT
REGRESSION LINE
95% CONFIDENCE
('000 TONNES)
---
INTERVAL
FIGURE 4 LENGTH VS DEADWEIGHT (CONTAiNER SHIPS)
\
N
27
N
N
0
0
W
M
.
.
rn
. z
0
0
0
z z
W
n
<
3
0
W
o u
' W
0
-
lY
L
E
N
G
T
H
284.0
280.0
276.0
272.0
268.0
264.0
260.0
256.0
252.0
248.0
244.0
240.0
236.0
232.0
228.0
224.0
220.0
216.0
212.0
208.0
204.0
200.0
196.0
192.0
188.0
184.0
180.0
176.0
172.0
168.0
164.0
160.0
156.0
152.0
148.0
144.0
140.0
136.0
132.0
128.0
124.0
0.0
15.0
30.0
45.0
60.0
DEADWEIGHT
REGRESSION LINE
95% CONFIDENCE
FIGURE 6
75.0
90.0
(000 TONNES)
---
INTERVAL
LENGTH VS DEADWEIGHT (BULK CARRIERS)
105.0
120.0
135.0
150.0
29
- 0
-0
0
W
-0
2
- 0
0
3
-0
0
0
3
-0
0
W
-0
- 0
- 0
L
E
N
G
T
H
~
W
0
448.0
440.0
432.0
424.0
416.0
408.0
400.0
392.0
384.0
376 .D
368.0
360.0
352.0
344.0
336.0
328 .O
320.0
312.0
304.0
296.0
288.0
280.0
272.0
264.0
256.0
248.0
240.0
232.0
224.0
216.0
208.0
200.0
192.0
184.0
176.0
168 .O
160.0
152.0
144.0
136.0
128.0
DEADWEIGHT
REGRESSION LINE
95% CONFIDENCE INTERVAL
FIGURE 8
---
LENGTH VS DEADWEIGHT (TANKERS)
('000 TONNES)
31
U
-I
Qf
W
W
N
352.0
344.0
336.0
328.0
320.0
312.0
304.0
296.0
288.0
280.0
272.0
264.0
256.0
248.0
240.0
232.0
224.0
216.0
208.0
200.0
192.0
184.0
176 .O
168.0
160.0
152.0
144.0
136.0
128.0
120.0
112.0
104.0
96.0
88.0
80.0
72.0
64.0
56.0
48.0
40.0
32.0
DEADWEIGHT
REGRESSION LINE
95% CONFIDENCE
FIGURE 10
(000 TONNES)
---
INTERVAL
LENGTH VS DEADWEIGHT (PASSENGER SHIPS)
33
1y
W
P
32.50
32.00
31.50
31 .OO
30.50
30.00
29.50
29.00
28.50
28.00
27.50
27 .OO
26.50
26.00
25.50
25.00
24.50
24.00
23.50
23.00
22.50
22.00
21.50
21 .oo
20.50
20.00
19.50
19 .oo
18.50
18.00
17.50
17.00
16.50
16.00
15.50
15.00
14.50
14.00
13.50
13.00
..
22
y
DEADWEIGHT
(000 TONNES)
---
REGRESSION LINE
FIGURE 12
BREADTH VS DEADWEIGHT (RO.RO SHIPS)
B
R
E
A
D
T
-.
48.80
48.00
47.20
46.40
45.60
44.80
44.00
43.20
42.40
41.60
40.80
40.00
39.20
38.40
37.60
36.80
36.00
35.20
34.40
33.60
32.80
32.00
31.20
30.40
29.60
28.80
28.00
27.20
26.40
25.60
24.80
24.00
23.20
22.40
21.60
20.80
20.00
19.20
18.40
17.60
16.80 I
0.0
398999429
838952
*5*35*f(
94 3
.2".
I
15.0
30.0
45.0
60.0
DEADWEIGHT
REGRESSION LINE
95% CONFIDENCE
FIGURE 13
75.0
90.0
('000 TONNES)
---
INTERVAL
BREADTH VS DEADWEIGHT (BULK CARRIERS)
105.0
120.0
135.0
150.0
48.80
48.00
47.20
46.40
45.60
44.80
44.00
43.20
42.40
41.60
40.80
40.00
39.20
38.40
37.60
36.80
36.00
35.20
34~.40
33.60
32.80
32.00
31.20
30.40
29.60
28.80
28.00
27.20
26.40
25.60
24.80
24.00
23.20
22.40
21.60
20.80
20.00
19.20
18.40
DEADWEIGHT
REGRESSION LINE
95% CONFIDENCE
FIGURE 14
('000 TONNES)
---
INTERVAL
BREADTH VS DEADWEIGHT (ORE CARRIERS)
25474180- 4
37
0
0
m
*
0
0
*
m
m
'
0
o
m
o
0
10
'
.c
w2
c
e
0
0
0
w
n
3
n
<
o z
0
o
N
0
0
10
0
l-,
0
0
0
0
l-
B
R
E
A
24.00
23.20
D
T
H
W
W
37.60
36.80
36.00
35.20
34.40
33.60
32.80
32.00
31.20
30.40
29.60
28.80
28 .oo
27.20
26.40
25.60
24.80
22.40
21.60
20.80
20.00
19.20
18.40
17.60
16.80
16.00
15.20
14.40
13.60
12.80
12.00
11.20
10.40
9.60
8.80
8.00
7.20
6.40
5.60
0.
'493
386'
39
5
DEADWEIGHT
REGRESSION LINE
FIGURE 16
('000 TONNES)
---
BREADTH VS DEADWEIGHT (GENERAL CARGO SHIPS)
\
\
\ *
\
\
'
\
.\
I*
**\
39
13.75
13.50
13.25
13.00
12.75
D
R
A
U
G
H
T
ro
0
11.75
11.50
11.25
1 1 .oo
10.75
10.50
10.25
10.00
9.75
9.50
9.25
9.00
8.75
8.50
8.25
8.00
7.75
7.50
7.25
7.00
6.75
6.50
6.25
6.00
5.75
5.50
5.25
5.00
4.75
4.50
4.25
4.00
222
22
3.75
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
DEADWEIGHT
REGRESSION LINE
95% CONFIDENCE
FIGURE 18
25.0
30.0
('000 TONNES)
---
INTERVAL
DRAUGHT VS DEADWEIGHT
-.
(CONTAINER SHIPS)
35.0
40.0
45.0
50.0
10.50
10.35
10.20
10.05
9.90
9 ..75
9.60
9.45
9.30
9.15
9.00
8.85
8.70
8.55
8.40
8.25
8.10
7.95
7.80
7.65
7.50
7.35
7.20
7.05
6.90
6.75
6.60
6.45
6.30
6.15
/ "2
6.00
5.85
5.70
5.55
5.40
5.25
5.10
4.95
4.80
4.65
4.50
2
*2
6.0
4.0
10.0
8.0
DEADWEIGHT
12.0
('000 TONNES)
---
REGRESSION LINE
9596 CONFIDENCE INTERVAL
FIGURE 19
14.0
(RO. R0 SHIPS)
16.0
18.0
20.0
22.0
D
R
A
U
G
H
T
22.40
22 .oo
21.60
21.20
20.80
20.40
20.00
19.60
19.20
18.80
18.40
18.00
17.60
17.20
16.80
16.40
16.00
15.60
15.20
14.80
14.40
14.00
13.60
13.20~
12.80
12.40
12.00
11,60
11.20
10.80
10.40
10.00
9.60
9.20
8.80
8.40
8.00
7.60
7.20
6.80
6.40
0.0
'5
15.0
30.0
45.0
60.0
DEADWEIGHT
REGRESSION LINE
95% CONFIDENCE
FIGURE 20
75.0
90.0
(boo TONNES)
---
INTERVAL
DRAUGHT V S DEADWEIGHT (BULK CARRIERS)
105.0
120.0
~.
"
135.0
150.0
23.60
23.20
22.80
22.40
22.00
!
l
D
R
A
U
G
H
16.40
19.20
18.80
18.40
18.00
17.60
17.20
16.80
I
j
.
n
16 .OO
15.6015.20
14.80
14.40
14.00
13.60
13.20
12.80
12.40
12.00
11.60
11.20
10.80
10.40
10.00
9.60
9.20
8.80
8.40
8.00
7.60
0.0
I
~~~
I
20.0
60.0
40.0
80.0
DEADWEIGHT
REGRESSION LINE
95% CONFIDENCE
FIGURE 21
100.0
i 120.0
('000 TONNES)
"
-
INTERVAL
(O R E CARRIERS)
140.0
160.0
180.0
200.0
39.20
38.40
37.60
36.80
36.00
35.20
34.40
33.60
32.80
32.00
31.20
30.40
29.60
28.80
28.00
27.20
26.40
25.60
24.80
24.00
23.20
22.40
21.60
20.80
20.00
19.20
18.40
17.60
16.80
16.00
15.20
14.40
13.60
12.80
12.00
11.20
10.40
9.60
8.80
8.00
7.20
0.0
50.0
100.0
150.0
200.0
250.0
DEADWEIGHT
REGRESSION LINE
95% CONFIDENCE
---
INTERVAL
FIGURE 22 DRAUGHT VS DEADWEIGHT (TANKERS)
300.0
(000 TONNES)
350.0
400.0
450.0
500.0
\
,
\
N
45
0
(D
m
cI1
'
m
or4
1
0
0
0
" 8
0
18.00
17.60
17.20
16.80
16.40
16.00
15.60
15.20
14.80
14.40
14.00
13.60
13.20
12.80
12.40
12.00
11.60
11.20
10.80
10.40
10.00
9.60
9.20
8.80
8.40
8.00
7.60
7.20
6.80
6.40
6.00
5.60
5.20
4.80
4.40
4.00
3.60
3.20
2.80
2.40
2.00
0.
. .
..
.*
/
-
/
'
/
DEADWEIGHT
REGRESSION LINE
('000 TONNES)
"
-
FIGURE 24 DRAUGHT VS DEADWEIGHT
(PASSENGER SHIPS)
G
R
0
S
S
R
E
G
I
S
T
E
R
E
D
T
0
N
S
60000.0
58500.0
57000.0
55500.0
54000.0
52500.0
51000.0
49500.0
48000.0
46500.0
45000.0
43500.0
42000.0
40500.0
39000.0
37500.0
36000.0
34500.0
33000.0
31500.0
30000.0
28500.0
27000.0
25500.0
24000.0
22500.0
21000.0
19500.0
18000.0
16500.0
15000.0
13500.0
12000.0
10500.0
9000.0
7500.0
6000.0
4500.0
3000.0
1500.0
0.0
0
',l(,
(-1
(I
DEADWEIGHT
REGRESSION LINE
95%
CONFIDENCE
FIGURE 25
('000 TONNES)
---
INTERVAL
GROSS REGISTERED TONSVS DEADWEIGHT (CONTAINER SHIPS)
4.
'2
G
R
0
S
S
R
E
G
I
S
T
E
R
E
D
T
0
N
S
21500.0
21000.0
20500.0
20000.0
19500.0
19000.0
18500.0
18000.0
17500.0
17000.0
16500.0
16000.0
15500.0
15000.0
14500.0
14000.0
13500.0
13000.0
12500.0
12000.0
11500.0
11000.0
10500.0
10000 I 0
9500.0
9000.0
8500.0
8000.0
7500.0
7000.0
6500.0
6000.0
5500.0
5000.0
4500.0
4000.0
3500.0
3000.0
2500.0
2000.0
1500.0
2.0
/*
/
5
2/
92'
~
2
6
'
22 3
'
'
2
I
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
DEADWEIGHT
REGRESSION LINE
FIGURE 26
//
/
/
/-
12.0
14.0
16.0
'
( 000 TONNES )
---
GROSS REGISTEREDTONS VS DEADWEIGHT
(RO.R0 SHIPS)
18.0
20.0
22.0
R
0
S
S
R
E
G
I
S
T
E
R
E
D
T
0
N
S
86000.0
84000.0
82000.0
80000.0
78000.0
76000.0
74000.0
72000.0
70000.0
68000.0
66000.0
64000.0
62000.0
60000.0
58000.0
56000.0
54000.0
52000.0
50000.0
48000.0
46000.0
44000.0
42000.0
40000.0
38000.0
36000.0
34000.0
32000.0
30000.0
28000.0
26000.0
24000.0
22000.0
20000.0
18000.0
16000.0
14000.0
12000.0
10000.0
8000.0
*A;
6000.0
15.0
0.0
30.0
45.0
60.0
75.0
DEADWEIGHT
REGRESSION LINE
95Yo CONFIDENCE
FIGURE 27
SO.0
105.0
('000 TONNES)
"
-
INTERVAL
GROSS REGISTERED TONSVS DEADWEIGHT
(BULK CARRIERS)
120.0
135.0
150.0
G
R
0
S
S
R
E
G
I
S
T
E
R
E
D
ul
0
T
0
N
S
105000.0
102500.0
100000.0
97500.0
95000.0
92500.0
90000.0
87500.0
85000.0
82500.0
80000.0
77500.0
75000.0
72500.0
70000.0
67500.0
65000.0
62500.0
60000.0
57500.0
55000.0
52500.0
50000.0
47500.0
45000.0
42500.0
40000.0
37500.0
35000.0
32500.0
30000.0
27500.0
25000.0
22500.0
20000.0
17500.0
15000.0
12500.0
10000.0
7500.0
5000.0
0
.- \&l"
1,
DEADWEIGHT
REGRESSION LINE
95% CONFIDENCE
FIGURE 28
('000 TONNES)
---
INTERVAL
GROSS REGISTEREDTONS VS DEADWEIGHT (ORE CARRIERS)
51
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
m
h
v1
. Mz
L-
<
W
0
o z
::e
0
2
3
X
'
ro
I 0
I;
c
c
c3
W
5
4
W
v,
>
G
R
0
S
S
R
E
G
I
S
T
E
R
E
D
W
M
T
0
N
S
30000.0
29250.0
28500.0
27750.0
27000.0
26250.0
25500.0
24750.0
24000.0
23250.0
22500.0
21750.0
21000.0
20250.0
19500.0
18750.0
18000.0
17250.0
16500.0
15750.0
15000.0
14250.0
13500.0
12750.0
12000.0
11250.0
10500.0
9750.0
9000. a
8250.0
7500.0
6750.0
6000.0
5250.0
4500.0
3750.0
3000.0
2250.0
1500.0
750.0
0.0
0
DEADWEIGHT
REGRESSION LINE
95% CONFIDENCE
FIGURE 30
(000 TONNES)
---
INTERVAL
GROSS REGISTERED TONSVS DEADWEIGHT (GENERAL CARGO SHIPS)
G
R
0
S
S
R
E
G
I
S
T
E
R
E
D
W1
W
T
0
N
S
32000.0
31200.0
30400.0
29600.0
28800.0
28000.0
27200.0
26400.0
25600.0
24800.0
24000.0
23200.0
22400.0
21600.0
20800.0
20000.0
19200.0
18400.0
17600.0
16800.0
16000.0
15200.0
14400.0
13600.0
12800.0
12000.0
11200.0
10400.0
9600.0
8800.0
8000.0
7200.0
6400.0
5600.0
4800.0
4000.0
3200.0
2400.0
1600.0
800.0
/
/
DEADWEIGHT
REGRESSION LINE.
FIGURE 31
('000 TONNES)
"
-
GROSS REGISTERED TONSVS DEADWEIGHT (PASSENGER SHIPS)
E
R
E
D
T
0
N
S
40000.0
39000.0
38000.0
37000.0
36000.0
35000.0
34000.0
33000.0
32000.0
31000.0
30000.0
29000.0
28000.0
27000.0
26000.0
25000-;824000.0
23000.0
22000.0
21000.0
20000.0
19000.0
18000.0
17000.0
16000.0
15000.0
14000.0
13000.0
12000.0
11000.0
10000.0
9000.0
8000.0
7000.0
6000.0
5000.0
4000.0
3000.0
2000.01000.0
0.0
0.
-/g56
_-
..
20.0 15.0 10.0
25.0
DEADWEIGHT
30.0
(000 TONNES)
35.0
40.0
T
50.045.0
4.
N
E
T
R
E
G
I
S
T
E
R
E
D
T
0
N
S
16400.0
16000.0
15600.0
15200.0
14800.0
14400.0
14000.0
13600.0
13200.0
12800.0
12400.0
12000.0
11600.0
11200.0
10800.0
10400.0
10000.0
9600.0
9200.0
8800.0
8400.0
8000.0
7600.0
7200.0
6800.0
6400.0
6000.0
5600.0
5200.0
4800.0
4400.0
4000.0
3600.0
3200.0
2800.0
2400.0
2000.0
1600.0
1200.0
800.0
400.0
DEADWEIGHT
REGRESSION LINE
95% CONFIDENCE
FIGURE 33
('000 TONNES)
---
INTERVAL
NET REGISTERED TONS VS DEADWEIGHT
(RO. R0 SHIPS)
N
E
T
R
E
G
I
S
T
E
R
E
D
T
0
N
S
60000.0
58500.0
57000.0
55500.0
54000.0
52500.0
51000.0
49500.0
48000.0
46500.0
45000.0
43500.0
42000.0
40500.0
39000.0
37500.0
36000.0
34500.0
33000.0
31500.0
30000.0
28500.0
27000.0
25500.0
24000.0
22500.0
21000.0
19500.0
18000.0
16500.0
15000.0
13500.0
12000.0
10500.0
9000.0
7500.0
.6000.0
4500.0
3000.0
1500.0
0.0
0.0
/I
p & *
.
/
/
l
15.0
1
30.0
REGRESSION LINE
---
75.0
60.045.0
DEADWEIGHT
95% CONFIDENCE
90.0
105.0
(000 TONNES)
INTERVAL
FIGURE 34 NET REGISTERED TONS VS DEADWEIGHT
(BULK CARRIERS)
120.0
il
150,
135.0
.o
3
Y
n
3
3
3
iD
3
3
3
t
4
0
0
0
0
(D
0
0
d
0
0
CV
W
W
0
N
E
T
R
E
G
I
S
T
E
R
E
D
T
0
N
S
200000.0
195000.0
190000.0
185000.0
180000.0
175000.0
170000.0
165000.0
160000.0
155000.0
150000.0
145000.0
140000.0
135000.0
130000.0
125000.0
120000.0
115000.0
110000.0
105000.0
100000.0
95000.0
90000.0
85000.0
80000.0
75000.0
70000.0
65000.0
60000.0
55000.0
50000.0
45000.0
40000.0
35000.0
30000.0
25000.0
20000.0
15000.0
10000.0
5000.0
0.0
"
DEADWEIGHT
('000 TONNES)
---
REGRESSION LINE
F I G U R E36 NET REGISTEREDTONS
vs
DEADWEIGHT (TANKERS)
.........................................
0
0
W
r(
0
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000
omomomomomomomomomomomomomomomomomomomo~
0 m m m m ~ ~ w w m m ~ - 3 m m ~ ~ - - 0 o m m m m ~ ~ w w m m ~ - 3 m m ~ ~ - N
"
"
"
"
"
r
(
"
"
"
~
lW
N
E
T
R
E
G
I
S
T
E
R
E
D
T
r
n
0
N
S
15200.0
14800.0
14400.0
14000.0
13600.0
13200.0
12800.0
12400.0
12000.0
11600.0
11200.0
10800.0
10400.0
10000.0
9600.0
9200.0
8800.0
8400.0
8000.0
7600.0
7200.0
6800.0
6400.0
6000.0
5600.0
5200.0
4800.0
4400.0
4000.0
3600.0
3200.0
2800.0
2400.0
2000.0
1600.0
1200.0
800.0
400.0
0.0
0:
DEADWEIGHT
REGRESSION LINE
95% CONFIDENCE
FIGURE 38
('000 TONNES)
---
INTERVAL
NET REGISTERED TONSVS DEADWEIGHT (PASSENGERSHIPS)
G
E
Y
E
A
R
S
21 .oo
20.50
20.00
19.50
19.00
18.50
18.00
17.50
17.00
16.50
16.00
15.50
15.00
14.50
14.00
13.50
13.00
12.50
12.00
11.50
11.00
10.50
10.00
9.50
9.00
8.50
2
2
2'
8.00
7.50
7.00
6.50
6.00
5.50
5.00
4.50
4.00
3.50
'2
4 2
2'2
3.00
2.50
2.00
3
'
'2
DEADWEIGHT
('000 TONNES)
REGRESSION LINE
FIGURE 39
AGE VS DEADWEIGHT (CONTAINER SHIPS)
A
G
E
Y
E
A
R
42
41 .OO
40.00
39.00
38.00
37 .OO
36.00
35.00
34.00
33.00
32.00
31 .OO
30.00
29.00
28.00
27.00
26.00
25.00
24.00
23.00
22.00
21 .oo
20.00
19.00
18.00
17.00
16.00
15.00
14.00
13.00
12.00
11 .oo
10.00
9.00
8.00
7 .OO
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
2
t.
2
2
3
*
2
'
3
'
3
'
..
tt
*
*2
2
2
*
t
1 .oo
2.0
.2
4.0
6.0
t
t
* *
* 2
22
8.0
1
10.0
DEADWEIGHT
I
12.0
l
14.0
('
000 TONNES 1
.
I
16.0
I
18.0
2
20.0
22.0
20.25
A
G
E
Y
E
A
R
S
30.00
29.25
28.50
27.75
27.00
26.25
25.50
24.75
24.00
23.25
22.50
21.75
21 $00
.**
19.50
18.75
18.00
17.25
16.60
15.75
15.00
14.25
13.50
12.75
12.00
11.25
10.50
9.75
9.00
8.25
7.50
6.75
*3 2
3 .
3 t
**
'
3
tt.tt
'223
**
6.00
5.25
4.50
3.75
3.00
2.25
1.50
0.75
0.00
0.0
2
* *
n
-3 I "
I
I
"
- -
15.0
30.0
45.0
60.0
DEADWEIGHT
75.0
AGE V S DEADWEIGHT
90.0
('000 TONNES)
REGRESSION LINE
FIGURE 41
"
(BULK CARRIERS)
105.0
135.0
120.0
150.0
A
G
E
Y
E
A
R
S
33.60
32.80
32.00
31.20
30.40
29.60
28.80
28.00
27.20
26.40
25.60
24.80
24.00
23.20
22.40
21.60
20.80
20.00
19.20
18.40
17.60
16.80
16.00
15.20
14.40
13.60
12.80
12 .oo
11.20
10.40
9.60
8.80
8.00
7.20
6.40
5.60
4.80
4.00
3.20
2
.tt
.
l
.
5
'92"
954
'6692
3
'2
4
2
. 5 .
n
*ttt
0 .0
DEADWEIGHT
('000 TONNES)
41 .OO
40.00
39.00
38 .OO
37.00
36.00
35.00
34.00
33.00
32.00
31 .OO
2'
30.00
A
G
E
t
29.00
28.00
27.00
26.00
25.00
24.00
23.00
22.00
21 .oo
20.00
19.00
18.00
17 00
16.00
15.00
14.00
13.00
12.00
11.00
10.00
9.00
8.00
7.00
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1 .00
0.0
*t*t
'2'
23
..5*
3'7*2*
442'3'
* * 6 2 4*
5'4'26'2
9.23 6
* 9 '5627
*
..
m
UI
3
*63
3'2'
'22
"5 '5 *
2
"33 * *
'2
*
* 2.*
2
822
23
2'3
3*
2'
. .*
..
5
L
50.0
100.0
150.0
200.0
DEADWEIGHT
REGRESSION LINE
FIGURE 43
AGE VS DEADWEIGHT (TANKERS)
250.0
300.0
('000 TONNES)
350.0
400.0
450.0
500.0
25.00
24.38
23.75
23.13
22.50
21.88
21.25
20.63
20.00
19.38
18.75
18.13
17.50
16.88
16.25
15.63
15.00
14.38
13.75
13.13
12.50
11.88
11.25
10.63
10.00
9.38
8.75
8.13
7.50
6.88
6.25
5.63
5.00
4.38
3.75
3.13
2.50
1.88
1.25
0.63
..
..
..
33..
669342' 32'3932'
57665529'4522293.5'
*32
'
'
4
'
3
'
*S832 2 3 45'.
39%3%7;'*9
*65*354322 232**4.& 2
'3.443'
..
I
0.00
0.0
*22 '2 7
'
2
'
2 2443
*422 2
7
**
'2 24 '
'522 *
*22'4'
**
'
3
23"'4*3
'2
264 232 2
4' 243.2.4
2 2 3
323*'*425
*4 ** '45 222 +Q"
*32*2 923322
2
4.0
...
444*3'4*'*42223***
3 2
'
4
''2
'
2
- *
**
'22'
3
'
t.
8.0
5'
12.0
**
16.0
DEADWEIGHT
20.0
24.0
( 000 TONNES)
REGRESSION LINE
FIGURE 44 AGE VS DEADWEIGHT (GENERAL CARGO SHIPS)
28.0
32.0
36.0
40.0
67
Nbmm
-1.
L
v)
!
-
c3
W
5
U
W
n
v)
>
W
c3
n
0
R
S
E
P
0
W
E
R
160000.0
156000.0
152000.0
148000.0
144000.0
140000.0
136000.0
132000.0
128000.0
124000.0
120000.0
116000.0
112000.0
108000.0
104000.0
100000.0
96000.0
92000.0
88000.0
84000.0
80000.0
76000.0
- 72000.0
68000.0
64000.0
60000.0
56000.0
52000.0
48000.0
44000.0
40000.0
36000.0
32000.0
28000.0
24000.0
20000.0
16000.0
12000.0
8000.0
4000.0
0.0
0.0
33
/
/
/
L
..
:5
'4'
* *
8776'42829'2/
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
DEADWEIGHT
REGRESSION LINE
95% CONFIDENCE
FIGURE 46
**
25.0
30.0
( 000 TONNES)
---
INTERVAL
HORSEPOWER V S DEADWEIGHT (CONTAINER SHIPS)
35.0
40.0
45.0
50.0
39000.0
38000.0
37000.0
36000.0
35000.0
34000.0
33000.0
H
0
R
S
E
P
0
W
E
R
32000.0
31000.0
30000.0
29000.0
28000.0
27000.0
26000.0
25000.0
24000.0
23000.0
22000.0
21000.0
20000.0
19000.0
18000.0
17000.0
16000.0
15000.0
14000.0
13000.0
2*
12000.0
11000.0
10000.0
9000.0
8000.0
7000 .0
6000.0
5000.0
4000.0
3000 10
2000 !
0
1000.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
DEADWEIGHT
REGRESSION LINE
95% CONFIDENCE
FIGURE 47
12.0
('000 TONNES)
---
INTERVAL
HORSEPOWER V S DEADWEIGHT
14.0
(RO. R 0 SHIPS)
16.0
18.0
20.0
22.0
H
0
R
S
E
P
32800.0
32000.0
31200.0
30400.0
29600.0
28800.0
28000.0
27200.0
26400.0
25600.0
24800.0
24000.0
23200.0
22400.0
21600.0
20800.0
20000.0
19200.0
18400.0
17600.0
16800.0
16000.0
0
W
15200.0
E
R
- 14400.0
13600.0
12800.0
12000.0
11200.0
10400.0
9600.0
8800.0
8000.0
7200.0
6400.0
5600.0
4800.0
4000.0
3200.0
2400.0
1600.0
800.0
0.0
22
15.0
45.0
30.0
60.0
DEADWEIGHT
REGRESSION LINE
FIGURE 48
75.0
90.0
('000 TONNES)
"
-
HORSEPOWER -VS DEADWEIGHT (BULK CARRIERS)
105.0
120.0
135.0
150.0
n
0
R
S
E
P
0
E
R
80440.0
78440.0
76440.0
74440.0
72440.0
70440.0
68440.0
66440.0
64440.0
62440.0
60440.0
58440.0
56440.0
54440.0
52440.0
50440.0
48440 0
46440.0
44440.0
42440.0
40440.0
38440.0
36440.0
34440.0
32440.0
30440.0
28440.0
26440.0
24440.0
22440.0
20440.0
18440.0
16440.0
14440.0
12440.0
10440 0
8440.0
6440.0
4440.0
2440.0
440.0
0.0
I
I
20.0
60.0
40.0
I
80.0
DEADWEIGHT
100.0
120.0
(000 TONNES)
REGRESSION LINE
95% CONFIDENCE
FIGURE 49
INTERVAL
HORSEPOWER VS DEADWEIGHT (ORE CARRIERS)
140.0 200.0
180.0
160.0
H
0
R
S
E
P
0
W
E
R
60000.0
58500.0
57000.0
55500.0
54000.0
52500.0
51000.0
49500.0
48000.0
46500.0
45000.0
43500.0
42000.0
40500.0
39000.0
37500.0
36000.0
34500.0
33000.0
31500.0
30000.0
28500.0
27000.0
25500.0
19500.0
18000.0
16500.0
15000.0
13500.0
12000.0
10500.0
9000.0
7500.0
6000.0
4500.0
3000.0
1500.0
0.0
/
/
/
95 **
2
I
DEADWEIGHT
REGRESSION LINE
9556 CONFIDENCE INTERVAL
FIGURE 50
('000 TONNES)
---
HORSEPOWER VS DEADWEIGHT (TANKERS)
H
0
R
S
E
P
0
W
E
R
32000.0
31200.0
30400.0
29600.0
28800.0
28000.0
27200.0
26400.0
25600.0
24800.0
24000.0
23200.0
22400.0
21600.0
20800.0
20000.0
19200.0
18400.0
17600.0
16800.0
16000.0
15200.0
14400.0
13600.0
12800.0
12000.0
11200.0
10400.0
9600.0
8800.0
8000.0
7200.0
6400.0
5600.0
4800.0
4000.0
3200.0
2400.0
1600.0
800.0 "..
0.0
0.0
..
I
.
* J
/
2
/2
/-"-
4.0
8.0
12.0
16.0
DEADWEIGHT
REGRESSION LINE
FIGURE 51
20.0
24.0
28.0
('000 TONNES)
---
HORSEPOWER VS DEADWEIGHT (GENERAL CARGO SHIPS)
32.0
I
36.0
40 .o
H
0
R
S
E
P
0
W
E
R
76000.0
74000.0
72000.0
70000.0
68000.0
66000.0
64000.0
62000.0
60000.0
58000.0
56000.0
54000.0
52000.0
50000.0
48000.0
46000.0
44000.0
42000.0
40000.0
38000.0
36000.0
34000.0
32000.0
30000.0
28000.0
26000.0
24000.0
22000.0
20000.0
18000.0
16000.0
14000.0
12000.0
10000.0
8000.0
6000.0
4000.0
2000.0
0.0
0.0
/
/
L
1.5
3.0
4.5
6.0
DEADWEIGHT
REGRESSION LINE
95% CONFIDENCE
FIGURE 52
7.5
9.0
('000 TONNES)
---
INTERVAL
HORSEPOWER V S DEADWEIGHT (PASSENGER SHIPS)
10.5
12.0
13.5
15.0
75
*\\
:
\
l
\
\
\
\
* \
\
\
\
l
-\,
It
F
l
l
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
N
N
0
0
N
0
4)
r
(
1
4
0
3
0
r
(
0
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000N
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000
~ ~ m m m m m m m m m m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ - - - - - r ( -
76
*\.
>
\\
77
H
0
R
S
E
P
0
W
E
R
80440.0
78440.0
76440.0
74440.0
72440.0
70440.0
68440.0
66440.0
64440.0 I
62440.0
60440.0
58440.0
56440.0
54440.0
52440.0
50440.0
48440.0
46440.0
44440.0
42440.0
40440.0
38440.0
36440.0
34440.0
32440.0
30440.0
28440.0
26440.0
24440.0
22440.0
20440.0
18440.0
16440.0
14440.0
12440.0
10440.0
8440.0
6440.0
4440.0
2440.0
440.0 1
0.0
/ 3
4
w
839483 5
. .
40.0
20.0
60.0
I
80.0
DEADWEIGHT
REGRESSION LINE
95% CONFIDENCE
FIGURE 56
100.0
120.0
(000 TONNES)
---
INTERVAL
HORSEPOWER VS DEADWEIGHT (ORE CARRIERS)
140.0
160.0
180.0
200.0
0
0
m
-$
0
0
d*
0
0
U)
0
0
0
0
3
lc
fl
3
'v
3
3
3
3
+
;
3
000000000000000000000000000000300000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000
omomomomomomomomomomomoU)omomomomomomo~om
o m ~ m ~ ~ - m m w m m ~ o m ~ w d m - o m ~ m ~ ~ - m m ~ m ~ ~ o m ~ w ~ m ~mm~mmmd-$dlddlmmmmmmmNNNNNN-----**
79
n
0
R
S
E
P
0
W
E
R
a,
0
32000.0
31200.0
30400.0
29600.0
28800.0
28000.0
27200.0
26400.0
25600.0
24800.0
24000.0
23200.0
22400.0
21600.0
20800.0
20000.0
19200.0
18400.0
17600.0
16800.0
16000.0
15200.0
14400.0
13600.0
12800.0
12000.0
11200.0
10400.0
9600.0
8800.0
8000.0
7200.0
6400.0
5600.0
4800.0
4000.0
3200.0
2400.0
2999899.9
1600.0
800.0 8997
0.0
I
0.0 8.0 4.0
2
/
/
V=15
-t.
**
I
12.0
16.0
DEADWEIGHT
REGRESSION LINE
FIGURE 58
20.0
24.0
28.0
(000 TONNES)
---
HORSEPOWER VS DEADWEIGHT (GENERAL CARGO SHIPS)
32.0
36.0
40.0
l
l
\
\
\
* *
81
>
l
N
*
m \
* N\
l
\
*
0
3
t-
CY
W
K
N
0
T
S
41.60
40.80
40.00
39.20
38.40
37.60
36.80
36.00
35.20
34.40
33.60
32.80
32.00
31.20
30.40
29.60
28.80
28.00
27.20
26.40
25.60
24.80
24.00
23.20
22.40
21.60
20.80
20.00
19.20
18.40
17.60
16.80
16 .OO
15.20
14.40
13.60
12.80
12 .oo
11.20
10.40
9.60
0 .o
33
/-
243 "4.2
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
DEADWEIGHT
REGRESSION LINE
95% CONFIDENCE
25.0
30.0
('000 TONNES)
---
INTERVAL
.
.
'
.
.
FIGURE 60
**
SPEED VS DEADWEIGHT (CONTAINER SHIPS)
35.0
40.0
45.0
I
50.0
\
\
\.
1.
\
l
l
N
83
P
E
E
D
N
0
T
S
30.00
29.25
28.50
27.75
27 .OO
26.25
25.50
24.75
24.00
23.25
22.50
21.75
21 .oo
20.25
19.50
18.75
18.00
17.25
16.50
15.75
15.00
14.25
13.50
12.75
12.00
11.25
10.50
9.75
9.00
8.25
7.50
6.75
6.00
5.25
4.50
3.75
3.00
2.25
1.50
0.75
0.00
0.0
7.
. .
1
40.0
20.0
60.0
I
80.0
DEADWEIGHT
REGRESSION LINE
100.0
120.0
(000 TONNES)
---
FIGURE 62 SPEED VS DEADWEIGHT (BULK CARRIERS)
140.0
160.0
180.0
200.0
P
E
E
D
K
N
0
T
S
28.50
27.75
27.00
26.25
25.50
24.75
24.00
23.25
22.50
21.75
21.00
20.25
19.50
18.75
18.00
17.25
16.50
15.75
15.00
14.25
13.50
12.75
12.00
11.25
10.50
9.75
9.00
8.25
7.50
6.75
6.00
5.25
4.50
3.75
3.00
2.25
1.50
0.75
0.00
6 266 *3*** 5
2
**95933622334
2255
2 R*
*9638 24
4962
2
.
P
0.0
1
20.0
42 **** 2
REGRESSION LINE
FIGURE63
A*
*
2.
**.2.
I
*
60.040.0
80.0
160.0
140.0
120.0
100.0
DEADWEIGHT
95% CONFIDENCE
..2 .
**
(000 TONNES)
---
INTERVAL
SPEED V S DEADWEIGHT (ORE CARRIERS)
180.0
200.0
19.50
27.75
27.00
26.25
25.50
24.75
24.00
23.25
22.50
21.75
21 .oo
20,25
S
P
E
E
D
K
N
0
T
S
18.75
18.00
17.25
16.50
15.75
89699969837859256324*2**2*4*
15.00
*
4
Y
4
3355
14,25
9992.2
2
13.50
,
12.75
4533
12.00
92
11.25
10.50
9.75
9.00
8.25
7.50
6.75
6.00
5.25
4.50
3.75
3.00
2.25
1.50
0.75
I
I
1
0.00
0.0
50.0
150.0
100.0
2
2
200.0
DEADWEIGHT
REGRESSION LINE
95% CONFIDENCE
**
444362. 7 17
2.4 *49 28863*4
3
*
t
* *
---
INTERVAL
FIGURE 64 SPEED VS DEADWEIGHT (TANKERS)
250.0
.*
300.0
(000 TONNES)
350.0
400.0
I
450.0
500.0
S
P
E
E
K
N
0
T
S
30.00
29.25
28.50
27.75
27.00
26.25
25.50
24.75
24.00
23.25
22.50
21.75
21 .oo
20.25
19.50
18.75
18.00
17.25
16.50
15.75
15.00
14.25
13.50
12.75
12.00
11.25
10.50
9.75
9.00
8.25
7.50
6.75
6.00
5.25
4.50
3.75
3.00
2.25
1.50
0.75
0.00
2*
2.
**
. 2 .3
t
'2
t
9999'"2
94
9942.89
2
\
.
92
'2
/
/
DEADWEIGHT
REGRESSION LINE
95% CONFIDENCE
FIGURE 65
..
('000 TONNES)
---
INTERVAL
SPEED VS DEADWEIGHT (GENERAL CARGO SHIPS)
S
P
E
E
D
K
N
0
T
S
m
m
28.00
27.50
27.00
26.50
26.00
25.50
25.00
24.50
24.00
23.50
23.00
22.50
22.00
21.50
21 .oo
20.50
20.00
19.50
19.00
18.50
*18.00
17.50
17.00
16.50
16.00
15.50
15.00
14.50
14.00
* *
12.00
11.50
11.00
10.50
10.00
9.50
9.00
** 9
DEADWEIGHT
REGRESSION LINE
FIGURE 66
(000 TONNES )
---
SPEED VS DEADWEIGHT (PASSENGER SHIPS)
89
v)
n
>
>-
CHAPTER 4
- CONCLUDING
REMARKS
GENERAL
Standard regression techniques have been used to determine a
regression model for a number of data sets. The
form of these
data sets is the result of a varietyof interacting factors and,
hence, does not illustrate any single, fundamental principle.
Therefore, the regression relationships provide a description
of the existing world fleet, but they do not illustrate the
physical principles applied to the design o f ships.
The relationships presented in Tables 1-9 provide an indication

of the trends that are evident in the data. However, the
additional information available by also examining the plots
of the sample data and by considering the prediction confidence
intervals will be found worthwhile when applying these

relationships. The information provided
in this paper as a whole
should prove to be a valuable tool to those studying shipping
and port infra,structure.
LIMITATIONS OF THE RESULTS
When applying the results presented in this paper consideration
should always be given to the characteristics of the data from
which the results have been derived. The relevance
of these
relationships, in any application, is dependent on the relevance
of the data from which they have been determined.
As mentioned in Chapter 1, Lloyd's Register is very extensive

and is expected to be representative of the world fleet.
Hence,
the results should draw together any trends evident in individual
ship building nations and present an aggregate estimateo f the
relationships between the ship characteristics investigated.
Any arbitrary selection of data will always affect the regression
model derived.
Therefore, it should be remembered that

90
ships
with incomplete data have been excluded from the analysis,

as
have those ships that operate in more than one fashion, e.g.
general cargo/container ships (see Chapter 2). These facts may
affect the applicability of the results depending on the type
of trade expected at a given port and the accuracy desired of
the estimates of the ship characteristics. However. due
to the
comprehensive nature of the information in Lloyd's Register it
is expected that such effects would only be of minor
significance.
As mentioned in Chapter 1, ships are deleted from Lloyd's
Register of Shipping as they are withdrawn from service, and
the version of the Register used for this analysis was current
at May 1977. About 1.5-2.0 per cent of ships on the Register
are withdrawn from service each year,
and these constitute about
1.0-1.5 per cent of the gross tonnage of the world fleet.
Assuming that this rateof withdrawal from service continues,
after ten years one would expect the data used in
this analysis
to represent 80-85 per cent of the ships still in service

and
these ships would constitute 85-90 per cent of the gross tonnage
of the world fleet. The accuracy required for a particular study
will determine whether these results are still of use in a given
situation, but for many applications the information in this
paper will be relevant for ten years or more.
However, if in
the future it becomes obvious thata large number of new ships,
of a particular ship type, have been constructed to a
significantly different design then this shouldbe taken into
account before applying the relationships presented in this
paper .
It should be noted, of course, that
the regression models provide
no justification for any prediction outside the range of values
encountered in the samples.
go
TABLE 1
LENGTH(a) : REGRESSION COEFFICIENTS AND STATISTICS F O R

MODEL,
Ship
a. (DWT) B
Container
60.5 0.94
(269)
0.399
(70.4)
61.7 0.80
(99.7)
0.423
(20.3)
~/
Ro- ro
Bulk Carrier
68.7
(695)
Ore Carrier
72.8 0.97
(390)
0.288
(162)
Tanker
(197)
Passenger
60.0 0.90
(1310)
105
(145)
000 tonnes.
92
0.97
0.349
0.317
(9.97)
statistics shown in brackets.
DWT measured in
0.276
(87.9)
0.268
(333)
(a) Length measured in metres.

t
R2
0.92
75.8
(1290)
General
.E
0.72
TABLE 2 -
BREADTH(^):
REGRESSION COEFFICIENTS AND STATISTICS FOR
MODEL,
B
Ship
a.
(DWT)B .E
Container
0.65 Ro- ro
10.4
(169)
0.303
Bulk Carrier
0.92
0.313
11.3
(57.3)
R2
0.311
(60.4)
0.92
(14.2)
8.69
(340)
(169)
Ore Carrier
8.05
(188)
0.341
(107)
Tanker
8 -10
(671)
General Cargo
Passenger
(a) Breadth measured

t
DWT
10 .I 0.93
(1080)
0.99
0.337
(450)
0.281
(232)
0.234
(10.8)
15.3
(124)
in metres.
statistics shown in brackets

measured in '000 tonnes.
93
0.98
0.75
TABLE 3
DRAUGHT(^):
MODEL.
REGRESSION COEFFICIENTS AND STATISTICS FOR
= C(.
( D W T ) .E
~
Ship
Container
Ro-
3.78
(87.6)
ro
(22.9)
0.93
Bulk Carrier
0.275
Ore Carrier
3.94
0.83
(53.3)
4.18
(2751
4.07
0.95
(101)
0.320
(56.97
0.297
(182)
0.274
(69.1)
Tanker
General Cargo
Passenger
4.890.54
(40.4)
(a) Draught measured in metres.

t
DWT measured in
'000 tonnes.
94
0.263
(6.74)
R2
0.91
TABLE 4
GROSS REGISTERED TONS: REGRESSION COEFFICIENTS AND

STATISTICS FOR MODEL,
GRT = a+B .(DWT)+E
Ship Type
Container
(60.3)
Ro-
R2
1160
0.92
780
(19.6)
0.78
(-6.33)
ro
24.6
(0.07) (a)
Bulk Carrier
2310
(31.7)
514
(290)
0.97
Ore Carrier
1860
(4.06)
499
(59.l)
0.93
(39.9)
(586)
659
(269)
0.95
(-6.30)
1910
0.65
Tanker
0.99
-129 General Cargo

Passenger
(9.38)
2840
(3.47)
(a) t - statistic not significantly different from zero at the

0.05 level of significance.
t
DWT measured in '000 tonnes.
95
TABLE 5
NET REGISTERED TONS: REGRESSION COEFFICIENTS AND

NRT = cc+B
Ship
CL
Container
Ro-
.(DWT)+E
ro
R2
-1440
(-5.07)
699
(50.8)
0.89
-618
(-2.57)
485
(18.2)
0.76
Bulk Carrier
0.95
361
(5.31)
172
(38.6)
0.84
Ore Carrier
2240
(9.28)
Tanker
-868
(-6.72)
0.98
General Cargo
-226
(-16.3)
0.94
Passenger
~~~
980
(2.24)
~~
- statistics
DWT measured
shown in brackets.
in 000 tonnes.
96
1040
(8.52)
0.65
TABLE 6
AGE: REGRESSION COEFFICIENTS AND STATISTICS
FOR MODEL
AGE = m+a. (DWT)+E

Ship
Container
7.75
(27 - 6 )
R2
-0.0538
(-3 -95)
0.04
no significant regression
Ro- ro
Bulk Carrier
10.6
(57.4)
-0.0558
(-12.4)
0.06
Ore Carrier
18.3
(50.2)
-0.0889
(-13.2)
0.39
Tanker
16.5
(98.5)
-0 - 0 4 7 4
(-37.0)
0.31
General Cargo
7 .l9
(94.8)
-0.106
(-11.7)
0.03
Passenger
t
DWT measured in
'000 tonnes.
97
TABLE 7 .l
HORSEPOWER
FOR MODEL,
: REGRESSION COEFFICIENTS AND STATISTICS
HP
= C(.
( D W T ).E~
Ship Type
C(
Container
Ro-
759
(95.7)
ro
R2
1 .l6
(45.0)
0.86
1640 0.51
(43.9)
0.905
(10.6)
0.66
0.579
(68.9)
830 0.66
(63.6)
0.701
(23.3)
Tanker
0.84
0.561
(124)
General Cargo
0.83
0.836
(144)
6260 0.45
(77.3)
0.638
(5.69)
Bulk Carrier
Ore Carrier
Passenger
(a) Power has been regressed in units of horsepower because of

the continued usage of this unit by the shippinq industry.
t
DWT
1 hp
0.746 kW
98
0.96
TABLE 7.2
HORSE POWER(^) : REGRESSION COEFFICIENTS AND

HP = a. (DWT)B . (V)y .E
Ship
Container
2.66
0.526
1.52
(29.4)(20.7)(1.97)
Ro-
0.422
ro
1.46
(0.73) (b)
0.83
(6.86)
R2
2.80
(13.9)
0.71
1.43
0.521
38.9
Bulk Carrier
(20.7) (63.3) (20.6)
Carrier
0.72
Ore
0.90
1.74
0.586
12.4
(7.43) (18.5) (4.39)
Tanker
2.10
0.504
Cargo
General
0.94
2.17
0.539
Passenger
6.70
(14.3)
(131)
(41.7)
5.49
(29.7)
(115)
(90.7)
0.289
0.230
(6.96) (2.43)
(-0.86) (c)
3.55
0.76
(a) Power has been regressed in units of horsepower because o f

the continued usage of this unit by the shipping industry.
(b), (c) t - statistics not significantly different from one
at the 0.05 level of significance.
t
DWT
1 hp
0.746 kW.
99
TABLE 8
SPEED(a): REGRESSION COEFFICIENTS AND STATISTICS FOR

MODE
L,
V = a+B. (DWT)+E
Ship
Container
Ro- ro
(7.24)
R2
14.3
(48.4)
0.321
(24.4)
0.70
14.4
(31.0)
0.373
0.33
Bulk Carrier
14.4
(441)
0.00989
(12.4)
0.06
Ore Carrier
13.5
(123)
0.0140
(6.95)
0.15
0.00172
(8.07)
0.02
Tanker
General Cargo
Passenger
16.4
(34.0)
(a) Speed measured in knots.

t
DWT measured in
'000 tonnes.
100
0.314
(48.3)
0.36
0.555
(4.13)
0.30
TABLE 9
C O N T A I N E R C A P A C I T Y ( ~ ) : REGRESSION COEFFICIENTS AND

TEU
Ship
CL+^
CL
Container
-79.1
(-4 .OO)
(a) Container capacity measured

t
.(DWT)+E
25474/80---8
R2
55.7
(59.3)
0.92
in Twenty foot Equivalent Units.
DWT measured
in '000 tonnes.
101
ANNEX A
MAIN CONTENTS OF LLOYD'S REGISTER OF SHIPPING
CARD TYPE
MAIN CONTENTS
TO 0
Lloyd' s Register
number
Ship's name
TO1
Call sign
Official number
Navigational aids
TO3
Year o f change of name

Former name
T04
Owner
TO 5
Manager
TO 6
F1ag
Port
TO8
Gross tons
Net tons
Deadweight
T10
Classification society, other than Lloyd's

Register ( L R )
T11
LR classification
hull
symbols
of ship (LR)
Classification
T12
notation
T13
Machinery
classification
(LR)
102
T20
Date of build
Shipbuilder and place of build
Yard number
T21
Dimension of hull
Length overall
Extreme breadth
Draught
Registered length
Length between perpendiculars
Moulded breadth
Moulded depth
T22
Superstructures
T23
Number of decks
Type of decks
T24
Number of complete decks (including shelter decks)

Rise of floor
Keel type
Keel length
T25
Information on keel
T26
Cargo battens
Bulkheads
Water ballast
T27
Type of alterations
Date of alterations
T29
Conversions
103
T3 0
Ship type and sub-types

Propulstion type
Number of screws
Number of passengers
Material of ship
T31
Special features of ship
T33
Number, length and type of:

holds
tanks
combined holds/tanks
between deck space
wing holds
wing tanks
T36
Grain capacity
Bale capacity
Insulated capacity
Liquid capacity
Heating coils
T37
Number and size of containers carried

Number of lighters carried
T38
Number, material, length and breadth of centreline

hatchways
T39
Number, material, length and breadth of wing side

hatchways
T40
Number of winches
Number of cranes
Safe working load
T41
Number of derricks
Safe working load
104
T42
Number, material, type, shape and position of

special tanks
NB:
T50
Cards T50 through to T59 relate to oil prime movers

Number of engines
Position
Cylinder layout
Number of cylinders with bore and stroke
dimensions
T5 1
Information on gearing and coupling
T5 2
Total horsepower (bhp)

Engine design code
T53
Generators driven by oil engines

Number o f generators
Kilowatt
Volts
Alternating/direct current
Indication of secondary propulsion
T54
Electric motors driven by generators

Number of engines
Position
Shaft horsepower
Type of system
T55
Diesel electric motors
T56
Emergency or secondary propulsion
T5 8
Second or third oil engine group

Number of engines
Position
Cylinder layout
Number o f cylinders with bore and stroke
dimensions
T59
Total horsepower (bhp), second or third engine

9roup
Engine design code
T60
Steam reciprocating engine (dimensions
in imperial
units)
Type of reciprocating engine
Number of engines
Bore and stroke
Position
T6 1
Steam reciprocating engine (dimensions in metric

units)
Type o f reciprocating engine
Number of engines
Bore and stroke
Position
T6 2
Information on gearing and coupling of low

pressure turbines when combined with reciprocating
engines
T6 3
Horsepower, reciprocating engines (ihp)

Engine design code
T70
Steam turbines
Number of steam turbines
Information on gearing and coupling
T71
Total shaft horsepower

Turbine design code
106
T75
Turbo-electric engines
Number of steam turbines
Kilowatt, volts of generators
Shaft horsepower of motors
Type of steam
T76
Information on gearing
T77
Turbine design code
T80
Gas turbine
T85
Engine dates
Year when engine was made, fitted, refitted or
added
T86
Fuel bunkers
Capacity and type of fuel bunkers
T87
Engine builder ( S ) and where made
T89
Boilers (LR classed ships only)

Number, type and position of boilers
T90
Primary and secondary pressure and working

temperature and pressure
T95
Auxiliary generators
Number of generators
Kilowatt, volts of generators
Alternating/direct current
Frequency in Hz
107
T9 6
Special propellors and speed

Number of special propellors
Type of special propellors
Position of special propellors
Speed
T99
Cross reference ship's name.
108
ANNEX B
DATA PREPARATION AND ANALYSIS
Data from Lloyd's Register of Shipping is input to DATAPREPl

which reads the information for the first ship, and determines
whether the ship type is one to be analysed.
It also determines
whether the ship operates in purely one fashion, i.e. is it a

'pure' ship type. If
the ship is eligible for inclusion in the
sample, the program uses the card type code to locate all cards
with the particular items of data to be examined. These cards
are loaded into the output array and output to the file for that
ship type. Then the information for the next ship is input,
and the procedure repeated.
Seven files are thereby created;
one for each ship type. In summary, program DATAPREPl reduces
the information being processed to the relevant cards for the
relevant ships and stores this data in a separate file for each
ship type.
DATAPREP2 reads the data for the first ship from one of the seven
files created by the previous program. It
then locates the
'words' (strings of ten characters) that contain the information
on deadweight, gross registered tons, net registered tons,
length, breadth, draught and age. These 'words' are loaded into
the output array, and the ship propulsion type is located and
decoded. It must be decoded because the form of propulsion
determines on which cards the data for power is located. The
'words' containing informtion on container capacity are then
located and loaded into the output array. Next the data
on power
are located and decoded. If they are blank the program drops
that ship and reads the information for the next ship. If the
data on power is present it is loaded into the output array.
Finally, the 'word' containing the information on speed is
located and loaded into the output array. The information for
that ship is then output the information for the next ship read
25474180-9
109
in and the process repeated.
Therefore, DATAPREP1 produces files
which contain the relevant 'cards' of data for ships of the

relevant types, while DATAPREP2 produces files which contain
the relevant words' of data.
DATAPREP3 reads the information on tonnage and dimensions for
the first ship and converts it to integer format. The
ship
dimensions and deadweight are then converted to metric units.
The information for power, speed, age and container capacity
(if relevant) is read and all data are checked for missing
items. If any data are missing the ship is dropped from the
sample. Otherwise, the container capacity (if relevant)
is
converted to TEUs, after which the information for that ship
is output in a fixed format record, and the procedure repeated
for the next ship.
This fixed format record consists of fiftyseven characters for each ship type, except container ships,
for which it consists of sixty-two characters. The information
on each record contains all nine characteristics listed in
Chapter 2 (ten characteristics for container ships).
The statistical analysis of the data output by DATAPREP3 was
performed using the GENSTAT(l) statistical package. Firstly
,
GENSTAT was used to plot the sample data for each set of
variables that was to be regressed. The exact samples on which
the regressions were to be performed (described in Chapter 2)
were plotted for all ship types except general cargo. The sample
for this ship type was so large (4146 ships) that GENSTAT was
unable to cope with all the data. A random selection of the
sample was therefore plotted for this ship type.
Standard linear regression techniques were then used to determine
the regression model for each set of data. All regressions,
including those for general cargo ships, were performed on the
(1) GENSTAT: A General Statistical Program. The Statistics

Department.RothamsteadExperimentStation.1977.
110
sample of ships described in Chapter 2. The regression models

described in this paper generally have one of the following
forms:
The first model simply determines the straight line of best fit
for the data, where a is the intercept on the dependent variable
axis and 8 is the slope of the line. There
is an unpredictable
randomness in all data whichis described by the stochastic error
term, E .
This term accounts for error from two sources. The
first is the fact that when framing a regression model one does
not claim to have included all the variables which influence
the relationship and so there will be specification error in
the equation. The second
source of error is
or recording of the data.
in the measurement
Before regression, the second model is linearised by log

transformation, to the form of the
first model, i.e.
log Y = A + B . log X +
E,
where log CL = A, and

log eE= E
A standard linear regression is then performed on this data.
The a term in regression model 2 is determined by taking the

antilogarithm of the estimate of the regression coefficient,
A, while the 8 term in regression model 2 is the same as the
coefficient 8 in regression model 3.
An additional computer program was written which was
used to
calculate the 95 per cent prediction confidence interval for

each regression model. The confidence interval indicates
that,
in the long run, one would expect ninety-fiveout of a hundred

new observations to fall between the confidence limits. The
limits were calculated using the formula
where
S (yneW) =JMSE (1 X' ( x ~ x ) - ~Ix )
A
Y is the regression estimate of Ynew
t(1- CX) is the t-statistic, and
MSE is the error mean square or residual meansquare.
112
.92
ANNEX C
ALTERNATIVE MODELS:
REGRESSION COEFFICIENTS AND STATISTICS
TABLE C.l
LENGTH
Ship
a+@
.( D W T )+y .(DWT)2 + ~
B
CL
R2
-0.0709
Container 7.65
77.2
(-13.1)
(30.7)(31.7)
Ro-0.314
ro
Bulk Carrier
Carrier Ore
Tanker
(135)
Cargo
General
(-42.0)
(105)
-2.19
Passenger 32.7
DWT
0.81
13.6
62.0
(-4.40)(8.95) (9.44)
119 0.92
-0.00941
23.6
(203) (-46.5) (93.3)
127
(102)
2.07
(42.0)
0.96
-0.00688
(-21.5)
153
(337)
1.20
0.96 -0.00179
(-64.6)
59.5
(145)
8.88
75.7
(-4
.17)
(12.0)
(7
0.84 -0.153
-75)

113
TABLE C.2
BREADTH
Ship
a + B.(DWT)
+ Y.(DWT) 2+ E
R2
Container
12.2
(53.3)
0.952
(40.6)
-0.0110
(-21.5)
0.94
Ro- ro
13.5
(13.0)
1.07
(4.41)
-0.0151
(-1.33)
0.64
0.313
(86.9)
-0.000965
(-33.5)
0.93
0.349
(51.9)
-0.00109
(-24.9)
0.98
-0.000270
(-56.5)
0.96
-0.0178
(-43.5)
0.87
-0.243
(-4.63)
0.77
Carrier
Bulk
Carrier
Ore
16.3
(196)
15.7
(92.7)
Tanker
General
Cargo
Passenger
- statistics
DWT measured
10.0
(217)
3.66
(7.05)
11.7
(16.3)
shown in brackets.
in '000 tonnes.
114
TABLE C .3
DRAUGHT
Ship Type
e+$
.(DWT)+y .( D W )2+
B
R2
Container
4.73
(42.8)
0.334
(29.5)
-0.00372
(-15.1)
0.89
Ro-ro
4.42
(22.5)
0.423
(9.29)
-0,00844
(-3.95)
0.85
-0.000303
(-29.3)
0.93
-0.000141
(-8.49)
0.97
-0.0000842
(-63.1)
0.98
Bulk Carrier
Carrier
Ore
7.50
(250)
0 .l09
(84.2)
7.56
(117)
0.0849
(33.1)
Tanker
8.35
(382)
General
Cargo
3.62
(161)
Passenger
~
DWT
0-552
(119)
4.15
(6.87)
~~
~~
~~
0.953
(2.19)
~

measured in 000 tonnes.
115
-0.00974
0.87
(-48.7)
-0.0512
(-1.16)
0.32
T A B L E C.4
GRT
Ship
a. (DWT)B .E
Container
Ro- ro
588
(159)
668
(59.4)
Bulk Carrier
844 0.97
(597)
Ore Carrier
833
(110)
Tanker
R2
1 .l7
(78.5)
0.95
1.06
(19.1)
0.77
0.898
(273)
0.886
(50.8)
0.90
855
(1320)
0.99
General Cargo
504
(793)
0.94
Passenger
3900 0.64
(88.7)
DWT measured
in '000 tonnes.
116
0.766
(8.28)
TABLE C.5
NRT
Ship
a. (DWT)B .E
R2
Container
332
(70.5)
1 .l8
(38.7)
0.82
Ro-ro
235
(45-0)
1.22
(19.9)
0.79
Bulk Carrier
359
(83.2)
1.01
(48-9)
0.49
Ore Carrier
486 0.61
(46.5)
0.796
(21.0)
1490 0.46
(45.7)
0.914
(5.76)
Tanker
General Cargo
Passenger
DWT

117
T A B L E C.6
AGE
Ship
a + ~ .( D W T ) - ~ + E
c(
Container
Ro-ro
Bulk Carrier 76.3
5.74
(24.8)
R2
0.07
(13.8)
Ore Carrier
9.69
(17.7)
126
(10.3)
0.28
Tanker
6.80
(35.5)
205
(35.7)
0.30
General Cargo
6.01
(105)
Passenger
t
DWT measured in
1 .l9
(15.9)
'000 tonnes.
0.06
TABLE C.7
HORSEPOWER
Ship
u+p
.(DWT)+E
B
Container
0.66
.6840
(-4.77)
1800
(25.9)
Ro-
1010
0.55
(0.95)
1340
(11.4)
ro
R2
Bulk Carrier
5740
(61.3)
161
(70.6)
0.67
Ore Carrier
3650
(10.l)
180
(27.l)
0.73
Tanker
9610
(69.2)
98.5
(92.8)
0.74
General Cargo
0.52
1090
(15.1)
571
(66.6)
Passenger
0.415140
(3.02)
2480
(5.22)
DWT measured
1 hp
in '000 tonnes.
0.746 kW.
119
TABLE C.8
SPEED
a. (DWT)6 .E
Container
Ro-
ro
Bulk Carrier
Ore Carrier
R2
0.237
(28.9)
0.71
0.173
(7.06)
0.32
0.0404
(17.8)
0.11
0.0662
(9.35)
0.24
Tanker
0.0269
(20.6)
0 .l2
General Cargo
0 .l37
(62.6)
0.49
0.115
(4.80)
0.37
Passenger
- statistics
DWT
shown in brackets.
TABLE C.9
CONTAINER CAPACITY
a.
(DWT)6
43.8
(80.7)
(60.3)
Ship
Container
1.04
DWT
.E

120
R2
FIGURES 4-67
'*I
denotes one data point
'2'
denotes two coincident data points
'9'
denotes nine or more coincident data points.
121

Curvas Regresionales para Buques

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Curvas Regresionales para Buques

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

BTE Publication Summary

Regression Analysis of Ship Characteristics

Printedby C.J. THOMPSON,

This paper has been published to disseminate information on

. gross registered tons;

Standard minimum least squares regression techniques were used

CHAPTER 4 CONCLUDING REMARKS

DATA PREPARATION AND ANALYSIS

Coefficients and Statistics

Power: Regression Coefficients and Statistics

Fixed Format Card Image

3 (a) Program DATAPREP1

General Cargo Ships

Breadth v Deadweight. Container Ships

Net Registered Tons v Deadweight.

Age v Deadweight. Container Ships

General Cargo Ships

General Cargo Ships

The Bureau of Transport Economics(BTE) is currently undertaking

. net registered tons (NRT);

The length, breadth, draught and container capacity of ships

. container (fully cellular);

The variation in the characteristics of ships from these

Also, most port studies, including

those of the BTE, need to consider separately the facilities

spread of the sample data on which the regression model

range of the variables over which the regression

width of the 95 per cent prediction confidence intervals;

upper limit o f the variable that occursin the sample data.

The information presented in this paper is intended to assist

DESCRIPTION OF THE DATA AND OUTLINEOF THE ANALYSIS

Lloyd's Register of Shipping has been pubiished for many years.

This information is stored as a series of computercard images

number. The card

Most data items are recorded in a clearly defined numeric or

(DWT)- the weight in tonnes of cargo, stores, fuel,

Passengers and crew carried by the ship when loaded to the

the extreme length of the ship;

the extreme breadth, which is the maximum breadth;

in most cases this represents the summer loadline

draught amidships, but in some ships the maximum draughtis

registered tons (GRT) - the capacity in cubic feet of

years since the ship was built (to the time of

total brake or shaft horsepower depending on propulsion

the speed (in knots) that the ship is stated to be

The degree of accuracy for individual items of information

general, the more fundamental

a scale which indicates the overall quality of the data recorded

only relevant to container ships), i.e. ships with incomplete

to expect, for example, that fully cellular container ships

exhibit the same characteristics as ships which handle both

The nature of the original data setand the culling criteria

. representative of the world fleet;

those ships in service at May 1977;

only ships which operate in purely one fashion; and

which do not contain all relevant data items have

Tables 1-9 contain information on the form of the regression

FIGURE 1 FIXED FORMAT

SOURCE:Documentation of Lloyd's Register Book File of Shipping.

FIGURE 2 VARIABLE FORMAT

Register Book File of Shipping.

BUFFER IN THE INFORMATION

IS THIS A "PURE" SHIP