Technological forecast of marine transportation systems 1970 to 2000

TECHNOLOGICAL FORECASTING AND SOCIAL CHANGE 3, 99-135 (1971)

99

Technological Forecast of Marine Transportation Systems 1970 to 2000 C H A R L E S G. M O O R E and H U G O P. P O M R E H N

Introduction The subject of this investigation and technological forecast is the commercial marine transportation system of the United States. The U.S. marine transportation industry is portrayed within a time frame extending from 1970 to the year 2000. The authors have utilized a spectrum of technological forecasting methods and techniques that appear to be most appropriate for ocean transport systems. A general overview of the environment and major evolutionary elements of the marine transportation system over the next thirty years is presented in Section 1. In Section 2, industry needs are developed utilizing a combination of trend extrapolation, envelope curve, and figure of merit techniques. Section 3 represents an investigation of the limits of existing technologies and possible new developments. Figure of merit and envelope curve forecast methods were utilized. Also, the Delphi forecast method was used with a group of limited size and varied marine technology experience. The technique of relevance and project weighting was used in Section 4 to integrate the needs forecast and the technological forecast. A preliminary development schedule of the major projects that could contribute toward the United States again becoming a leading maritime nation is also presented in Section 4. An integrated planning and development management system is suggested to ensure cost-effective and coordinated progress in the sociopolitical as well as the technical programs. 1. United States Marine Transportation for the Period 1970 to 2000 The topic of U.S. marine transportation currently raises considerable controversy regarding the technical, economic, social, and political aspects of what seems to be a developing hydro-space gap between the United States and other nations. This gap is reflected in the fact that the amount of U.S. import-export tonnage carried in U.S. owned ships is less than 10 percent. Considering the controversy over what course should be taken to bolster sagging U.S. maritime capabilities within the world context, a forecast of the future needs and capabilities of U.S. marine transportation appears to be an essential and necessary task.l EDITORS'NOTE:This paper was submitted in response to a term assignment by two students in the Technological Forecasting course presented in the University of Southern California's Graduate School of Engineering (Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering) during the Spring 1969 semester by Professor Linstone. CnARLr.SG. MOOREis a Systems Engineering and Management Consultant to industry, government, and school systems, as well as Lecturer in the School of Business and Economics at California State College, Los Angeles, California, U.S.A. Hu~o P. PoMRra-nqis Assistant Chief Nuclear and Environmental Engineer for Bechtel Corporation, Los Angeles, California, U.S.A. t A large number of published documents were reviewed by the authors to obtain data relevant to this investigation. Where specific data were used on a particular figure or table, the appropriate reference has been noted. These references plus others utilized as background information for the study are listed in the bibliography. Copyright {~ 1971 by American Elsevier Publishing Company, Inc.

100

C.G. MOORE AND H. P. POMREHN

The scope of this technological forecast is the U.S. commercial marine transportation industry. As this represents a subset of several much broader systems, any recommended action or conclusions must take this fact into consideration. The following points are noted in this regard: I. The marine transportation system represents only one segment of a transportation network that is required to move goods from one point to another. That is, there are generally cargo transfers and land (or air) cargo transport links in addition to the marine transits and marine terminal operations. While the time and economic impact of this relationship is explored in this forecast, and the need for "door-to-door" service is recognized, the focus of this study is principally on the marine vessel, and the terminals and ports it frequents. 2. Marine transportation represents one of several broad areas wherein national policies and objectives must be defined. Other areas relate to mineral exploitation within and under the oceans, recreation and habitation, food supply, and waste disposal. The impact of advancements in any of these areas could significantly affect marine transportation. For example, floating cities or coastal recreational facilities could affect navigational and port requirements; ocean bottom mining could influence underwater vessel designs and offshore terminal concepts; and sewage and radioactive waste disposal could impose limitations on ship operations. However, such considerations are not of primary importance to the main objectives of this study. 3. Three principal tasks exist within marine transportation: research and exploration, military missions, and commercial transportation. Only the latter is treated here in detail. However, major technological advancements related to military missions (for example, nuclear propulsion and advanced navigational aids) and related to ocean research and exploration (for example, advances in material strength-to-density ratio in deep-diving research vessels) are identified whenever their impact on commercial marine transport is significant. 4. The U.S. maritime industry has been selected as a study base because of its direct interest to the investigators. However, since an objective of the study is to assess the U.S. role within the world marine transport environment, world transport needs and technology will necessarily be considered. With the preceding factors in mind, Fig. 1 represents a comprehensive program of commercial marine transportation development in the United States. The figure illustrates several types of information in a structured manner as follows: (1) Primary milestones, goals, or objectives are indicated within rectangles. Major programs or tasks are noted by an ellipse. (2) The horizontal areas represent primary task elements related to the overall mission of providing effective commercial marine transportation. These elements are vessel design and performance, underway operation and navigation, vessel construction and shipyards, and ports and terminals. Note: The topmost horizontal path identifies social and political factors of significance. (3) An approximate time scale from the present to the year 2000 is noted, thus giving some feeling for the rate of progress forecast for the various program areas. Details and timing of some of the programs and the economic significance of some of the milestones are presented in subsequent sections of this forecast. However, it is important that some of the elements in Fig. l be related. First and probably most important, the U.S. government must formulate a national program to outline longrange goals for marine transportation and the programs to achieve those goals. One of

,l i

I

u~E

ea

0

~c ~c

O

0 0

c~

OD .~

c~

8 G 0

I I1

L~

102

C.G. MOORE AND H. P. POMREHN

the broad goals would be to re-establish the United States as a leader in world marine transportation. Such a goal could take 20 or 25 years to achieve. This time interval most certainly sets the pace for advances in vessel design, construction and operation, and in terminal operations. Economic incentives also play a primary role in forecasting future development. Reduced crew complements are necessary to regain economic competitiveness. The rate of progress in this area is contingent upon satisfactory labor/management cooperation enabling crew size reductions. Many such economic interrelations can be seen in Fig. 1. 2. Forecast of United States Shipping Needs to the Year 2000

Trade Volume United States Foreign Trade. The foreign trade of the United States consists of the export and import of raw materials, manufactured goods, and services. The total value of exports and imports in 1967 was 85.9 billion dollars or approximately 11 percent of the total gross national product (GNP). This foreign trade is geographically distributed as follows: Atlantic Coast 57 ,%0 Gulf Coast 21% Pacific Coast 15 % Great Lakes 7% Foreign trade tonnage has increased from 159 million tons in 1950 to 427 million tons in 1965. During this same period, the value of foreign trade has increased from 9.1 to 11 percent of GNP. Figure 2 establishes the growth trend relationship between gross 8000

800

6000

.-J 600

4000

..************** - 400

pOOOOOe000 gOOOOOOO~q

z <,

u. 2000 o

oa

o-

o~

,****************i 200 ~5

#,*************'D* 1000 68O

"

~.,,.

I-O

"***e***'*'*'*"*i

lOO

,**o****'°"°****°"

80 6O

o

N

40

,4."

20 168111 1940

1950

1960

1970 YEAR

Ref: (GNP-National I n©omeAccounting, January 1969; ForeignTrade-U.S.StatisticalAbstract1968, Chart No. 870)

Fig. 2. U.S. GNP and foreign trade--actual and forecast.

1980

1990

I0 2000

~

mz

o_o u.,,j ~ =m

MARINE TRANSPORTATION

103

national product, foreign trade tonnage, and value. Since value is increasing at a faster' rate than tonnage, it can be concluded that the dollar value per unit ton is also increasing. Marine and Air Trends. Figure 2 illustrates an extrapolation of foreign trade to 3900 million tons/year by 2000. Figure 3 contains this same trend line and also shows the significant reduction in the U.S. flag shipping capacity that has occurred since 1950. By 1966, U.S. flag ships were carrying only 7.3 percent of the foreign trade tonnage. There are two factors influencing this phenomenon. One is the diversion of shipping capacity to military use, and the other is the low rate of new U.S. ship construction. Foreign launching of new ships, for instance, was sixteen times that of the United States in 1967. (Ref. U.S. Stat. Abstract Chart No. 892.) Figure 3 indicates that by the year 2000 for the United States to maintain its capability of carrying 7.3 percent of the foreign trade, the merchant marine must increase its carrying capacities from 33 million tons/year to 195 million. In order to carry 50 percent of the U.S. foreign trade tonnage by the year 2000, a 1950-million-ton capacity would be required. In the first case, the merchant fleet must expand approximately sixfold in thirty years; in the second case, sixtyfold in thirty years. These figures would tend to be reduced by increased average ship speed and operational efficiency. The trend in air cargo handling is significant in dollar value but not in tonnage. In 2000 I .~'°°"

~0~.~.." • o •

10001-800

ooooo o ° ' • ~ o ~°

600 400

3

<~

200

rL

1oo

f

•

7"'"" /

80

m

o

60 q 4O 1. C U R R E N T

TONNAGE

20

10 1950

m

1960

970

1980

1990

YEAR Ref: (U.S. Statistical Abstract 1968, Chart No. 870)

Fig. 3. Marine imports and exports for U.S.A. (total and U.S.-owned ships).

2000

104

C . G . MOORE A N D H. P. P O M R E H N

1.0 0.80

--

0.60

-m

0.40 4o

2o ~

0.20 .o --

/ .=

0.10

10

0.08 -

--8

0.06

--6

0.04 1950

1960

_1 ,< >

15

1970

1980

4 2000

1990

YEAR

Ref: (U.S. Statistical Abstract 1968. Chart No. 868; Containerization t An Outlook to 1977, Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corp. 1968)

Fig. 4. Airborne imports and exports (as percent of marine shipping). Table ~gc~z

I

FLEETS OF U.S. ~

THE WO~LD

1966 REGISTRATION U. S. Private Shlp Type

U,S. Government

U.S. Total

World Total

Number P e r c e n t Average Number P e r c e n t Average Number P e r c e n t Average Number P e r c e n t A v e r a g e )f Ships of U.S. Age of Ships of U.S. Age of Ships of U.S. Age ,of Ships of[World Age

Combination Passenger and Cargo

27

1.2

16

200

8.8

23

227

i0.0

22

1054

5.7

21

Freighters

606

26.6

19

1067

46.8

24

1673

73.4

22

11,611

63.1

16

Bulk Carriers

57

2.5

22

2

0.i

23

59

2.6

22

2104

11.4

11

Tankers

275

12.2

17

44

1.8

24

319

14.0

18

3654

19.8

ii

Total

965

42.5

19

1313

57.5

23

2278

i00.0

21

18,423

I00.0

17

FOLLOWING FIVE OTHER COUNTRIES TOTAL. Number of S h i p s

Ref:

U. 8 . S t a t i s t i c a l

Average Age

I.

UNITED KINGDOM

1985

12

2.

LIBERIA

1429

14

3.

JAPAN

1406

9

4.

NORWAY

1356

I0

5.

USSR

1343

12

A b a t r s c t 1968 C h a r t No. 893

MARINE TRANSPORTATION

105

1967, the weight of air cargo carried for imports and exports was only 0.1 percent of the United States total. The dollar value, however, was 12.5 percent in 1967, indicating the high value of goods sent by air transport. The lower cost of air transport will in the future tend to capture additional quantities of the import-export traffic, but since the United States is carrying less than 10 percent of its import-export tonnage, there appears to be room for growth in both air and surface ships. Figure 4 indicates the short-term trends of air cargo as a percent of marine shipping. U.S. and Worm Merchant Fleets. Table 1 provides detailed information on U.S. private- and government-owned types of ships as compared to those of other nations. As of 1966, this U.S. merchant fleet consisted of 2278 ships of all types. England was second in the world with 1985 ships. Table 1 also notes that the average age of U.S. Govt. ships is 23 years. The average age of ships throughout the world is 17 years. AIRCRAFT ZONE

0.40

.J

.~

0.20

z

o

o.lo <,

0.08

,'~

0.06

0

0.04

0 ¢n z

0.03

I-

0.02

0.01 1

2

4

6

10

15

20

40

60

100

200

400

600

SPEED (KNOTS) Ref: (UCLA Lecture Series 820.18)

Fig. 5. Transport cost vs. speed. Marine Shipping: Economic Factors Figure of Merit--Cost Per Ton Mile. The cost per ton mile of ocean shipping presently ranges from 1¢ for large bulk carriers to about 5¢ per ton mile for break bulk cargo. Air cargo costs run from 20 to 35¢ per ton mile. Figure 5 indicates this on a cost vs. speed chart. It is significant that there is no creditable intercontinental transport mode traveling between 20 and 150 knots. This may be an "area of opportunity" for ship/ aircraft technological advances. Components of Shipping Cost. The components of shipping costs are illustrated in Table 2. Table 2 (A) indicates that the ship transport accounts for only 25 percent of the costs in a U.S.-inland to Europe-inland shipment. This cost rises to approximately 30 percent for a U.S. Atlantic-seaport to Europe-seaport shipment. However, since it is the custom of ship owners and shipping companies to include cost of ship loading/ unloading (stevedoring) in their charges to shippers, the marine shipping cost increases to 79 percent of the total for inland-to-inland transits.

106

C. G. MOORE Table MARINE

SHIPPING

AND H. P. POMREHN

2 - DOOR TO DWR

COST RELEVANCE CBART

A.

INLAND

14%

Land Transport

U.S. seaport Handling 43%

UCLA Lecture

Series

EUROPE COST DISTRUBUTION

25%

NEW YORK TO PARIS

4%

Ref:

TO INLAND

36%

B. Manufacturer (New York)

U.S.

18%

7%

COST DISTRIBUTION

Sea Transport

Europe seaport Handling

Land -Transport

30%

21%

2%

Customer (Paris)

820.18

A total cost relevance chart is presented in detail as Fig. 6. Direct cargo handling and ship’s crew wages and subsistence account for 59.7 percent of the total ocean shipping costs. This is an area where automation is making significant advances. Reduction of port fees, hull structure costs, auxiliary systems costs, construction services, and insurance costs would reduce overall shipping costs to a lesser degree. Marine Shipping Cost Trends. The relative cost trend forecast in Fig. 7 shows increased fractional costs for ship construction, shore handling facilities, containers, and other cargo-handling equipment. Reductions in the cost fractions for direct cargo handling and ship operation costs are evident. The added capital investment for automation of ships and cargo handling will provide for the economies reflected in ship variable costs. The reduction or addition to costs illustrated in Fig. 7 is based on the following: 1. Direct cargo handling and ship wages and salaries for the year 2000 are estimated to be one third the 1970 cost. This is due to added automation of cargo handling and underway ship operations. It is noted that some ship crew members are aboard solely to prepare the ship for entering and leaving port, work that could easily be accomplished by shore-based personnel. 2. Port fees are forecast to be reduced by 50 percent due to a more cooperative attitude of U.S. and foreign harbors. 3. Fuel costs are estimated to increase by about 40 percent due to increased speed and a higher percent of underway time. 4. There is no change anticipated for insurance. 5. Shore repairs are estimated to double, resulting primarily from the reduction of underway crew maintenance. This maintenance can be accomplished more economically by the yards.

MARINE TRANSPORTATION

l.u .......]Lndlso

l.u....... U, S .A.

107

s lot

Transport

Eandllng

Transporc

14%

36%

25%

Ocean Shlppin 8

q

Handl£ng

Land

Customer (Europe)

7Z

18%

CooC -

I

Transport

Q

79%

I 100%

87.5% Insurance

Cargo Handling

Wages and Subsistence

Port Fees

Fuel

33.8%

25.9%

I0.3%

6.1%

Fixed 12.5%

4.8%

Shore Repalrs

Stores and Miscellaneous

3.7%

2.9%

I

I Fixed 39.3%

V a r i a b l e 60.7% gull

Labor Co=ponent:

E l e c t r i c a l and A u x i i l a r y Comunlcation Systems

Outfitting

Haterial

Component:

Services

6.7%

6.2%

14.3%

7.9%

5.2%

8.7Z

5.0Z

1.2%

1.8%

3.8Z

2.5Z

4.3Z

6.0Z

6.7Z

5.5%

4.4%

10.5%

5.4Z

0.9Z

2.7Z

lndlcares Relevance Level

Ref: UCLALecture Series

I

Construction

n.7%

36.1Z

Note: O

Design and

Furnishing Englneertn S

24,6Z

®

100%

I

Structure Propulsion

®

I

Variable

Q

B u i l d i n g and Equipment

Overhead and depreclaclon

®

820.18

Fig. 6. Marine shipping total cost relevance chart.

100

(5.g)

[ SHORE HANDLING

FACILITIEsAND CONTAINERsAND EQUIPMENT - 90

90.

80.

(25.3) (28,8)

- 80

DIRECT CARGO HANDLING (11) - 7 0

70.

60'

(lO)

- 60

z

wAGES ANO SUBSISTENCE (25.9) ,Z,

-9o i

50.

40,

30"

,30

20'

.20 (25)

10"

SHIP coNSTRUCTION (12.H) n

1970

1990

1980 YEAR

( )

Indicates % of Total For Each Category

Fig. 7. Marine shipping cost trend forecast. 8

2000

~1

108

C.G. MOORE AND H. P. POMREHN

6. Since crews will be reduced to one-third their 1970 size, it is estimated that their consumption of stores can be reduced by 50 percent. 7. The preceding reductions of 37.8 percent are estimated to be absorbed by a doubling in ship construction costs and the balance going to shore-based handling facilities, equipment, and containers.

Speed of Shipment As loading and unloading times become shorter, the underway ship speed becomes increasingly important. The converse is equally true; as ship speed increases, the in-port time should decrease to attain the maximum possible ship utilization. Figure 8 illustrates this relationship. A more important consideration is the "door-to-door" time,

4O

~

2O

10

0

2

4

6

10

12

14

TOTAL DAYS IN-PORT/ROUND TRIP (7000 NAUTICAL MILES)

Ref: (Mechanical Engineering, October, 1967, pg. 36)

Fig. 8. Ship speed and port time significance. which takes into account the other interfacing modes of transportation. To weigh the shipping problem objectively, the total time of delivery and the total cost must be considered.

Indicated Needs for Marine Shipping Total Value and Volume. The 1950 to 1967 growth in foreign trade indicates it may reach 15 percent of the U.S. G N P by the year 2000. This will represent $970 billion in foreign trade (import and export) and 3900 million tons of product. These factors are summarized in Table 3. United States-Owned Ship Capacity. The United States-owned shipping requirements are summarized in Table 4. For the year 2000, Column B reflects that 195 million

MARINE TRANSPORTATION

109

Table 3 U . S . GROSS NATIONAL PRODUCT A m IMPORT-EXPORT TONNAGE/VALUE

Year 1968 U.S. Statistical Abstract Chart

Value

ONP ($ x 109)

Foreign Trade ($ x 109)

456

456

Figure

of M e r i t Value as % of GNP

Quantity - Import and E~port (Tons x i0 °)

F i g u r e of Merit Ratio (Tons/GNP x 10-3)

870

1950

284.8

25.8

9.1

159.4

0.56

1955

398.0

37.6

9.5

253.9

0.64

1960

503.3

50.4

i0.0

322.7

0.64

1965

683.9

71.3

10.4

427.4

0.62

1967

785

85.9

10.9

1970

2000*

15"

970*

6500*

3900*

0.60*

* Esclmated and Derived Values

Table 4

Year

1968 U.S. Statistical Abstract Chart

A

B

C

Capacity of U.S. Ships (Tons x 106)

U.S. Carried Imports and Exports (Tons x 106)

Figure of Merit Ship Utilization (g/A)

892

870

D

E

Number of U.S. Owned Ships >i00 G.T.

Figure of Merit Average Gross Ton Size per U,S. Ship (A/D)

892

1950

27.4

62.6

2.28

4531

6050

1955

26.3

59.5

2.26

4225

6210

1960

24.8

39.8

1.61

3845

6500

1965

21.5

34.6

1.62

3224

6650

1967

20.3

3115

6510

2000

49 (Low)* 490 (High)*

(Low) (High) 3270 - 32,700 980 9800

15,000 50,000

195 (Low) 1950 (High)

4 (Goal)

* Low Value - Malntalu 1966 Percentage (7.3%)

High Value - Year 2000 Coal (50% of Total)

110

C.G. MOORE AND H. P. POMREHN

tons/year must be carried by U.S. ships to maintain the 1966 level (7.3 percent) of the total foreign trade carried. A more ambitious program to carry 50 percent of the foreign trade tonnage by the year 2000 would require U.S. ships to carry 1950 million tons per year. These tonnages are also illustrated graphically in Fig. 9. The number of ships required to carry a given amount of tonnage is based upon the utilization factor derived in Column C of Table 4. This factor is rather low in 1965 (1.62) but is forecast to improve to 4 by the year 2000. This means that United Statesowned shipping would have a capacity between 49 million tons and 490 million tons by the year 2000. The number of ships required, in turn, depends upon the size of ships ,......,...°°..

1550

1000 800

ACTUAL ~

FORECAST . . . . . . . . . .

°°°

600 490 400

>-

200

u ~ 1111) z-i K ~ 80 ----.=E

~--

60

......--.----'"149

ObI

40 Oto*0 U. S. TOTAL

20

10 1940

1950

1960

Ref: (U.S. Statisti~lAbstract, 1967, Chart No. 892)

1970

1980

1990

2000

YEAR

Fig. 9. Merchant vessels shipping capacity (U.S. and balance of world). constructed. In this example, two average ship sizes are calculated: 15,000 gross tons and 50,000 gross tons. The results are indicated in Column D for the year 2000. A wide variance from the hypothesized minimum program to an ambitious maximum program is indicated. New Construction Required. To c o n s t r u c t 9800 ships in 30 years would require an average of 326 ships per year. At 50,000 tons per ship, this would amount to 16,300,000 tons of new construction per year! At an average cost of $20 million per 50,000-ton ship, 9800 vessels would cost approximately $196 billion or about $6.53 billion per year for 30 years. However, this is not as much as it first appears considering that 12,486,000 tons of merchant type vessels were constructed in 1943, and 11,403,000 tons were constructed in 1944 (Ref. Chart No. 889 U.S. Statistical Abstract).

MARINE TRANSPORTATION

I 11

3. Forecast of Marine Transport System Technical Capabilities to the Year 2000

Major Factors of Marine Shipping A useful technique for identifying the major factors of marine shipping is through the use of a relevance tree or network that successively details the systems and functions coupled together to carry out the top element or objective of the tree. Figure 10 illustrates a relevance network for this study with the topmost elements representing the level of national maritime objectives. Succeeding levels represent Principal tasks that must be carried out in each objective area Essential task elements Systems comprising each task element As previously noted, this study is primarily directed at effective conduct of the task of commercial marine transportation. Four principal elements are associated with the task of commercial marine transport: (I) underway operations and navigation; I

I

M~ERAL EXFLOITATIO~

I

HABITATION AND RECREATION

!

!

RESEARCH AND EXPLORATION

I

! MA~A//CE

I

NAVIGATION

I

HULL STRUCTURE

I

,

~TSSr.~

CREW

PROPULSION

I

CONTROL

VASTE DISP~AL

I

X ILITAR¥ XISSI(k~S

I

VES3~ DESI{~

I

FOOD SUPPLT

CONIAL TRANSPORTATION

I

UNDERWAY OPERATIONS

I

MAR~ TP~SPORTATION

(PRINCIPAL TASKS)

i

,

VESSEL COXSTRUCTIOM

TECTAL FACILITIES I

LABOR

I

CAF~O HANDLING

SHIPIARDS

I

PORT ~IGRESS A~ID

'1

(E L E C T S OF TASK)

(SCSTmS)

FABRICATION METHODS

I

I

DOCKING CARGO AND HANDLING BEHT~IJ/G

I

MODAL ~TERFAC ~-

EGRESS

Fig. 10. National maritime objectives.

(2) vessel design and performance; (3) vessel construction and shipyard facilities; (4) terminal operations and facilities. Each of these elements is discussed in the following paragraphs. Underway operations can be categorized into three basic systems as illustrated in Fig. I 1. Navigation includes aids for course keeping, waterway configurations such as harbors and canals, ship maneuverability at sea and in restricted waters, and means for ship docking. The crew complement consists of engine room, bridge, and lookout watch-standers and underway maintenance personnel. Underway maintenance can be of both the preventive and corrective type; however, assurance of the vessels seakeeping ability is of primary importance. An element of principal importance in carrying out the task of commercial marine transportation is that of vessel design and performance. This element is divided into the systems of hull structure or configuration, propulsion plant, control system, and cargo handling as illustrated in Fig. 12. Four basic hull configurations are displacement, submarine, surface effect, and hydrofoil. Propulsion plants include both the energy

112

C. G. MOORE A N D H. P. POMREHN

I NAVIGATION

m COURSE

KEEPING

~CANA~

ANDCHANNEL9

I MADITDIANCE

-CONTROL

~G~E

SUBSYSTEMS

~CONT~LB~DGE

,m S H I P H A N D L I N G

reSHIP DOCKING

I CRgW

m UNDERWAY

m MODULAR

MAINTENANCE

SHIP

SUB.~YST~

~}IERG~CY

REPAIR

LOOKOUT

SYSThl4S

m

Fig. 11. Underway operations and navigation. I

!

I

MULL STHUCTURE

PROPULSION

COt~TROL

.

DISPLACD4E~T

FOSSILE FUEL

NUCLEAR FUEL

m SUBMARINE

~ SURFACE ~"FECT

m

m

m HYDROFOIL

,~

BRIDGE C O N T R O L

m

AUTOMATIC GUIDANCE

DRY BUU(

PROPULSION PLANT

CCNTAINER

MAIM PROPUI.SION ~GD~ES

REACTIONPOWER

CARGO 'HANDLING E~UIPM~NT

m

m

I

CARGO H A N D L ~ G

PROPULSIV'~. DEVICES

m

ROLLON - ROLLOFF

m

SUBMARINE

TANKER

Fig. 12. Vessel Design and performance.

I

I

MATERIAtLS

m ALI~IlflB4

I

LABOR

m

HIGH yIELD S T R ~ G T H STEEL5

m. TITANIUM

AUTO/4ATIC

DIGITAL TAPE C~(TROL

STABILIZED PRODUCTION

IMPROVED M A N A G I ~ TECN~I~UES

PRE-~$3~BL¥

HECHANIZ]~ MAT~IAL HANDLING

LABOR/MAMAG~I~IT

m

PRODUCTION CONTROL

-- DOCK S I Z E

Fig. 13. Vessel construction.

HEI~ODS

MULTIPLE SHIP OONSTRUCTION

PRODUCTION

COOPERATION

A/&TI-FCULI~G AND CORROSION

!

SHIPYARDS

m

SIMPLIFICATION M&D STANDARDIZATION

MARINE TRANSPORTATION

113

source (fossil fuel, nuclear reactor, chemical reaction) and the propulsive mechanism (water or air propeller, chemical reaction, or water or air jet). A wide spectrum of control capabilities are required, including engine room and bridge control at sea and cargo-handling control in port. Finally, a wide range of cargo-handling systems are available for accommodating the basic cargo configurations of liquid bulk, dry bulk, cargo, and passenger. Another element of substantial relevance from an economic standpoint is the construction of the vessel and the shipyard facilities required for this construction (Fig. 13). Labor and materials are the primary components of the actual ship construction, while shipyard facilities, management, and production methods provide the organization and tools for accomplishing the construction. Terminal operations and terminal facilities represent the fourth element required to accomplish the task of marine transport. This element is subdivided as shown in Fig. 14.

I

I

PORT LOCATION, INGRESS AND EGRESS

I

CARGO HANDLING

MODAL

INTERFACES

IMPROVE HARBORS

CONTAINERS

B

RAIL A N D T R U C K

N E W HARBORS

DRY BULK

--

PIPELINE

m

OFF-SHORE

T~{MI~ALS

,~

U N D E R W A T E R TERMINAL~

.

LIQUID BULK

AIR

BREAK BULK

D

Fig. 14. Terminal facilities. The basic terminal location and configuration is important to provide a rapid and safe ship ingress and egress and a stable cargo-handling environment. The basic cargo to be loaded or unloaded also determines the terminal facilities and configurations. Modal interfaces must be taken into account in order to move the cargo from the terminal to its final destination. Thus, land transport systems, truck and rail, and in some cases air transport become critical links in integrated terminal operations. The next step in this type of study is the development of a relevance tree to a level that importance weighting effectively illustrates where research and development activity or capital funding should be concentrated in order to achieve certain program goals. Figure 15 represents for a single limited area how this relevance tree can be further expanded as a first step in identifying critical development areas. The tree levels succeeding the system level are: System alternatives or subsystems Critical parameters or figures of merit for each subsystem Technological deficiencies associated with extending a critical parameter or figure of merit

C. G. MOORE A N D H. P. P O M R E H N

114

i I

i I

I

I

S~ACE I"FECT

(S~ST~

XTDBOFOIL

ALT~ATIVEi)

I

I

I

I

PRESSURE

(LL~T/DRAO)

(STRJ~GTH-D~SITY RATIO)

x(YEIECITT)

(CRITICAL PARAMETER OR FIGURE OF

mmZT)

I

I

BOUNDARY IAI~R CONTROL

3URFACE MATERIAL3

I

BOUNDART lAYER THEORETICAL ANALY3I$

(TECHNOLOGICAL D~ICI~CIES )

Fig. 15. Hull structure.

A number of critical parameters and figures of merit within each of the task element areas identified in Fig. 11 through 15 are explored in more detail in the following section.

Extension of Marine Transportation System Technology For the purpose of this analysis, selected parameters or figures of merit were determined to have considerable significance in the forecast of marine transportation technology. These parameters relate to the four elements previously identified as the task of commercial marine transportation and are plotted on Fig. 16 through 29. These figures are discussed individually in the subsequent paragraphs. Crew Size vs. Year (Fig. 16). It is estimated that the size of a ship's crew will be reduced from the current level of approximately 30 to 35 crewmen to a level of 10 to 15 crewmen by the year 2000. This reduced crew size will consist of three or four around-the-clock 40

3o

20

lO

1970

1990

1980 YEAR

Fig. 16. Crew size v s . year.

2000

115

M A R I N E TRANSPORTATION

,o0

1000

-~ 3 MPH.

5O0

O "iv

200 -28 ~

Z

126 113

®

100 u

30 MPH

70--

45 MPH

50

z < ~c I2O 1819

1838 1840

1900

191o

1929

1952

lO

1850

1800

1900

~ 3 0 0 MPH 2000

195

YEAR

Fig. 17. Transatlantic crossing time v s . year. 10"6

670 MPH

1-(~DATAPOINTS ~CALCULATED EXTRAPOLATION

{335(.

°oo°°o°°Oo~°~°°°°°"

"1" .]

r.q

:>

;F

10-7

~,,,,,,,,,,,=,,,,,,-,

....

.°..o--~

57 mph

(60.2)

>. I,-

o uJ

_> ;>

SAIL (TRANSATLANTIC) 10-8 1850

1950

1900 YEAR

Fig. 18. V/C Ratio

vs.

year for marine vessels.

® 3.7 MPH 2000

116

C . G . M O O R E A N D H. P. P O M R E H N

supervisory watch stations (three men per station around the clock) and several support personnel. Nuclear-powered vessels currently require five or six additional crewmen but this increment should be reduced in the future. Transatlantic Crossing Time vs. Year (Fig. 17). This curve represents a straightforward trend extrapolation to the year 2000 of the record transatlantic crossing times in hours. The accelerated improvement portion of the curve from 1850 to 1910 represents the incorporation of mechanical power into merchant vessels. Prior to this period, the wind and currents were the motive forces used. Considerable flattening of the curve follows 1910, as mechanical power systems improve at an ever decreasing rate. V/C Ratio vs. Year for Marine Vessels (Fig. 18). This trend extrapolation uses the method developed by Floyd. The technology transfer used was that from sailing vessels to mechanically propelled vessels. Record speeds for short-duration runs and average speeds for transatlantic runs were developed separately as shown. Only fair agreement exists between the forecast transatlantic crossing speeds by this method and the curve extrapolation method of Fig. 17. Lift~Drag Ratio vs. Velocity (Fig. 19). In this chart by Gabrielli and von Karman and extended by Trauger, the lift-drag ratio is plotted against speed. The effectiveness of various modes of travel depends not only on the basic nature of the vehicle, such as sliding, rolling, floating, lifting, or jet propulsion, but also on the efficiency of the propulsive device used. By improving the propulsion device and reducing the drag, the original limiting line of 1950, which supposedly confined the known world of transportation, has been promoted to the line of 1960, and extrapolated to a 1970 line. Further 1000

~

60O 400

X~TANKERS \ iN\ ~ % ~'X,.t-%c--LABGE SUBS

LARGE & ' ~ = t ~ SHIPS------"~ %N

200

1960--~-~ oV=9000 \

I SMALL \ \ >"

e..,

-JuJ

\

\

I

\1

1970 g -V = 13000

100

, ~

60

t.- ~

20

" o

UMITLINE 19soLO . v = s2oo

PEDESTRIANS---~

I

'~ ~'¢:Im~:Ap~t~.8;WAVE ~.SHIP ~

7"-~

10

f

~

~.~-~'~-~

I

~...A¢~

4

L

2

SEAPLANES ~ ~ ¢'/ FIGHTER JETS I I I 2 4 6 100

.

.

.

.

.

.

|

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

~

ouoo,..,...~..~=.o

~¶, ~ - -

~

~ ' % ~ p , ~ ~TRANSPORT

/

.

PROPELLER

" ~ ~ , " L " , A,RCRAFT

1

HEL,OOFTERS'Z UFER,O,,C)I %N.%X\ JETS - "~" ' "J "%~, ~ \

1 1

I 2

I 4

I 6

10

I 2

I 4

] 6 1000

M A X I M U M SPEED - KNOTS

Ref: (Trauger) Fig. 19. Lift/drag ratio

vs.

velocity for various types of marine and air vehicles.

. I 2

.~.~'^ N I~e~ \ 4 6 10,000

MARINE TRANSPORTATION

117

shift will undoubtedly occur prior to 2000. From the point of view of marine transport, the significant feature is the obvious gap in the center of the chart approximately between the 40- and 200-knot lines. No vehicle exists that can operate efficiently at these speeds over water. Recent studies by Booz, Allen Applied Research Inc., and the Surface Effect Ships for Ocean Commerce (SESOC) Committee of the Department of Commerce have developed concepts of surface effect ships which are of significance. Using the characteristics of 100-, 1000-, and 10,000-ton captured air bubble ship configurations, an additional curve has been plotted on Fig. 19. These concepts are developed for operation in an 8-foot sea. A fourth point has been determined, for the 10,000-ton craft in a 2-foot sea (thereby requiring less propulsion power) and is indicated on the chart. As is clear from the diagram, these concepts are converging into Trauger's so-called area of promise. Size of Largest Ship in D WT vs. Year (Fig. 20). This curve illustrates the growth in size of cargo liners, dry bulk vessels, and liquid bulk tankers to the year 2000. The rapid increase in size of tankers is expected to level offat the 500,000-DWT (deadweight tons) level. This size limit estimate is based on a combination of factors, including maneuver500

//

400

Z
o-J Ic/) I,M C9 iv, < _1 u. O i¢1 N

300

f

200

100

J J

CARGO

7 1960

1970

1980 YEAR

Fig. 20. Size of largest ship in DWT

vs.

year.

1990

2000

C. G. MOORE

118

AND H. P. POMREHN

ability and ecology. Only a relatively small increase in size is expected for dry bulk and cargo carriers. Shaft Horsepowerper Pound vs. Year (Fig. 21). The family of curves from Schmidt and Smith shows specific power for various energy converters plotted against time. Both aircraft and marine technology envelope curves are shown to define the application and natural environment limitations to be anticipated for the various energy converter systems. Extrapolation to the year 2000 indicates the improvements that may be expected using the various systems designated, and precluding significant technology breakthroughs. Installed Gus Turbine Horsepower and Number of Gas Turbine Ships vs. Year (Fig. 22). This extrapolation of the number of ships utilizing gas turbine power plants and the total installed gas turbine horsepower coupled with the desirable horsepower per pound ratio evidenced on the previous curve, Fig. 21, indicates a substantial increase 5.0,

KEY

t

2.0

0.05 -

1900

1920

1940

1960 TIME

Ref:

(Schmidt

and Smith)

Pig. 21. Shaft horsepower per pound us. year.

(YEARS)

1980

2000

MARINE

TRANSPORTATION

119

2500

10 ,o q • °1 •

t

oo °

.J,"

.2000

4.:..-:

o.

"r uJ

2

Z

O .J .J

..

1500

~','*

6

.=,po

:i-',

•e. o • o*

I

co

cE

¢.4;''"

k¢/) (3

I

=9. °

MJ ¢/)

J

f

o.

O -I-

1000

4

LU

Z

n,t

,I

Ix:

¢IM

I-¢/) ,¢ (3

Z 500

1950

J"~ ~

1960

1970

1980

199

2000

YEAR Fig. 22. Installed gas turbine horsepower and number of gas turbine ships vs. year.

in the use of gas turbine power systems for marine application may take place by the year 2000. Fuel Cost (Nuclear and Fossil) vs. Year (Fig. 23). If nuclear power plants are to play an effective role in marine propulsion in the future, significant reduction in unit fuel cost (mils per shaft horsepower-hour) must take place compared to those experienced in the first nuclear-powered commercial cargo carrier the Savannah. However, as in the case of central station nuclear power systems, nuclear power costs are expected to drop considerably in the early years of this developing technology. The fuel cost savings indicated on the curve for nuclear systems will of course depend on the cost of fossil fuel supply. In any case, this annual incremental savings must be weighed against the increased capita.I cost and operating cost associated with nuclear-propelled ships. The speed with which a breakeven point between nuclear and fossil fuel is reached is determined to a large degree by the research and development emphasis given to nuclear power systems by the federal government. Relati~,e Ship Costs in Multiple Ship Procurements (Fig. 24). The curve shows the benefits of spreading design engineering, tooling, and setup costs over a larger number of ships. Multiship procurement is also providing a considerable incentive to upgrade shipyard facilities. ShipyardProductit~ity Index vs. Year (Fig. 25). The recent trend in the index of dollar value added per labor hour has decreased slightly in the United States over the past ten

N.S. SAVANNAH

"1=

a,. "1OIL AT $3.00/BBL

,-I o0 O ¢J ..I LIJ LI.

f

\

OIL AT $2.10/

Z

LLION/YR"

NUCLEAR FUEL

1950

1960

1980

1970

1990

2000

YEAR Fig. 23. F u e l c o s t ( n u c l e a r a n d f o s s i l ) vs. year. 1.00

0.75

0 IO ¢J ILl > I I'-_.1 UJ ¢X:

0.5O

0.25

5

10

15

SHIP " N " IN MULTIPLE PROCUREMENT Fig. 24. Relative ship costs in multiple ship procurements,

20

25

2.0 A

0 "II:K 0 <

1.5

,-I

J

W

e~ ,< ,<

× W a z >i>

1.0

97;9~'"

0.5

o ¢.1

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

1980

1990

2000

YEAR

Fig. 25. S h i p y a r d p r o d u c t i v i t y i n d e x

vs.

year.

2.0

">-' O

1.5

..J Q.

J

LIJ UJ

iv. p. ~, z

1.01

v

uJ cl.

x

ILl

,< Io.


0.5

1950

1960

1970 YEAR

Fig. 26. C a p i t a l e x p e n d i t u r e p e r s h i p y a r d e m p l o y e e

vs.

year.

122

C . G . M O O R E A N D H. P. P O M R E H N

years. However, the upgrading of shipyard facilities and the concept of assembly line ship production should improve the productivity of the United States shipyard worker. Productivity in many foreign countries currently exceeds that of the United States. Capital Expenditure per Shipyard Employee vs. Year (Fig. 26). Of course if the productivity index is to increase as illustrated in Fig. 25, increased capital expenditure for shipyard facilities and equipment must take place as shown in Fig. 26. Evidence of this trend is apparent in the all-new Litton shipyard at Pascagoula, Mississippi. This yard and presumably others to follow are much more highly capital-intensive than the U.S. shipyards that have been in existence without substantial change since World War II. Capital expenditure per employee has increased for nearly every U.S. industry at a greater rate than it has in the shipbuilding industry. Strength to Density Ratio for Structural Materials vs. Year (Fig. 27). For larger, higher-speed vessels envisioned for the future, particularly if submarine hull configurations are to become a significant factor, improved strength-to-density ratio materials which are easily fabricated and remain cost competitive must be developed. Figure 27 shows the improvement in strength-to-density ratios which has been achieved since 1950 and the forecast to the year 2000. Small deep-diving research submarines as 1.0

iliiiit i-'-':~i~i.,: :1E S E A R C H !i.~i~ii~i."iiL~i~

i~ii~ii~EN'~LES iii~. ~

I

0.8

~ : : : : : : : . : : : : : : : :=======================================

I

,c.'i~'i: L.'[~:~

MARAGING STE E LS

TITANIUM

e i!.':,' i~::: • ii}::i

¢0 O

iF~i

. .,.

UJ

"lcJ z

II ---~:~i

0.6 ~ A L

7079-T6--

~..,i,

i.,,

:!~

,i,

iiiiti!iiiii~ii:i~itii~, !i !!'~."i i-"!h'i[ i l,

,ii t:~iit:~.

I-r

(9 ILl

HY 130 3: I-(9 Z

~ig'~':iiiii":ii'iiiiiiiif~'~ °

0.4

iii CC I--

~ - T Y i ....

-.v,oo HY

0.2

80

FLEET

~ M O D E R N

SUBMAR~IN

ES~"

.,:: ii~L.'~:-"iiiF:~

1950

1960

1970

YEAR Fig. 27. Strength-to-density ratio for structural materials

1980

vs.

year.

1990

2000

MARINE

TRANSPORTATION

123

1.0 Z ,< z O a: ,¢ ¢J ¢n z O I-

0.75

,,-

0.5

O .IO 00 0.25

:7 W 1970

1980

1990

2000

YEAR F i g . 28. T e r m i n a l f a c i l i t y l a b o r h o u r s p e r t o n o f c a r g o h a n d l e d v s . year.

well as naval nuclear submarines will represent the primary motivating forces for improved structural materials. Terminal Facility Labor Hours per Ton of Cargo Handled vs. Year (Fig. 28). A generally decreasing trend is evidenced in Fig. 28 as containerization and automatic loading and unloading systems become developed and utilized. A critical problem in achieving this trend is the labor/management conflicts that exist when attempts are made to reduce personnel associated with the packaging and loading/offloading sequence. Ship in Port Time vs. Year (Fig. 29). Improved ship turnaround will result from the reduced labor component in the load/offload operation as shown in Fig. 28. Also, 1.0

I-I'rr

_z

o.s

I-

1970

1990

1980

YEAR

F i g . 29. S h i p i n - p o r t t i m e v s . y e a r . 9

2000

124

C . G . M O O R E A N D H. P. P O M R E H N Fig. 30. Delphi forecasting*

Delphi forecasting is a method of using learned opinions to determine the probable events of the future that will advance the technology in a particular field of interest. It can be described as a formalized method of "brainstorming." In the Ocean Transport Forecast it will be conducted as follows:

1. An initial survey on which you will list the most probable technical advancements that in your judgment will take place from the year 1970 to 2000. 2. These lists will be combined by the forecast processors indicating all events and their median year. Copies of this list will be returned for the second Delphi round. 3. On the second round you will review the events and dates and change those dates you do not agree with. 4. Final processing then will be accomplished and you will receive copies. The finished forecast will list the events and the probability distribution as estimated by this group. We are sure you will find the results interesting and thought-provoking. Thank you for your participation. E. M. MacCutcheon Delphi Forecast Processing: C. G. Moore H. P. Pomrehn O C E A N T R A N S P O R T D E L P H I FORECAST (FIRST Q U E S T I O N N A I R E ) Enter the events that in your judgment you expect to take place between 1970 and 2000 under each of the headings below: EVENTS

YEAR EXPECTED

I. Vessel Design and Performance:

II. Vessel Construction and Shipyard Facilities :

HI. Underway Operations and Navigation:

IV. Port and Terminal Operations and Facilities:

V. Other (Specify):

(Submit original--keep copy for your file.) * Developed by Dr. Olaf Hehner. Ref. : J. R. Bright, Technological Forecasting for Industry and Government (Englewood Cliffs, N. J. : Prentice-Hall, 1968).

MARINE TRANSPORTATION

125

improved cargo scheduling and improved subsystems decreasing in port maintenance" will improve ship turnaround. Offshore terminals could also reduce port ingress and egress time significantly.

Marine Shipping Forecast--Delphi Method First Round. With the permission and participation of E. H. MacCutcheon, instructor for the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Short Course "Ocean Centered Transport and Logistic Systems," a Delphi forecast was prepared by the class of 17 students. The class was instructed to list the political, social, economic, and technical developments that in their judgment would affect marine transportation between 1970 and 2000. The instructions and initial questionnaire that were distributed to the participants are included as Fig. 30. A total of 94 technological developments or events and corresponding times of occurrence were obtained from 16 students and the instructor. These were condensed by the authors to 82 events comprising the second round of the Delphi forecast. When more than one person forecast an event on the first round, the average year noted was used for the second round. Second Round. The form passed out for the second round was essentially that shown in Fig. 31 with the right-hand side left blank. The participants were asked to examine the statement and the corresponding first-round estimated year of forecast and to signify the year they thought the event would occur. It was explained that "never" was an acceptable answer. Fifteen responses were obtained during the second round. The second-round results were processed by plotting the range of the forecast dates from the earliest to the latest year as the base of a triangle and the median point as the apex of a triangle. The results are shown in Fig. 31. Also included is an index mark 2 indicating the average-year forecast for the one-third of the participants having the most experience in marine technology. The experience distribution of the participants in the Delphi forecast is summarized on the experience profile below. Experience Profile For Delphi Forecast Participation Number of persons Yearsexperience

i} 1t l

2 1

2/3

1/3

o 2 3 4

5 6

I0

1/3

30

Total 15

Conchlsion. The Delphi forecast was divided into five parts: (1) Vessel Design and Performance, (2) Vessel Construction and Shipyard Facilities, (3) Underway Operations and Navigation, (4) Port and Terminal Operations and Facilities, and (5) General. A total of 82 events were forecast with the following time ranges from the lowest year to the highest year for any given event: 2 Identified by heavy vertical bar.

1970

OCEAN TRANSPORT D E L P H I FORECAST E . M . MacCutcheon/G. C. M o o r e / H . P . P o m r e h n L

V e s s e l Design and P e r f o r m a n c e 1.

500, 000 DWT t a n k e r or d r y c a r g o v e s s e l o p e r a t i o n a l (1986) *

2.

TRLSEC design prototype o p e r a t i o n a l (1980)

3.

100 knot - 10,000 DWT SES prototype o p e r a t i o n a l (1990}

4.

1 million DWT c a r g o ship in operation (2000)

5.

L a s h ships in widespread use (1980)

6.

R o l l o n - r o l l o H ships in use (1980)

7.

Sea-going m u l t i - b a r g e s y s t e m s o p e r a t i o n a l (1990)

8.

C a t a m a r a n c a r g o l i n e r o p e r a t i o n a l (1985)

9,

80 knot - 75,000 DWT hydrofoil c a r g o ship o p e r a t i o n a l

0980}

H.

i0.

E c o n o m i c a l 50 to 100 knot cargo liners in use (1990)

11.

All a l u m i n u m hull cargo liner operational (1995}

1Z.

I m p r o v e d structural materials increase payload 10% and eliminate structural failures (1990)

13.

Effective anti-foulant hull coating in use - drydock not required for cleaning 0980)

14.

Majority of n e w cargo liners have nuclear p o w e r plants (1985)

15.

G a s turbine use economical in large ships (1995)

16.

30 knot average cargo liner speed (1990)

17.

Diesel engine in widespread use in U.S. ships (1980)

18.

W a v e compensation and variable" draft systems in use (1985)

19.

Computerization to optimize and detail ship designs (1985]

20.

Effective use of counter-rotatlng propellers (1972)

21.

Underwater cargo vessel in operation (1990)

Z2.

T o w e d underwater bulk cargo carrier in operation (1985)

23.

I00 knot submarine operational (2000)

24.

Semi-submerged

25.

U n d e r w a t e r r a i l r o a d s in use (2000)

ship prototype in operation 0983)

V e s s e l Construction and Shipyard F a c i l i t i e s 1.

U.S. yards triple tonnage output (198Z)

2,

W i d e s p r e a d use of c o m p u t e r controlled and a u t o m a t e d c o n s t r u c t i o n (1980)

3.

Multi-ship procurement policy in use (1972)

4.

Most U.S. v e s s e l s obtained f r o m foreign y a r d s (1980)

5.

G r a v i n g dock for I million DWT v e s s e l c o n s t r u c t e d in U.S. (1980)

6.

U.S. y a r d s c o m p e t i t i v e with f o r e i g n (1978)

7.

Modular c o n s t r u c t i o n concepts in use (1983)

8.

New automated joining techniques in use (1985)

9.

Extruded hull sections (1978)

I0,

Specialized s h i p y a r d s e s t a b l i s h e d (1978)

11,

N u m b e r of s h i p y a r d s reduced by 50% (1980)

12.

P r o d u c t i o n a s s e m b l y line techniques used (1975}

13.

S y s t e m a p p r o a c h to shipyard m a n a g e m e n t and control (1975)

14.

P r e a s s e m b l e d complete p o w e r p a c k a g e s (1980)

• Indicates

Median Y e a r E s t i m a t e

Fig. 31. Ocean transport Delphi survey.

1980

1990

2000

1970

1980

1990

Ocean T r a n s p o r t Delphi F o r e c a s t (continued} III.

IV.

U n d e r w a y O p e r a t i o n s and N a v i g a t i o n i.

Satellite n a v i g a t i o n and c o m m u n i c a t i o n in w i d e s p r e a d use (1980)

2.

W e a t h e r c o n t r o l in shipping l a n e s (Z000)

3.

Worldwide n a v i g a t i o n n e t w o r k in u s e (1995)

4.

Use o£ r a d a r t r a n s p o n d e r buoy n e t w o r k (1985)

5.

Sonar beacon navigation in use (1975)

6.

Cable guidance s y s t e m in use (1980)

7.

C r e w s i z e r e d u c e d to 1/3 of p r e s e n t (1988)

8.

A u t o m a t e d ship docking s y s t e m s (1980)

9.

F u l l y a u t o m a t e d engine r o o m developed (1978)

10.

On-board family quarters for c r e w (Z000)

II.

C o m p u t e r i z e d t r a f f i c routing and b e r t h c o n t r o l (1975)

12.

I n c r e a s e d c o m p u t e r i z e d ship c o n t r o l (1988)

13.

Automated convoy-radio control by lead ship helicopter surveillance (1990)

14.

Unmanned a u t o m a t e d ship (crew b o a r d s to e n t e r p o r t only) (1999)

15.

All w e a t h e r o p e r a t i o n s at s e a and in port (1985)

P o r t and T e r m i n a l

O p e r a t i o n s and F a c i l i t i e s

I.

M a j o r w o r l d h a r b o r s d r e d g e d to 70 f e e t (1988)

2.

Nuclear canal and harbor excavation in use (1980)

3.

Centralized m a j o r container port facilities established (1980)

4.

O f f s h o r e p o r t f a c i l i t l e s ~ i n g e n e r a l use (1985)

5.

H i g h i m p a c t p i e r r e n d e r i n g m a t e r i a l s utilized

(1980)

'

6.

M a j o r o f f s h o r e s e a / a i r / l a n d t e r m i n a l (1985)

7.

W i d e s p r e a d door to door c o n t a i n e r use (1988)

8.

A u t o m a t e d r a p i d DRT and fluid bulk c a r g o loadi n g / u n l o a d i n g s y s t e m in use (1980)

9-

V.

-

t--._

f4"~

At sea helicopter loading/unloading (1975)

i0.

Improve packaging by use of n e w materials "such as f o a m plastic (1975)

11.

Container design standardized (1978)

IZ.

C u s t o m s procedures cause no ship delay (1978)

13.

Cargo scheduling systems implemented (1973)

14.

Automatic p r o g r a m m e d

_-"11 ..-.--'"1 J

~

cargo loading in use (1985)

General l,

National maritime policy to reestablish world c o m m e r c i a l transport leadership (197Z)

Z.

1 0 0 % increase in subsidies to shipyards (1980)

•3.

N e e d for subsidies to shipyards eliminated (1980)

4.

Tax incentives for shipping industry (1975)

5.

Effective global trade route simulation (1976)

6.

Extensive inter-modal (land/sea/air} s ystems deve loped (1990)

7.

Establish land bridge across southern U.S. (1980)

8.

Inland s e a w a y Atlantic and Gulf Coasts (2000)

9.

M e r g e r s create f e w e r m o r e profitable shipping c o m p a n i e s (1980) L a b o r / m a n a g e m e n t c o o p e r a t i o n to expand i n d u s t r y (1985)

10. 11.

U.S. r e e s t a b l i s h e d as world c o m m e r c i a l t r a n s p o r t l e a d e r (1995)

12.

F i r s t floating city in the s e a (1985}

13.

S e a m a n t e c h n i c a l p r o f e s s i o n e s t a b l i s h e d to m a n automated ships (1985)

14.

Modification of tariff systems significantly reduce restraints on international trade (1985}

/t1"~ /1\

J

_

14".

2000

C. G. MOORE AND H. P. POMREHN

128 Response range (years)

Percent of total

0 to 5 6 to 10 11 to 15 16 to 20 21 to 25 26 to 30 Never (for two or more responses)

events

21 17 14 21 6 5 16 Total: 100

It can be concluded that another iteration would have been advisable to clarify or remove those events with "never" responses and to further focus the range of participant forecasts. It is felt, however, that the opinion of the five most experienced participants is significant. The distribution of responses for the more experienced participants is as follows: Response range (years) Percent of total events 0 1to 5 6 to I0 11 to 15 16 to 20 21 to 25 26 to 30 Never (one or more)

33 10 14 4 5 1 0 33 Total: 100

This represents relatively good agreement for this type of forecast. The 27 events (33 percent of 82) having full agreement among the more experienced group are as follows: I. Vessel Design and Performance 5. Lash ships in widespread use by 1980. 6. Rollon-rolloff ships in use by 1980. 18. Wave compensation and variable draft systems in use by 1985. II. Vessel Construction and Shipyard Facilities 2. Widespread use of computer-controlled and automated construction by 1980. 3. Multiship procurement policy in use by 1972. 7. Modular construction concepts in use by 1983. 8. New automated joining techniques in use by 1985. III. Underway Operations and Navigation 4. Use of radar transponder network by 1985. 8. Automated ship docking systems by 1980. 9. Fully automated engine room developed by 1978. 10. On board family quarters for crew by 2000. 11. Computerized traffic routing and port berth control by 1975. IV. Port and Terminal--Operations and Facilities 4. Offshore port facilities in general use by 1985. 5. High impact pier fendering materials utilized by 1980. 6. Major offshore sea[air/land terminal in use by 1985. 7. Widespread door to door container use by 1988. 9. At sea helicopter loading[unloading by 1975. 11. Container design standardized by 1978.

MARINE TRANSPORTATION

129

12. Customs procedures cause no ship delay by 1978. 13. Cargo scheduling systems implemented by 1973. V. General 4. Tax incentives for shipping industry by 1975. 5. Effective global trade route simulation by 1976. 8. Inland seaway Atlantic and Gulf coasts by 2000. 9. Mergers create fewer, more profitable shipping companies by 1980. 13. Seaman technical profession established to man automated ships by 1985. 14. Modification of tariff systems significantly reduce restraints on international trade by 1985. 4. Integration of Needs and Technical Capabilities Forecast

Relevance Network--Project Importance Ranking A means for focusing upon the areas or systems where needs have been identified and where technological deficiencies exist is presented in this section. Again, use will be made of the concept of a relevance tree or network. In this case, the relevance framework will be used in ordering the importance of a number of systems in attaining an overall objective where various criteria are used for determining importance. The objective is to establish and maintain an effective U.S. marine transportation industry. Within this overall or global objective, four specific missions must be recognized as follows: (1) Improvement of the commodity transport capability of the maritime industry through improved economic competitiveness and vessel and terminal performance. (2) Bolstering of the overall national economy through an active shipbuilding and cargo shipping industry. (3) Enhancement of national prestige through development of advanced ships, terminals, and shipyards. (4) Providing a broad logistics capability in the event of national mobilization in support of military operations. It is evident that these missions mean something different depending upon the criteria used to measure their relationship to the overall objective. The three criteria utilized here relate to effectiveness as seen by the user, by the shipping industry, and by the United States government. Figure 32 illustrates the calculation of mission weights for the criteria weights noted. The results of Sections 2 and 3 suggest a number of areas or systems where substantial improvements in shipping-industry economics or performance can be expected within the forecast time horizon of the study. These are: Nuclear-powered cargo ships. Automated ships (reduced crew size). Advanced hull concepts (surface-effect ships and hydrofoils). Capital-intensified shipyards. Automated cargo handling. Improved and new harbors and terminals. For each of the four missions previously noted, and their corresponding calculated mission weights, the preceding systems are evaluated in terms of the set of criteria indicated below: Reduced shipping cost. Improved vessel performance.

Fig. 32. Mission relevance calculation Objective: Effective U.S. Marine Transportation Industry Mission

Criteria

Improve commodity transport

Bolster national economy

Enhance national prestige

Support emergency mobilization

User (0.4) Shipping Industry (0.3) U.S. Government (0.3)

0.7 0.4 0.1

0. I 0.3 0.2

0.1 0.1 0.2

0.1 0.2 0.5

Mission Weights

0.43

0.19

0.13

0.25

Improve Commodity Transport (0.43) Systems

Criteria Low or shipping cost (0.6) Improve vessel performance (0.2) Expand maritime industry international market (0.1) Expand intermodal transport market

Nuclearpowered cargo ships

Automated ships (reduced crew size)

Advanced hull concepts Capital (improved intensify vessel speed) shipyards

Automated cargo handling

Improved and new harbors and terminals

0.1

0.3

0.1

0.2

0.3

0

0.3

0.1

0.6

0

0

0

0.3

0.1

0. I

0.3

0.1

0.1

0.2

0

0.6

0

0.2

0

0.17

0.21

0.25

0.15

0.21

0.01

0.073

0.090

0.108

0.065

0.090

0.004

(0.1) Partial system weights (W) Mission weighted system weights, 0.43 x (W)

Bolster National Economy (0.19) Systems

Criteria

Automated ships (reduced crew size)

Advanced hull concepts Capital (improved intensify vessel speed) shipyards

Automated cargo handling

Improved and new harbors and terminals

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.I

0.1

0.1

0.3

0.1

0.1

O. 1

0.1

0.2

0.4

0.1

0

0.1

0.5

0

0.1

0

0.23

0.10

0.25

0.28

0.10

0.04

0.044

0.019

0.048

0.052

0.019

0.008

Nuclearpowered cargo ships

Low or shipping 0.2 cost (0.2) Improve vessel 0.3 performance (0.2) Expand maritime 0.2 industry international market (0.5) Expand intermodal 0.3 transport market (0.1) Partial system weights (W) Mission weighted system weights, 0.19 x (W)

Enhance National Prestige (0.13) Systems Automated ships (reduced crew size)

Advanced hull concepts Capital (improved intensify vessel speed) shipyards

Automated cargo handling

Improved and new harbors and terminals

Low or shipping 0.3 cost (0.2) Improve vessel 0.2 performance (0.4) Expand maritime 0.3 industry international market (0.3) Expand intermodal 0.2 transport market (0.1)

0.2

0.3

0.1

0.1

0

0. l

0.4

0.1

0. l

0.1

0.2

0. l

0.2

0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0

0.2

0

Partial system weights (W) Mission weighted system weights, 0.13 x (W)

0.25

0.16

0.29

0.12

0.14

0.04

0.032

0.021

0.038

0.016

0.018

0.005

Criteria

Nuclearpowered cargo ships

Support Emergency Mobilization (0.25) Systems Automated ships (reduced crew size)

Advanced hull concepts Capital Automated (improved intensify cargo vessel speed) shipyards handling

Improved and new harbors and terminals

Low or shipping 0.2 cost (0. l ) Improve vessel 0.5 performance (0.4) Expand maritime 0.2 industry international market (0.4) Expand intermodal 0. l transport market (0.1)

0.2

0.1

0.3

0.2

0

0

0.5

0

0

0

0.1

0. l

0.4

0. I

0. I

0. l

0.3

0.1

0.3

0.1

Partial system weights (W) Mission weighted system weights, 0.25 x (W)

0.31

0.07

0.28

0.20

0.09

0.05

0.078

0.017

0.070

0.050

0.022

0.013

Criteria

Nuclearpowered cargo ships

Relative System Importance

Nuclear-powered cargo ships Automated ships Advanced hull concepts Capital intensify shipyards Automated cargo handling Harbors and terminals

Improve commodity transport

Bolster national economy

Enhance national prestige

Support emergency mobilization

Total

0.073 0.090 0.108 0.065 0.090 0.004 0.430

0.044 0.019 0.048 0.052 0.019 0.008 0.190

0.032 0.021 0.038 0.016 0.018 0.005 0.130

0.078 0.017 0.070 0.050 0.022 0.013 0.250

0.227 0.147 0.264 0.183 0.149 0.030 1.000

132

C.G. MOORE AND H. P. POMREHN

Expanded maritime industry international market fraction. Expanded intermodal transport market. The relative weights of these criteria are different for each mission. Figure 32 presents the calculation of partial-system weights for each of the four missions being considered and summarizes the results of the overall-system importance calculation. The relative ranking of the systems in achieving an "effective" U.S. marine transportation industry is as follows: Rank

System

Importance Weight

1

Advanced hull concepts Nuclear powered cargo ships Capital intensifiedshipyards Automated cargo handling Automated ships New harbors and terminals

0.26 0.23 0.18 0.I 5 0.15 0.03

2 3 4 5 6

1.00 Obviously these rankings are sensitive to the weights given to the criteria and missions. They represent the authors' views and the user may wish to test the effect of his own weighting.

Time-Phased DevelopmentPlan The major needs and technical advancements possible for the next thirty years have been organized into a time-phased development program as indicated in Fig. 1. The significant projects identified are as follows. A. Socio-Political Programs 1. Establish U.S. government policy and objectives to become world-leading maritime nation. 2. Continue program to ease and eventually remove all tariffs. 3. Establish Industry]Government/Unions/Port Authority planning and coordination group to integrate overall plans and implement programs. 4. Develop intermodal systems to emphasize integrated "door-to-door" shipping services. B. Technical Programs 1. Modernize shipyards to automate, take advantage of new technology, and build larger hulls. 2. Develop new advanced hulls. (This is a continuation of an existing U.S. maritime program.) 3. Continue development of advanced power systems including nuclear power. 4. Commence program leading to automated cargo-handling systems. 5. Develop automated ship operations including engine room and navigation systems. 6. Deepen and develop harbors to keep pace with the increased sizes of ships. Develop improved port facilities to accommodate increased traffic volume. Develop offshore terminal facilities. C. New Ship Construction Program 1. Increase new ship construction rates to reach goal of world shipping leader by the year 2000.

MARINE TRANSPORTATION

133

The preceding programs are not intended to be the complete requirement but, rather, a representation of some of the major requirements. In order for the U.S. maritime industry to take advantage of the forecast business expansion potential it will be necessary to move forward in at least these areas of marine shipping technology. A coordinated and integrated program is required to make the best use of the limited resources of men and money.

Marine Transport System Planning, Programming, and Budgeting In order to economically establish and maintain a leading world maritime industry an integrated system of planning, development, and operations will need to be implemented. The system would take into account and provide for the consolidated requirements of the U.S. government, the shipping industry including owners and shipbuilders, the labor unions servicing the industry, and the customers who ship materials and goods. Such a system designed to assist management in making better decisions on the allocation of resources among alternative methods of attaining government/industry objectives is the planning-programming-budgeting system (PPBS). A brief review of the PPBS concept is presented in this section. Basically, PPBS is the development and presentation of relevant information concerning the full implications--the costs and benefits--of major alternative courses of action. It is designed to minimize the fragmented and last-minute program evaluations that tend to occur under present planning and budgeting practices. The principal distinctive characteristics of PPBS are: 1. Identification of the fundamental objectives of government and relating all activities to these objectives, regardless of organizational placement. 2. Explicit consideration of future-year implications. 3. Consideration of all pertinent costs including capital as well as noncapital costs, associated support costs, and operation and maintenance costs (life-cycle cost analysis). 4. Systematic analysis of alternatives including the following definitive steps: Identification of objectives Definition of alternative methods of achieving objectives Estimation of the total cost of each alternative

ESTABLISH OBJECT,VES

r I • • • • •

~l

GOVERNMENT SHIPBUILDERS SHIPOWNERS UNIONS SHIPPERS

IDENTIFY POTENTIAL NEW PROGRAMS • 5OCIO/POLITICAL • TECHNICAl. • CONSTRUCTION

ADJUST PLANS AND OBJECTIVES

MOULEBUOGTI I

~ I -

I

EVALUATE NEW PROGRAMS

~

AND IMPLEMENT SELECTED PROGRAMS

• LIFE CYCLE COSTS • BENEFITS/RESULTS

• RESEARCH/DEVELOPMENT • ENGINEERING/CONSTRUCTION • OPERATION/MAINTENANCE

OPERATE AND EVALUATE SYSTEMS ee YARDS TERMINALS • VESSELS

Fig. 33. Basic PPBS components of marine transportation systemsanalysis.

134

C.G. MOORE AND H. P. POMREHN Prediction of expected results of each alternative Presentation of resulting major cost and benefit tradeoffs among the alternatives (along with major assumptions and uncertainties)

Figure 33 summarizes some of the basic PPBS components as related to marine transport systems.

Conclusion This research paper demonstrates how several technological forecast tools can be applied to planning the future of U.S. marine transportation. The forecast developed an assessment of the vessel design and performance factors, underway operation and navigation, vessel construction and shipyards, ports and terminals and the sociopolitical factors required as the basis for such a plan. The techniques utilized demonstrate an orderly, but not rigid, method of investigating and resolving multidisciplinary programs. Figure 1 represents a summary of the research carried out. It is believed that U.S. marine transportation leadership may be regained in the future by establishment of the type of program outlined. The authors believe it will be timely and of value to the U.S. maritime industry to update and refine the essential subject matter developed during this research. Such action is planned by the authors.

Acknowledgments The authors wish to thank Professor H. Linstone and members of the Technological Forecasting class for their help in preparing this study. The assistance of Mr. Edward M. MacCutcheon of the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey, Washington Science Center, is also gratefully acknowledged. His cooperation made the preparation of the Delphi forecast possible. The authors also wish to thank the members of the UCLA Short Course, Ocean Centered Transport and Logistic Systems, who served as the Delphi forecast sampling population. Bibliography The Economic Impact of United States Ocean Ports, Maritime Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce. Rumble, H. P. and Johnson, R. P. Determination of Weight, Volume and Costfor Tankers and Dry Cargo Ships, The Rand Corporation, Santa Monica, California, RM-3318-I-PR, April 1968. Frankel, E. G. "Aspects of Ship Manufacturing for Increased Productivity," Massachusetts Institute of Technology, a paper given before the New York Metropolitan Section of the Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, April 1968. "International Shipbuilding, A Business for Giants," The Economist, March 2, 1968. Technological Trends in Major American Industries, Bulletin No. 1474, U.S. Department of Labor, February 1966. Statistical Abstract of the United States, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1968. Oxford Economic Atlas of the World, Oxford University Press, London, England, 1965. Woytinski, Emma S. Profile of the U.S. Economy, A Survey of Growth and Changes, Frederick A. Praeger, New York, 1967. Alexander, Tom: "Shipbuilding's Big Lift From Aerospace," Fortune Magazine, pp. 78, September 1, 1968. Relative Cost of Shipbuilding in the Various Coastal Districts of the United States, Maritime Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, June 1968. Klima, O. and Wolfe, G. M. "The Oceans; Organizing for Action," Harvard Business Review, MayJune 1968, p. 98. Review of United States Oceanborne Foreign Trade, Maritime Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1966.

MARINE TRANSPORTATION

1"35

Containerization, an Outlook to 1977, Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Company, Oakland, California, 1968. Lecture Series on Ocean Centered Transport and Logistic Systems. Engineering 820.18, Edward M. MacCutcheon, University of California at Los Angeles, University Extension, April 15 to 25, 1969. Improving the Prospects for United States Shipbuilding, Webb Institute of Naval Architecture, Center for Maritime Studies, Glen Cove, N. Y., Interim Report, November 1967. Surface Effects Ships for Ocean Commerce, U.S. Department of Commerce, February 1966. Floyd, A. L. "Trend Forecasting, a Methodology for Figures of Merit," in Bright (Ed.), Technological Forecastingfor Industry and Government. Ayres, R. V. "Technological Forecasting: Concepts and Methods," International Research and Technology. A paper presented at the Technology and Management Conference in Washington, D.C., January 1969. Bright, V. R. (Ed.), Technological Forecastingfor Industry and Government, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N. J., 1968. Jantsch, Eric. Technological Forecasting in Perspective, Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris, France, 1967. Benford, H. The Practical Application of Economics to Merchant Ship Design, University of Michigan, College of Engineering, Ann Arbor, Michigan, February 1969. Preliminary Assessment of Acceptable Channel Criteria For Interoceanic Canal IOCS Memo JAX-43, June 1968. Benford, H. et al. "Systems Analysis in Marine Transport," Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers Paper 7, International Meeting, June 1968. Study of Hydrofoil Seacraft, Grumman Aircraft, Bethpage, N. Y., PB 151475, November 1958. Caldera, D. L. et al. "Gas Turbine Powered Cargo Ships," Mechanical Engineering, October 1967. Schmidt, A. W. and Smith, D. F. "Generation and Application of Technological Forecasts for R and D Programming," in Bright (Ed.), Technological Forecastingfor Industry and Government. Wu, T. Yao-Tsu. Propeller Theory and Marine Propulsion, Symposium on Modern Development in Marine Sciences, AIAA, April 21, 1966. Gabrielle, G. and von Karman, T. Mechanical Engineering, 72 (1950), 778-781. Trauger, R. J. "The Second Generation of Ground Effect Machines," Naval Research Reviews, September 1962. Marine Engineering/Log, June 1968, 27th Annual Maritime Review and Yearbook, U.S. and World Shipping and Shipbuilding. Ocean Engineering, edited by North American Aviation, Volumes 1 through 8, 1966. Sheets, H. E. Marine Sciences and Industrial Potentials, Proceedings of Symposium, June 1967. Kesterman, F. "Lessons From the Savannah," Ocean Industry, December 1968. Lewis, T. L. Canals and Channels A Look Ahead, U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, August 1967. Correlation of Canal Design Criteria and Accidents on the Panama Canal, IOCS Memo JAX-65, December 1968. Gordon, T. J. and Helmer, O. Report on a Long-Range Forecasting Study, P-2982, September 1964. The Atom and the Ocean, USAEC, Washington, D.C. February 3, 1971