FISHING VESSEL OPTIMIZATION - A DESIGN TOOL

by

THOMAS CHARLES BOWER

B.Sc, Royal Roads M i l i t a r y College, 1978

A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF

THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF

MASTER OF ^SCIENCE

in

THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES

DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

We accept this thesis as conforming

to the required standard

THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

January, 1985

© Thomas Charles Bower, 1985

In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the
requirements f o r an advanced degree a t the University
o f B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree t h a t the L i b r a r y s h a l l make
it f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r reference and study. I further
agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e copying of t h i s t h e s i s
f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be granted by the head o f my
department or by h i s or her representatives. It i s
understood t h a t copying or p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s
f o r f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my written
permission.

_ . Mechanical Engineering
Department of

The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia
1956 Main Mall
Vancouver, Canada
V6T 1Y3

Date
 ABSTRACT

Rising fuel costs and decreased catch sizes have reduced the f i s h i n g

vessel owners p r o f i t margin. This has caused the owners to t r y to f i n d

methods that reduce the costs of their operations. In this thesis a t o o l

which can be used by f i s h i n g vessel designers, and operators, i s developed

for use at the preliminary ship design stage. It i s used to determine the

best f i s h i n g vessel parameters f o r a given operational scenario found on

the West Coast of Canada.

- i i-
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ABSTRACT i i

TABLE OF CONTENTS i i i

LIST OF TABLES v

LIST OF FIGURES vi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS vii

NOMENCLATURE viii

1. INTRODUCTION 1

2. FISHING VESSEL DESIGN MODEL 4

2.1 Relationship Between the Ship Vector and Ship Dimensions .. 6

2.2 Limits Assigned to Components of Ship Vector 7

2.3 Equations Used for Fishing Vessel Design Model 8

2.3.1 Resistance and Power 8

2.3.2 Weight Equations 11

2.3.3 Volume Calculations 17

2.3.4 Stability 21

2.3.5 Cost Calculations 22

3. THE OPERATIONAL SCENARIO 26

4. OPTIMIZATION CRITERIA 28

4.1 Steps Involved i n Evaluating the Cost Function 29

5. VALIDATION OF DESIGN PROBLEM 31

6. SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS 33

6.1 Cost Function vs. Changes i n Length 34

6.2 Cost Function vs. Changes i n Beam 34

- iii -
 Page

6.3 Cost Function vs. Changes i n Draft 35

6.4 Cost Function vs. Changes i n Midship C o e f f i c i e n t 35

6.5 Cost Function vs. Changes i n Prismatic Coefficient 35

6.6 Fuel Cost vs. Changes i n Design Variables 36

7. ROUTINE FOR OPTIMIZATION 37

7.1 Results of the Optimization 38

7.2 Comparison of Optimum Vessel to "Eastward Ho" 39

7.3 E f f e c t of Rising Fuel Costs on Optimum Design 41

7.4 Percent Fish Hold Capacity Required to Break Even 42

8. DISCUSSION OF FUTURE TRENDS IN FISHING VESSEL DESIGN 45

8.1 Recommendations for Future Work 46

REFERENCES 61

APPENDICES:

A - Comparison of Steel Weight Estimates to West Coast

Invoiced Steel Weights 63

B - Questionnaire Used to Discuss Future Trends i n

Fishing Vessels 66

C - Problems Encountered with Computer Programs 67

- iv -
 LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table I Values of d i , 11(1=1,4) 9

Table I I Comparison Between Eastward Ho and Values Predicted i n

Design Program 31

Table I I I Results of Optimization f o r 16 m Vessel 39

Table IV Comparison of Optimized Ship to Eastward Ho 39

Table V Fueld Price Increase E f f e c t s 42

Table VI % Fish Hold Capacity Required to Break Even 44

- v -
 LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure 1 Simplified Waterplane Arrangement 17

Figure 2 Simplified Side View Showing Accommodation Below

Waterline 20

Figure 3 Operational Scenario 27

Figure 4 Steel Weight Vs. Length Changes 48

Figure 5 West Coast Beam Vs. Depth 49

Figure 6 West Coast Beam Vs. Length 50

Figure 7 Cost Function Vs. Length 51

Figure 8 Cost Function Vs. Beam 52

Figure 9 Cost Function Vs. Draft 53

Figure 10 Cost Function Vs. Midship Coefficient 54

Figure 11 Cost Function Vs. Prismatic C o e f f i c i e n t 55

Figure 12 Fuel Cost Vs. Length 56

Figure 13 Fuel Cost Vs. Beam 57

Figure 14 Fuel Cost Vs. Draft 58

Figure 15 Fuel Cost Vs. Midship C o e f f i c i e n t 59

Figure 16 Fuel Cost Vs. Prismatic Coefficient 60

- vi-
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I wish to express my gratitude for the time and assistance given to me

by:

Mr. Robert A l l a n

Mr. B i l l Cleaver

Mr. Aurthur MacLaren

Mr. Gary Sigmund

I would also l i k e to thank, E r i c Jonk, Otto Fung and Gary Lepp f o r

t h e i r help i n improving my programming techniques and my understanding of

the use of the computer systems at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia.

F i n a l l y , I would l i k e to thank Dr. Sander C a l i s a l , my advisor, as w e l l

as Mr. R.H. Mcllwaine whose patience and ideas helped see this project

through completion. This work was supported by the Department of F i s h e r i e s

and Oceans.

- vii -
 NOMENCLATURE

AM Midship Area

A Waterplane Area
w

B Ship Beam

B/T Beam Draft Ratio

CCOST Construction

CD Depreciation Cost

CF Fuel Cost

CFW Fresh Water Consumption

Ci Equations of Form Used i n Resistance Algorithm

CI Insurance Cost

CLVOL Crew L i v i n g Volume

CM Midship Coefficient

CMF Cost Function

CMI Miscellaneous Costs (Repairs, Licence, Port fees, Wages)

CMO Mortgage Cost

CMY Machinery Weight Constant

COUT Outfit Weight Constant

CP Prismatic C o e f f i c i e n t

CS Steel Cost

CSTRUCT H u l l Weight Constant

CUBIC NO. LxBxD/2.834

CWA Catch Weight A v a i l a b i l i t y (DISP - Z Weight Groups)

CWL Parameter f o r Entrance Angle at Waterline (IE * L/B)

CWP Waterplane C o e f f i c i e n t

- viii -
di Coefficients used i n C i (Table 1)

D Ship Depth at Midships

DISP Ship Displacement at DWL

DWL Design Waterline

EGR Engine Gear Ratio

EHP E f f e c t i v e Horsepower

EO Propeller E f f i c i e n c y

ER Relative Rotative E f f i c i e n c y

FB Distance of LCB From Forward Perpendicular

FBD Ship Freeboard

FCR Fuel Consumption Ratio

FHC Fish Hold Capacity (Vessel V o l . - Z Volume Groups)

FN Froude Number (V//gL)

FR Fuel Required to Complete 9 Days at Design Speed

FVVOL Fuel Volume

FWVOL Fresh Water Volume

GM Metacentric Height

GMR Required Metracentric Height

i Any Integer

IE Entrance Angle

j Any Integer

J Propeller Advance Ratio

k Any Integer

KQ Torque C o e f f i c i e n t

KT Thrust Coefficient

- ix -
L Ship Length

L/B Length Beam Ratio

LCB [.5L-FB/L] * 100

LCB Longitudinal Centre of Buoyancy

MACV Machinery Volume

N Crew Size

NU Kinematic V i s c o s i t y

OPC Overall Propulsive C o e f f i c i e n t

RF F r i c t i o n a l Resistance

RN Reynold Number (VL/NU)

RO Density of Seawater

RR Residuary Resistance

RT Total Resistance

S Approximation to Wetted Surface Area

STVOL Stores Volume

t Thrust Deduction Factor

T Ship Draft

V Ship Speed (m/sec)

VL Speed Length Ratio

VS Ship Speed i n Kts

VESSEL VOL Ship Volume up to Main Deck

VOL Ship Volume to DWL

W Taylor Wake Fraction

WF Fuel Weight

WM Machinery Weight

WO Outfit Weight

- x-
WS Steel Weight

WWS Stores and Fresh Water Weight

X Dimension C o e f f i c i e n t

Xi Components of Ship Vector ( i = 1,6)

- xi -
 1.

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Over the past ten years owners of f i s h i n g vessels have had t h e i r

p r o f i t raargines reduced because the catch y i e l d s have decreased while the

cost of operations, especially fuel prices, have increased. The owners (of

f i s h i n g vessels) expressed a desire; through the University of B r i t i s h

Columbia and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans; to f i n d , If possible,

a more e f f i c i e n t method to conduct f i s h i n g operations.

An obvious recommendation to reduce operating costs would be to

decrease vessel speed, which would decrease f u e l costs, but t h i s may not be

acceptable to operators i n a l l cases. The main problem with speed reduc-

t i o n i s a r e s u l t of f i s h i n g seasons being limited i n duration, as well as

being opened In d i f f e r e n t areas at different times.

The question of how to Improve economic e f f i c i e n c y f o r the P a c i f i c

Coast fisherman was looked at i n two stages. The f i r s t stage addressed the

problem of how to improve the e x i s t i n g f l e e t on the West Coast, while the

second stage assumed that a new vessel could be designed and constructed to

maximize the fisherman's p r o f i t s by increasing the r a t i o of tonnes of f i s h

caught per d o l l a r expended.

In 1983, Dr. S.M. C a l i s a l and Otto Fung [1] produced a computer simu-

l a t i o n for f i s h i n g vessel operations which would accurately predict the

f u e l costs f o r displacement type vessels operating on the West Coast. The

computer model included methods to decrease f u e l costs, that could be

r e t r o f i t t e d to the existing ships. The methods included, controllable

pitch propellers, two speed gearboxes, and Kort Nozzles, which would be

added to the vessel and possible f u e l savings, f o r a given f i s h i n g

 2.

scenario, f o r each method were calculated. This program can e f f e c t i v e l y

make recommendations to the ship owners, about which method of fuel saving

i s best to h i s vessel, but i t Is f e l t that the operators should decide on

the method that i s most suitable for their operations.

The study to design an optimum f i s h i n g vessel f o r a s p e c i f i c operating

scenario was seen as the solution to the West's problem of how to replace

the aging vessels on the P a c i f i c Coast.

This optimization study d i f f e r s from past studies, i n that i t focusses

s p e c i f i c a l l y on the small trawler (under 39 m i n length) which i s

indigenous to the West Coast of Canada, while past studies have been

centered around cargo ships or tankers.

In 1963, Murphy, Sabat and Taylor [2] developed a systematic procedure

to determine the optimum combination of design variables for a cargo ship

that would s a t i s f y the owner's requirements using the least cost c r i t e r i o n .

Paterson [3] i n 1984 used this least cost c r i t e r i o n to determine the best

design variables f o r f i s h i n g vessels on the P a c i f i c Coast. Mandel and

Leopold [4] i n 1966 used the least cost c r i t e r i o n , and adopted i t to a

computerized optimization technique that would determine the best vessel

dimensions, based on the owner's requirements and the operating scenario

for a cargo ship.

The f i r s t optimization study applied to f i s h i n g vessels was done by

Kupras In 1966 [5]. His model was based on Polish Factor Tankers and used

methods similar to those previously mentioned. In 1971, Hamelin [6] used

net parameters, vessel parameters, and least time i n port as the c r i t e r i o n

to determine the best vessel to be used f o r ground f i s h i n g on the A t l a n t i c

Coast.

In the following chapters, the author presents a method to determine

 3.

optimum dimensions of a trawler, based on a fixed operational scenario as

well as the lowest operating costs and largest f i s h hold capacity. The

intention of t h i s thesis i s to produce a preliminary design t o o l which can

be used by f i s h i n g vessel designers.

 4.

CHAPTER 2

FISHING VESSEL DESIGN MODEL

The design p r i n c i p l e s applied to f i s h i n g vessels are the same as those

used to design any ship. The building and annual operating costs can be

f a i r l y accurately predicted i f the following design variables are known:

1. Ship Length, L

2. Ship Beam, B

3. Ship Draft, T

4. Ship Depth, D

5. Midship C o e f f i c i e n t , CM

6. Prismatic Coefficient , CP

7. • Ship Displacement, A or Volume V

8. Required Horsepower, SHP

9. Ship Speed, VS

This l i s t of nine variables can be reduced due to the interdependence

of some of the v a r i a b l e s . Wilson [9] has shown that, for f i s h i n g vessels,

freeboard i s a function of length, since depth i s the summation of draft

and freeboard, i t can be eliminated i f the d r a f t of the ship i s known.

Displacement or volume are dependent on length, beam, d r a f t , midship

c o e f f i c i e n t and prismatic c o e f f i c i e n t and therefore can be eliminated i f

these five quantities are known. The required horsepower of a ship can be

expressed as a function of the ship dimensions and speed and i s therefore

eliminated i f ship speed i s known. By using these assumptions, the

o r i g i n a l l i s t of variables i s reduced to the s i x variables which are

defined as the ship vector:

 5.
SHIP = f ( X l , X2, X3, X4, X5, X6)

where XI = ship length

X2 = ship beam

X3 = ship draft

X4 = midship c o e f f i c i e n t

X5 = prismatic c o e f f i c i e n t

X6 = speed-length r a t i o

If the owner of the vessel were to specify a required speed, the

variable l i s t would be further reduced to f i v e . Since i t i s assumed that

there i s a vessel that w i l l e f f i c i e n t l y complete the operational scenario,

the ship speed i s considered as one of the variables, which implies that

the operational scenario i s speed dependent.

The midship c o e f f i c i e n t and prismatic c o e f f i c i e n t were included i n the

ship vector i n order to define the volume and displacement of the vessel as

well as being required input for the c a l c u l a t i o n of the ship's resistance.

In order to ascertain whether or not the optimum ship i s capable of

safely conducting f i s h i n g , the design procedures must include some

constraints. This study uses vessel equilibrium, s t a b i l i t y and volume

available for catch as the design requirements.

Vessel equilibrium i s defined as the difference between the ship

displacement, (calculated from the ship vector) and the summation of the

weights of equipment and f a c i l i t i e s required to conduct f i s h i n g operations.

In equation form:

Equilibrium = A - E
 6 .

where A = ship displacement

i n d i v i d u a l weight groups (e.g. machinery, f u e l , etc.)

W
i "

The displacement must always be greater than the sum of the weights or the

vessel w i l l sink, therefore t h i s requirement must be s a t i s f i e d .

The s t a b i l i t y of the ship i s included to ensure that the optimum

vessel does not converge to a point where there i s zero beam value, which

could happen i f optimum vessel were chosen based on minimum f u e l cost.

This requirement also indicates that the ship w i l l be capable of working at

sea safely.

Volume a v a i l a b l e for catch, also termed F i s h Hold Capacity (FHC), i s

the c r i t e r i o n that determines whether or not the ship can earn money. Fish

hold capacity i s defined as the difference between the vessel volume and

the summation of the volume required for equipment and f a c i l i t i e s . In

equation form:

FHC = V - Z VOLi

where V = vessel volume

VOLi = volume groups (e.g. machinery, crew, etc.)

2.1 Relationship Between the Ship Vector and Ship Dimensions

The following eleven equations show the relationship between the

design variables and the ship dimensions.

1. XI = Ship length (m)

= L

2. X2 = Ship beam (m)

= B
 7.

3. X3 = Ship draft (m)

= T

AM = Midship area (m ) 2

= X4 * X2 * X3

5. VOL = Ship volume (m ) 3

= X5 * XI * AM

6. DISP = Ship Displacement (tonne)

= 1.0252 * V o l

7. Vs = Ship Speed (knots)

= X6 */Xl * 3.2808

8. FBD = Ship Freeboard [9] (m)

= Xl/35.2 * .270
XI x 3.2808 i s conversion from metres to feet

9. D = Ship depth at midships (m)

= X3 + FBD

10. CWP = Waterplane Coefficient [9]

- .65 * X5 + .395

11. AW = Waterplane area (m )

z

= CWP * XI * X2

2.2 Limits Assigned to Components of Ship Vector

The range of values shown below are the actual l i m i t s of the variables

used f o r vessels on the P a c i f i c Coast. They are based on information

obtained from l o c a l Naval Architects [10] and their designs over the past

20 years.

16.0 m < XI < 35.5 m

7.11 m < X2 < 11.2 m

1.92 m < X3 < 3.95 m

.411 m < X4 < .915

.495 m < X5 < .695

.617 m < X6 < 1.31

 8.

2.3 Equations Used for Fishing Vessel Design Model

Prior to attempting to find the optimum f i s h i n g vessel one must be

confident that the approximations used i n the design process are accurate.

The design procedure used i n this thesis requires the c a l c u l a t i o n of the

ship's resistance and power. Since the requirements f o r equilibrium,

s t a b i l i t y and f i s h hold capacity e x i s t , the accurate determination of the

weight groups, volume required by each group and the s t a b i l i t y of the

vessel must be made. The optimization c r i t e r i o n (explained l a t e r ) requires

that the construction costs and annual operating costs be calculated i n

order to determine the r a t i o of the costs to the f i s h hold capacity.

The equations used i n the f i s h i n g vessel design model are presented i n

f i v e (5) sections: I) resistance and power, i i ) weights, i i i ) volumes, i v )

s t a b i l i t y , v) costs.

2.3.1 Resistance and Power

The estimation of a ship's resistance i s a computerized version of

Oortmerssens' Method [11] for predicting small ship resistance, which i s

based on 930 resistance data points taken from 93 models of tugs and

trawlers tested at the Nederlands Ship Model Basin. This algorithm was

chosen over other available algorithms because i t required the minimum

number of Input variables (compared to the other algorithms) to accurately

predict to t o t a l resistance of the ship [12]. The resistance algorithm i s

shown below:

RT = RR + RF

where
 9.

RR - [C 1 e^ , g
+ e"™ [ C + Cg sin(FN" ) +
2
2
cos(FN" )]] * DISP
2

RF = [.075/(43429 An RN-2) + .00051] + R0/2 * V 2 2

* S

and

CI = di,0 + di.l(LCB) + di,2(LCB) 2

+ di,3(CP) + dl,4(CP) 2

+ dl,5(L/B) + d i , 6 ( L / B ) + dl,7(CWL) + di,8(CWL)2 2

+ di,9(B/T) + di,10(B/T) + di,ll(CM) 2

S = 3.223 * V 0 L 2 / 3
+ .5402 * L * V 0 L 1 / 3

dl,12(i = 1,4) are shown In Table I .

.00051 = Hull Roughness Correction Factor

m = .14347CP" * 2 1976
+ FN" 2

Table I

Values of d i , l l ( i = 1,4)

i = 1 2 3 4

di.O 79.32134 6714.88397 -908.44371 3012.14549

di,l .09297 19.83 2.52704 2.71437
di,2 .00209 2.66997 .35794 .25521
di,3 -246.45896 -19662.024 755.1866 -9198.8084
di,4 187.13664 14099.904 - 48.93952 6886.60416
di,5 - 1.42893 137.33613 - 9.86873 - 159.92694
di,6 .11898 13.36938 .77652 16.23621
di,7 .15727 4.49852 3.7902 .82014
di,8 .00064 .02100 .01879 .00225
di,9 - 2.52862 216.44923 - 9.24399 236.3797

di,10 .50619 35.07602 1.28571 - 44.1782

di.ll 1.62851 - 128.72535 250.6491 207.2558
 10.

2.3.1.1 E f f e c t i v e Horsepower [14]

E f f e c t i v e horsepower i s the power required to move the bare h u l l

through s t i l l water at a given design speed

RT * V
EHP = 550

where RT = t o t a l ship resistance i n l b s .

V = ship speed i n f t / s e c .

550 = conversion from f t - l b / s e c to HP

2.3.1.2 Required Shaft Horsepower

The required horsepower i s the power required to propel the ship at

the desired speed and includes propeller and shafting bearing losses, as

well as a correction for sea conditions. Refrigeration requirement i s

added as a constant to the required horsepower [7].

S H P =
.97 * OPC +
* 3 E H P + 4 5

where .97 = estimated transmission efficiency

OPC = o v e r a l l propulsive c o e f f i c i e n t

•3EHP = correction for sea conditions [13]

45 = r e f r i g e r a t i o n constant [7]

2.3.1.3 Overall Propulsive Coefficient [14]

The e f f i c i e n c y of the ship propulsion system i s given by the o v e r a l l

propulsive c o e f f i c i e n t (OPC)
where EO = KT * J/KQ x 2 ir

ER - 1.02

and Propeller performance c o e f f i c i e n t s KT, KQ and J are calculated

during the propeller s e l e c t i o n .

2.3.2 Weight Equations

The accurate estimation of weight of each group i s required i n order

to e f f e c t i v e l y determine the vessel equilibrium. The cost estimation i s

heavily dependent on the s t e e l weight used i n ship, therefore the estima-

tion of s t e e l weight i s very c r i t i c a l to the correct analysis of the

optimum vessel.

The estimation of weight required f o r the f i s h i n g vessel i s divided

into the following i n d i v i d u a l weight groups:

Steel Weight: Includes; h u l l , superstructure and appendages

(excluding propeller shaft and rudder stock).

Outfit Weight: Includes; a u x i l i a r y machinery, piping with l i q u i d

e l e c t r i c a l , joiner work, f u r n i t u r e , h u l l o u t f i t

( i . e . f i r e f i g h t i n g and rescue equipment), f i s h i n g

o u t f i t , spars, rigging and paint.

Machinery Weight: Includes; main propulsion system, graving,

controls, propeller and shafting, pumps and main

switchboard.

Fuel Weight: Includes; f u e l o i l and l u b r i c a t i n g o i l required t

complete nine days at the design speed.

 12.

Fresh Water and

Provisions: includes; fresh water and provisions required for

the nine day t r i p .

2.3.2.1 Estimation of S t e e l Weight (WS)

Accurate estimation of s t e e l weight i s d i f f i c u l t to calculate for West

Coast trawlers, as there i s not much information available about the

invoiced s t e e l weight used i n the ships. The method used i n t h i s thesis i s

based on the invoiced steel weights used i n three classes of vessels

constructed i n Vancouver, as well as three formulations f o r weight estima-

tion, for small ships, from eastern United States and eastern Canada. The

s t e e l weight i s calculated using each of the formulations shown below, then

the average of the methods depending on length i s taken to give the s t e e l

weight estimate. The decision to use the average of the estimates was a

consequence of each method having weaknesses at either end of the range of

lengths. Appendix A d e t a i l s the percent error i n each method r e l a t i v e to

the invoiced steel weight used for the three classes of vessel. Three

methods used i n the formulation of the s t e e l weight estimate are shown

below:

a) East Coast Formulation [15]

WS1 2.813xl0~ 5
(X - 173.52X + A.lSSxIO'+X - 1.58xl0~ )
3 2 5

UB+D)
where X = * 100
1 u / q

3000 1

and L,B,D are i n feet

WS1 i n long tonnes.

 13.

b) S a n t a r e l l i Formulation [13]

WS2 (3)
= .037 E '
1 3 6

where E = L(B+T) + ,85L(FBD) + •85Zl h 1 1 '+ .75 Z l h 2 2

and .SSEljhj + . 7 5 I l h2 2 are superstructure terms

For small ships the superstructure terms can vary from 0-150. In t h i s

case f o r L < 29.5 m superstructure = 50; f o r L > 29.5 superstructure = 100,

which implies that:

WS2 = .037(L(B+T) + .85L(FBD) + 5 0 ) * , 1 3 6

and,

WS3 = .037(L(B+T) + .85L(FBD) + 1 0 0 ) 1 , 3 6

c) Wilson Formulation [9]

WS4 = CSTRUCT x CUBIC NO. x 1.0163

LxBxD
2.834
where CUBIC NO. CUBIC NO.
+ .326
50,000
CSTRUCT

The decision to use the average of the formulation was made by calcu-

l a t i n g the estimated s t e e l weight f o r each formulation f o r vessel lengths

between 16 m and 40 m and p l o t t i n g steel weight vs. length ( F i g . 4). Since

each formulation uses length, beam, and depth to calculate the weight, the

following parametric equations, which were derived from plots of beam vs.

depth and beam v s . length f o r West Coast vessels (Figs. 5 and 6), were used

to determine the values of beam and depth corresponding to each length.

 14.

i) B = -.0642D + 2.1019D + .3683

2

i i ) L = .68553B - 3.8933B + 16.123

2

Using t h i s method the s t e e l weight estimate i s :

For L < 29.5 m

WS1 + WS2 + WS3
WS = 3

and for L > 29.5 m

WS2 + WS3 + WS4
WS = 3

2.3.2.2 O u t f i t Weight (WO)

The c a l c u l a t i o n of o u t f i t weight i s based on the Wilson Formulation

[9], which was derived from plotting the weights of the items which make up

the o u t f i t group, as specified previously.

WO = COUT * CUBIC NO. * 1.0163

LxBxD
where CUBIC NO. = 2

„„ CUBIC NO. .
COUT
Tt(r
= - . + .196
17.140 n

2.3.2.3 Machinery Weight (WM)

The weight of the main engine and gearing i s known from the manufac-

turers data sheets, but the associated machinery (pumps, etc.) i s not

known. Therefore, i t i s necessary to estimate the machinery and equipment,

Santanelli [13] has derived a relationship between weight and engine para-

meters, from known weights f o r vessels constructed i n Spain. This formula-

tion seems to give f a i r l y accurate results when compared to the known

engine and gearbox weight. This method gives a machinery weight of 3 to 6

tonnes higher than the catalogue weights, which would be s u f f i c i e n t to

include the pumps and other machinery used i n a ship. Other formulations
 15.

that were a v a i l a b l e usually gave weights equal to or lower than the

catalogue weight

MCR .75
WM = CMY (• [13]
RRPM

where MCR rated horsepower

RRPM rated RPM

CMY 20 for MCR < 1000 MP

30 f o r MCR > 1000 MP

2.3.2.4 Fuel Weight (WF)

The f u e l weight i s calculated from the actual f u e l consumption curves

for the selected engine. Fuel required (FR) i s based on nine days at

continuous design speed. The assumption implies that the f u e l weight

estimate w i l l be higher than the f u e l used, because the speed of the vessel

i s usually reduced on the homeward leg, but i t i s f e l t that i t i s required

to allow extra f u e l for f i s h i n g operations i n varying sea conditions.

FR = 9 days * FCR (gal/hr)

where FCR = f u e l consumption r a t i o (gal/hr.)

.*. FR = 9 days x 24 hrs/day * FCR * .0045 m /gal 3

It i s assumed that the s p e c i f i c weight of f u e l i s .85 x fresh water weight

therefore:

Wt of Fuel = .85 * FR (tonne)

The weight of l u b r i c a t i n g o i l i s assumed to be 1 percent of f u e l required

therefore:

WF = 1.01 * Wt of Fuel (tonne)

2.3.2.5 Weight of Fresh Water and Provisions (WWS)

The weight of fresh water i s derived from S a n t a r e l l i ' s fresh water

consumption curve [13], based on crew size, length of vessel, and daily

consumption.

Fresh Water Consumption (CFW)

CFW = [.7667L + 6] * N * Days * 10~ 3

m /Jlt
3

Wt of fresh water = 1 t
?n n e
* CFW
m°

Weight of provisions i s assumed to be 5 times the weight of fresh

water, which w i l l allow f o r meats, frozen provisions, and canned goods.

The t o t a l weight of fresh water and provisions i s :

WWS =» 6 * CFW

The t o t a l required weight of the f i s h i n g vessel i s :

WTOT = W S + W 0 + W M + W F + WWS

and must be less than the calculated displacement of the vessel (up to the

design waterline) to ensure that the ship w i l l f l o a t .

2.3.3 Volume Calculations

The estimates f o r the volume required are derived i n terms of

percentage of waterplane area dedicated to each compartment. The decision

to use percentage of waterplane area to approximate the volume was based on

the fact that space requirements ( i . e . crew space, machinery space, etc.)

are s p e c i f i e d i n terms of square footage. Since waterplane area Is a

function of length and beam, i t was decided to use the r a t i o of compartment

length to waterline length; to determine the percentage of area dedicated

to each compartment.

F i g . 1. Simplified Waterplane Arrangement for Fishing Vessels.

LB P

Note: Ratio of length of compartment to waterline length

i s f o r example [XER/LEP].
 18.

This r a t i o i s based on measurements taken from twenty-five general

arrangement drawings for vessels constructed on the West Coast during the

l a s t twenty years [3] [16]. The r a t i o of lengths i s m u l t i p l i e d by the

waterplane area and the draft to approximate the volume required for each

compartment. This method f o r approximating volume i s s a t i s f a c t o r y as long

as i t i s assumed that the changes i n prismatic c o e f f i c i e n t are small, to

ensure that t o t a l volume changes are small.

The required volume of the vessel i s the sum of the f i v e groups: (1)

Fuel volume; (2) Machinery volume; (3) Fresh water volume; (4) Stores

volume; (5) Crew l i v i n g volume; and must be less than the vessel volume

which i s defined by:

VESSEL VOL = [CP x CM x L x B x T] + [AW + FBB]

in order to have space available for f i s h . The design requirement for f i s h

hold capacity i s the motivation for including the volume c a l c u l a t i o n s i n

this study.

Fuel Volume

The volume of f u l e required for the nine day t r i p i s based on the f u e l

consumption r a t i o of the engine:

FUVOL = FR

Machinery Volume (MACV)

The average r a t i o of lengths of machinery compartment to waterline

length i s : .2344 based on 24 ships that have been designed and constructed
 19.

on the West Coast [10][16]. This r a t i o i s m u l t i p l i e d by the waterplane

area and draft to approximate the volume required f o r machinery. It i s

common i n f i s h i n g vessels to have the f u e l tanks i n t e g r a l with the engine

rooms therefore machinery volume i s defined by:

MACV = .2344 * (AW * T) - FUVOL

Fresh Water Volume (FWVOL)

The volume of fresh water required f o r the scenario i s the volume of

water consumed per man per day.

Stores Volume (STVOL)

The estimation of the volume required f o r stores includes the space

required for the galley. This formulation i s based on the values given by

S a n t a r e l l i [13] f o r stores requirement i n a f i s h i n g vessel.

STVOL = 16.96 x N

Crew L i v i n g Volume (CLVOL)

The volume required f o r the crew i s based on the l i v i n g space

requirements stated by S a n t a r e l l i [13], and the r a t i o of lengths measured.

It must be noted that only a portion of the l i v i n g space i s below the

waterline, and most of the l i v i n g space i s housed i n the superstructure of

the vessel.
 20.

F i g . 2. Simplified Side View of Fishing Vessel Showing Idea of

Accommodation Below Waterline.

Note: This i s f a i r l y t y p i c a l of West Coast vessels.

CLVOL = .2155 * CLAREA ^ VOL

Waterplane Area

where CLAREA = crew l i v i n g area [12]

= 30 m 2
for N=l

= 30 + N * 20 f o r N>1

.2155 i s r a t i o of crew space to AW below DWL.

The t o t a l required volume for the vessel i s :

TVOL = FUVOL + MACV + FWVOL + STVOL + CLVOL

2.3.4 Stability

Since the approximations f o r the centre of gravity f o r each weight

group are very inaccurate, and the actual values were unavailable, i t was

decided to use the Wilson Formulation [9] to determine the vessel's

metacentric height. Wilson derived a curve from a plot of GM/B versus

length which gives metacentric height as:

GM = B * (-L/400 + .185)

This formulation was also used by Latore [17], when he compared three

s t a b i l i t y regulations that are applicable to f i s h i n g vessels.

In order to ensure that the vessel w i l l survive at sea, the design

must s a t i s f y both; the International Consultative Organization (IMO)

requirements [18], as well as the Japanese f i s h i n g vessel requirement [19].

The d e c i s i o n to s a t i s f y both requirements was based on Latore's [17]

findings which Indicated that each method had i t s shortcomings. The

required metacentric height for the vessel i s :

1. IMCO Requirement

GMR = 1.7388 + 2.0 x B x (GM1 + GM2)/3.2808

where:

GM1 = .075 - .37(FBD/B) + .82 x (FBD/B) 2

GM2 = -.014 x (B/T x FBD)

and

2. Japanese Requirement [19]

GMR i s the greater of:

GM1 = (B - 7.0/12.0) + .4

GM2 = (1 - 4.2/72.0) + .4
 22.

2.3.5. Cost Calculations

Accurate estimation of the costs involved i n the construction and

operation of a fishing vessel are required to be able to determine with

confidence that the recommended vessel i s t r u l y a superior ship. This i s

d i f f i c u l t to accomplish because most shipyards are unwilling to supply the

actual cost breakdown for vessels constructed in their f a c i l i t y .

Mr. Aurthur MacLaren, President of A l l i e d Shipyard i n North Vancouver

[23], was very helpful without being too s p e c i f i c , by d e t a i l i n g the

construction costs ( i n his yard) i n terms of the "rough" percentages of

each group to the t o t a l vessel cost. The following assumptions were made

based on the "rough" estimate. The cost of materials ( i n this case steel)

t r i e d to construct the vessel can be taken as approximately 10 percent of

the t o t a l cost. The labour cost to the erect the s t e e l i s seen to be

approximately 20 percent of the t o t a l cost. While the cost of o u t f i t and

labour for o u t f i t make up the remaining 70 percent. It must be understood

that i n t h i s context " o u t f i t " means a l l equipment that i s purchased outside

the yard, for example, engines, radar, etc.

Every f i s h i n g vessel owner has h i s own preference for type of engines,

radars, radios and other equipment, so the test of accurately predicting

the cost of o u t f i t equipment i s very d i f f i c u l t . The cost of s t e e l , on the

other hand, i s readily available, and therefore by using the assumption

that the s t e e l used i n the vessel accounts f o r 10 percent of the t o t a l

cost, an accurate prediction of the construction cost can be made. This

assumption also makes i t imperative that the approximation for s t e e l weight

i s as accurate as possible. By c a l c u l a t i n g s t e e l weight for the vessel and

using e x i s t i n g s t e e l costs the following r e l a t i o n s h i p i s derived:

 23.

STEEL COST = 638.19 x WS

where 638.19 = conversion from 508.00 per 2000 l b tonne

to metric tonne [24]

WS = Steel weight

Since i t i s assumed that materials cost i s 10% of the vessel cost the

construction cost f o r completed vessel i s taken to be:

CC0ST = 6381.9 x WS

This estimate of t o t a l vessel cost appears to be f a i r l y accurate when

compared to the rough "benchmark" of $1000.00 per foot of length current

used i n the industry [23]. For example, a class of 76 f t . vessels

constructed i n Vancouver averaged approximately $750,000 ( f i n a l price) and

the predicted cost using the method prescribed above came to $696,000 based

on s t e e l weight.

The construction cost i s used to determine the fixed annual operating

costs which Include: mortgage, depreciation, insurance, repairs, l i c e n c e ,

port fees, and wages. The t o t a l annual costs are divided into the

operational (fixed) costs and the operating (variable) costs, which include

f u e l and stores. The t o t a l cost i s the adjusted on a per t r i p basis,

assuming that the vessel spends 225 days at sea, or 25-nine day f i s h i n g

trips.

Operational Costs (Fixed)

The fixed costs are termed operational f o r the simple reason that i n
 24.

order to proceed to sea to conduct f i s h i n g operations these costs must be

covered. These costs are based on present mortgage rates, depreciation

rates, and insurance rates obtained from banks, surveyors and insurance

companies i n the Vancouver area. It i s also assumed that the ship w i l l

have a twenty year l i f e - c y c l e .

Annual Mortgage Calculation

This c a l c u l a t i o n i s based on 25 percent down payment ( i . e . 25 percent

of construction cost) and an annual rate of Prime + 2 percent [20]

AMR = annual mortgage rate

= Prime + 2 percent

PM = monthly payment

(1+X)
Y
.
= — -z— x X x A
Y

(1+X) -1

where X - AMR/12

Y = 240 (12 x 20 payments f o r vessel l i f e )

A = .75 x construction cost.

Annual Mortgage Cost (CMO) = 12 x PM

Depreciation Calculation

This c a l c u l a t i o n i s based on 5 percent straight l i n e depreciation with

10 percent salvage value after 20 years [21].

Depreciation Cost (DC) = .045 * Construction Cost

 25.

Insurance Rate

The Insurance rate i s dependent on the t o t a l cost of the vessel [22].

The Insurance costs as a function of the i n i t i a l vessel cost are given

below:

Cost of Vessel Under $500,000 CI = .02 x Construction Cost

Cost of Vessel Over $2,000,000 CI = .01 x Construction Cost

$500K < Cost of Vessel < $2M CI = .015 x Construction Cost

Miscellaneous Cost

These costs include repairs, port fees, l i c e n c e , and wages, and are

dependent on how successful the year had been. If a vessel had an

unsuccessful year, very l i t t l e i s spent on repairs for example, so i t i s

assumed that the miscellaneous cost would be:

CM = .2 x [CM0 + CD + CI]

The t o t a l annual operational costs are therefore:

Operational Cost = 1.2 x [CM0 + CD + CI]

Operating Costs (Variable)

The operating costs are the actual cost incurred while f i s h i n g , these

are b a s i c a l l y f u e l cost and provisions. The f u e l cost i s the actual cost

of f u e l used during the nine day scenario calculated at a f u e l cost rate of

38.5 cents per l i t r e . The cost of provisions i s assumed to be $1500.00 per

tonne, based on $1.5/kg average price f o r groceries and cleaning gear. The

provision cost i s rated on a consumption basis.

 26.

CHAPTER 3

THE OPERATIONAL SCENARIO

A f i s h i n g vessel, unlike a cargo ship, has a complicated set of

operating conditions. The operational scenario of a cargo ship i s basic-

a l l y , load cargo i n harbor, start engines, s a i l at constant speed to the

d e l i v e r y port, then stop engines. On the other hand a f i s h i n g vessel

considered here, usually has a high speed, l i g h t load condition during the

t r a n s i t to the f i s h i n g ground, a changing displacement, low speed high drag

f i s h i n g operation, then a high speed deep load condition to return to the

packing plant.

Figure 1 shows a possible operational scenario f o r a trawler, that

leaves a packing plant, conducts fishing operations, and returns to the

same packing plant. The duration i s determined by the fact that the

fisherman must return to the plant within seven days of h i s f i r s t catch, or

the f i r s t day catch Is spoiled and worthless [7].

The t y p i c a l fishing t r i p i s shown i n three phases. During the t r a n s i t

to the f i s h i n g ground (phase 1) the vessel i s assumed to be at design

conditions and travels at the design speed f o r two days. The f i s h i n g

operation (phase 2) are simulated by decreasing speed to 3 knots (standard

travel speed) and adding net resistance to the vessel resistance at 3

knots, f o r 4 days. On the return t r i p (phase 3) the vessel displacement i s

increased and speed reduced from the design condition u n t i l the t o t a l

resistance of the vessel on return i s equal to the design resistance. If

the speed i s reduced to such a point that the return time i s greater than 3

days the vessel speed i s increased u n t i l the ship t r a v e l s back to the

packing plant within 72 hours. During each phase the f u e l consumption i s

 2 7 .

Fig. 3. Operational Scenario

©
©
8or9
TIME ( Days )

calculated, then added together to arrive at the t o t a l fuel consumption f o r

the trip.

The c a l c u l a t i o n of f u e l consumption i s based on the actual fuel

consumption as engine RPM curves found i n the C a t e r p i l l a r engine manuals.

 28.

CHAPTER 4

OPTIMIZATION CRITERIA

It i s assumed that a f i s h i n g vessel can be designed and b u i l t to

economically conduct the operations dictated by the scenario. In order to

determine which vessel i s best for the scenario, the optimization criteria

must be selected as the best measure of the vessels earning c a p a b i l i t y .

The c r i t e r i a for optimization i s also dependent on the design requirements.

I f , f o r example, the design requirement stated that the f i s h hold capacity

would be 'X m ',3

then the optimization would be based on a least cost

c r i t e r i a , meaning that the best vessel would be the vessel that expended

the minimum amount of money for the specified f i s h hold.

The design process i n t h i s thesis i s based on the operational

scenario, which means that the optimization c r i t e r i a must include, i n some

form, the income and expenses associated with the vessel. The earning

c a p a b i l i t y of the vessel i s derived from the ship design model. For any

given set of design variables, a s p e c i f i c set of ship dimensions are

calculated, which define the volume and displacement of that vessel. The

sum of the weight groups i n subtracted from the displacement of the vessel

and i s a measure of the ship's a b i l i t y to f l o a t , that i s i f the difference

between displacement and the weight required i s p o s i t i v e the ship w i l l

float. The difference between the sum of the required volumes and the

vessel volume i s i n fact the volume a v a i l a b l e f o r f i s h holds. This avail-

able volume i s termed the f i s h hold capacity (FHC) and i s the measure of

the vessel's earning capability.

The t o t a l annual operating costs for the given set of design variables

are also calculated, which are the measure of the expenses associated with
 29.

that ship. Since the optimization c r i t e r i a i s required to measure the

vessel's earning c a p a b i l i t y r e l a t i v e to the expenses, i t was decided that

the cost merit function (CMF) or optimization c r i t e r i a should be the t o t a l

annual operating costs divided by the f i s h hold capacity. This means that

the cost function would have the units of d o l l a r s per cubic metre, but more

Importantly, by defining the cost function i n this way, the optimization

c r i t e r i a i s independent of the type of f i s h caught, or the amount of f i s h

caught per t r i p . This Implies that the best f i s h i n g vessel f o r the

scenario would be the ship that has the lowest cost function, which i s the

vessel with the lowest operating costs and largest f i s h hold.

The merit function i s therefore dependent on the design process and

the operational scenario and i s defined by:

CMF = f(Ship Vector, Scenario)

which i s calculated for each set of design v a r i a b l e s .

4.1 Steps Involved i n Evaluating the Cost Function

The following steps are required to evaluate the cost function:

Step 1: Select i n i t i a l t r i a l values of the components that make up the

ship vector.

Step 2: Calculate the ship's dimensions and c o e f f i c i e n t s , estimate

resistance, and calculate the e f f e c t i v e horsepower.

Step 3: Select the propeller, based on Wagengen B s e r i e s , calculate

overall propulsive c o e f f i c i e n t , and calculate the required

horsepower [14].
 30.

Step 4: Select main engine based on required horsepower, and select

gearbox to match propeller RPM and engine RPM. The engine and

gearbox selections are based on C a t e r p i l l a r marine engines [8].

Step 5: Calculate the required weights and volumes, and check that the

sum of weight groups and the sum of volume groups do not exceed

the displacement and volume of the vessel.

Step 6: Calculate the i n i t i a l s t a b i l i t y of the vessel and check that i t

s a t i s f i e s the s t a b i l i t y requirements.

Step 7: Simulate f i s h i n g operations and calculate the f u e l required f o r

each phase of the t r i p .

Step 8: Calculate the construction, operational and operating costs f o r

the trip.

Step 9: Evaluate the cost function and output vessel design v a r i a b l e s .

The equations used at each step are defined i n the Fishing Vessel

Design Model section.

!
 31.

CHAPTER 5

VALIDATION OF DESIGN PROGRAM

The design program was tested by using the actual variables associated

with "Eastward Ho", a trawler owned by Mr. Gary Sigmund [7]. This vessel

was also used by C a l i s a l and Fung to c a l i b r a t e the f i s h i n g vessel cost

program. In the case of the cost program, the actual vessel parameters are

inputs, that i s the ship dimensions, engine type, speed, propeller type,

and net resistance. The owner then conducts a simulated f i s h i n g t r i p by

moving his ship (simulated by moving the cursor on the computer terminal)

to the f i s h i n g ground from his home port, then returns to his home port.

After comparing the actual fuel cost incurred by the owner, to the cost

predicted by the program, there was less than 4 percent difference.

In this program the design varibles (Xi i - l , 6 ) "Eastward Ho" were used

as inputs, and the output r e s u l t s , shown i n Table I I , were compared to

"Eastward Ho".

Table I I

Comparison Between Eastward Ho and Values Predicted i n the Design Program

Ship Pariculars Eastward Ho Design Program

Length 29.26 m 29.26 m

Beam 8.894 m 8.894 m
Draft 2.926 m 2.926
CM .5251 .5251
CP .8241 .8241
V//T7 1.0206 1.0206
RT 10,970 l b s . 10,366 l b s .
Engine Type D398 CAT D398 CAT
Rated Horsepower 850 HP 850 HP
Gear Ratio 3.92 4.00
Propeller (Bar) 4 Blade (.55) 4 Blade (.55)
Diameter 6.0 ft 6.23 f t
F i s h Hold Capacity 10,430 f t 3
9,065 f t 3
 32.

The v a l i d a t i o n was done i n order to determine the accuracy of the

weight and volume approximations. The program i s f a i r l y accurate at

predicting the values of f i s h hold capacity, as there i s only 13 percent

difference between the actual f i s h hold capacity i n "Eastward Ho" and the

f i s h hold capacity estimated by the design program. The program selects

the same engine that i s i n the ship, as well as the same transmission. The

gear r a t i o i s d i f f e r e n t because the new transmission model does not include

a 3.92:1 gear r a t i o . It i s evident from the results that the program can

be used at the preliminary design stage to f a i r l y accurately design a

f i s h i n g vessel.
 33.

CHAPTER 6

SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

To determine what effect changes i n the design variables would have on

the merit function, each variable was i n d i v i d u a l l y changed by ±15 percent

(from the i n i t i a l values of "Eastward Ho") while the remaining f i v e

variables were held constant. From the following equation:

3A 8L 8B 9T ...

— rr—
= + + [14]

i t i s evident that any change i n the major dimensions of the vessel w i l l

d i r e c t l y a f f e c t the vessel volume. For changes i n length, i t i s assumed

that the change i n f i s h hold capacity i s equal to the change i n vessel

volume, as changes i n length are viewed as additions or subtractions of

middle body length which are where the f i s h holds are usually located.

Changes i n beam and d r a f t have the same e f f e c t on vessel volume that

changes i n length have, but the change i n f i s h hold capacity due to changes

i n beam or d r a f t can only be affected i n the refrigerated compartment.

This means that f o r a 10 percent increase i n either beam or draft the

vessel volume i s increased by the same amount as a 10 percent increase i n

length, but the f i s h hold capacity increases less than 10 percent because

the r e f r i g e r a t e d space does not occupy the e n t i r e volume of the vessel.

The percentage change of f i s h hold f o r beam and draft changes i s derived

from measurement of f i s h hold lengths ( i n the 25 general arrangement draw-

ings) and d i v i d i n g by the waterline length. Over the past 25 years the

f i s h hold/waterline length r a t i o i s .4283. This r a t i o i s then m u l t i p l i e d

by the change i n beam or draft r e l a t i v e to the o r i g i n a l beam or draft to

 34.

obtain the percentage change of f i s h hold capacity f o r changes i n beam or

draft. Change i n volume due to changes i n midship c o e f f i c i e n t and

prismatic c o e f f i c i e n t are based on the same assumptions as f i s h hold

capacity changes due to changes i n beam or d r a f t . The effects that changes

i n the design variables have on the cost function are shown i n F i g s . 7

through 11. The effect of changes i n the design variables on f u e l cost are

shown i n F i g s . 12 through 16.

6.1 Cost Function vs. Changes i n Length

The cost function increases with increases i n length as shown i n F i g .

7 which i s the curve for a s p e c i f i c vessel (Eastward Ho). There are l o c a l

minimums at 27 m and 30 m, caused by crew size increases. Since crew

members are integer values, the volume required for one additional crew

member i s greater than the vessel volume increases for the change i n

length, hence the f i s h hold capacity decreases s l i g h t l y to cause a lump i n

the cost function curve. The trend of increasing cost function with length

increases i s caused by the vessel costs r i s i n g ( i . e . construction and fuel)

f a s t e r than the f i s h hold capacity increases therefore causing the cost

function to r i s e .

6.2 Cost Function vs. Changes i n Beam

A narrow beam vessel implies low resistance, which means decreased

i

fuel costs, but i t also means that the f i s h hold capacity i s small, hence a

high cost function. As beam increases the f i s h hold capacity increases,

without affecting the t o t a l cost that much therefore the cost function

decreases, u n t i l the beam gets large enough to a f f e c t the power

 35.

requirement. As shown i n F i g . 8, a beam greater than 9.7 m requires extra

power, which increases f u e l costs greater than the f i s h hold capacity

increases therefore the cost function climbs to a higher l e v e l .

6.3 Cost Function vs. Changes i n Draft

The cost function i s 96 dollars/m 3

at a draft of approximately 2.3 m,

because of minimum f i s h hold capacity. F i g . 9 shows that the cost function

decreases u n t i l the power required increases (because of Increased draft)

which causes the t o t a l cost to r i s e quicker than the f i s h hold capacity

increases therefore causing the function to increase.

6.A Cost Function vs. Changes i n Midship C o e f f i c i e n t

Since the midship c o e f f i c i e n t Is a measure of the fullness of the

middle body, the same trend i n the cost function that i s evident with

changes i n beam and draft i s expected. F i g . 10 shows that the cost

function i s high at low midship c o e f f i c i e n t values, (because of small f i s h

hold capacity) and decreases to a point where the cost to move the vessel

i s greater than the Increase In f i s h hold capacity causing i t to r i s e

again.

6.5 Cost Function vs. Prismatic C o e f f i c i e n t

When the prismatic c o e f f i c i e n t i s varied, the cost function shows a

s i m i l a r trend to that of the change i n length curve. This i s explained by

the fact that the prismatic c o e f f i c i e n t i s a measure of the volume of the

 36.

vessel and as such i s dependent on the major dimensions of the vessel. It

i s evident i n F i g . 11 that changes i n the prismatic c o e f f i c i e n t affect the

cost function least of a l l the variables because the range of cost function

values (Y axis) i s small.

6.6 Fuel Cost vs. Changes i n Design Variables

One would expect that i f the design variables are changed (increased)

that f u e l costs would increase, due to increase resistance of the vessel.

Figs. 12 through 16 show that as each variable i s changed the fuel costs

increase accordingly.
 37.
CHAPTER 7

ROUTINE FOR OPTIMIZATION

The optimization routine used i n this thesis i s the Coupler Optimiza-

t i o n Technique, which originated i n the UBC NLP Library, was modified to

operate on the department's VAX 11/750 system. This routine was chosen

because i t was the most f l e x i b l e optimization routine i n terms of inputs

required. It i s necessary to provide only the optimization function,

(which i s the design program) without p a r t i a l derivatives, as well as the

upper and lower l i m i t s assigned to each variable i n the optimization

function. It also guarantees f a s t , accurate convergence f o r optimization

functions with less than 10 v a r i a b l e s .

Since the optimization function i s the design program, which

calculates the cost function for each vessel, the optimum vessel for the

fixed scenario would be the vessel with the lowest cost function. In order

to determine whether or not the vessel was satisfactory the following

conditions are required to be met before the cost function i s calculated:

i) Ship displacement must be greater than the sum of the weight groups;

ii) Vessel volume must be greater than the sum of the volume groups;

i i i ) The s t a b i l i t y requirements must be s a t i s f i e d ;

iv) The ship must be capable of p u l l i n g a net, and must be capable of

returning to port with holds 65 percent full.

If any one of these conditions are not met, the program sets the cost func-

tion at a very high value, which implies that the vessel i f not acceptable.

The complete optimization, when run on the department VAX system,

takes 23 iteractions and between 7 and 8 minutes of r e a l time (1-1.5 min

CPU time).
 38.

7.1 Results of the Optimization

The optimization program was run using the values for "Eastward Ho" as

the i n i t i a l values of the ship vector. The program predicted that the

following combination of design variables would decrease the cost function

by 22.5 percent:

XI = 30.395 m

X2 = 9.704 m

X3 = 2.948 m

X4 = .874

X5 - .544

X6 = .964

To ensure that the design variables were a true optimum the optimized

values were used as the new input variables for the second run on the

optimization. The program gave the i d e n t i c a l results for the second run.

The program was also run with random input variables, ( i . e . anywhere within

the l i m i t s ) and the same values were returned as the optimum.

The program was also run for a 16 m s t e e l trawler, and the predicted

values had the same trend as those of the "Optimum" "Eastward Ho". That i s

the cost function decreased with s l i g h t increases i n the design v a r i a b l e s .

Table III shows the changes i n design variables after optimization for the

16 m trawler. These two vessels were the only ships tested, as they were

the only vessels that had complete information a v a i l a b l e .

 39.

Table I I I

Results of Optimization f o r 16.00 m Vessels

Design Variables Original Optimum

XI 16.00 m 18.39 m
X2 4.92 m 5.17 m
X3 1.68 m 1.80 m
X4 .81 .836
X5 .64 .655
X6 1.38 1.20

7.2 Comparison of Optimized Ship to Eastward Ho

To compare the optimum design values to those of "Eastward Ho" the

optimum values were used as inputs In the design program. Table IV

d e t a i l s the parameters of both ships.

Table IV

PARAMETERS EASTWARD HO OPTIMUM VESSEL

Design Variables

XI 29.26 m 30.395 m
X2 8.894 m 9.704 m
X3 2.926 m 2.948 m
X4 .824 .874
X5 .525 .544
X6 1.021 .964

Ship Dimensions

MIDSHIP AREA 21.45 m 2

25.00 m2

VOLUME 329.51 m 3
413.52 m3

DISPLACEMENT 337.81 tonne 423.99 tonne

SPEED 10.00 kts 9.63 kts

Waterplane Area 191.62 m 2

220.84 m 2
 40.

Table IV Cont'd

PARAMETERS EASTWARD HO OPTIMUM VESSEL

Ship Resistance
RR 8340.4 lbs. 8030.7 lbs.
RF 2025. lbs. 2152.9 lbs.
RT 10,366.02 lbs. 10,183.56 lbs.
EHP 318.32 HP 301.20 HP

Propeller Parameters
DIA 6.24 ft. 6.29 ft.
RPM 276.31 268.33
EFF .5536 .5476
THRUST 11,746.88 lbs. 11,582.57 lbs.

Overall Propulsor Coeff. .6212 .6144

Required Horsepower
SHP 668.80 HP 640.73
Engine Parameters
TYPE CAT D398 CAT D398
RRPM 1225 1225
RHP 850 HP 850 HP
BHP 705 HP 705 HP
FCR 40.06 gal/hr. 40.06 gal/hr.
EGR 4.00 4.00

Weight Estimates
WS 134.98 tonne 150.74 tonne
WO 80.46 tonne 93.79 tonne
WM 15.21 tonne 15.21 tonne
WF 33.78 tonne 33.78 tonne
WWS 7.68 tonne 7.91 tonne

Volume Estimates
MACV 92.13 m3 113.33 m3
FUVOL 39.34 m^ 39.34
FWVOL 1.28 m3 1.32 m3

STVOL 84.80 m3 84.80 m3

CLVOL 47.29 m3
51.49 m3

Cost Estimates
CONSTRUCTION COST 861,426.12 Dollars 962,038.28 Dollars
OPERATIONAL COST 7,382.96 Dollars 8,245.27 Dollars

Fuel Cost 6,771.74 Dollars 6,787.91 Dollars

Cost Function
CMF 86.15 ($/m ) 3
66.72 ($/m ) 3
 41.

The optimum vessel appears to be l e s s than optimum when a l l the costs

are considered, but the cost function i s a measure of the ship's earning

capability. It i s evident from Table IV, that by increasing the vessel

design variables by less than 10 percent, and decreasing the speed by

approximately 5 percent, the increase i n f u e l cost i s much l e s s than the

increase i n f i s h hold capacity, hence the lower cost function value. This

indicates that a speed reduction i s a very e f f e c t i v e way to increase

economic e f f i c i e n c y . b^fftoo ftr** /

7.3 E f f e c t of Rising Fuel Costs on Optimum Design

The price of fuel used i n the optimization was 38.5 c e n t s / l t r . which

i s the current price of f u e l f o r f i s h i n g vessels. The program was run

using fuel prices of 50 c e n t s / l t r . , 77 c e n t s / l t r . (double the existing

price) and $1.00 per l t r . to determine i f and how the vessel parameters

would change with fuel price increases.

When f u e l price was set at 50 c e n t s / l t r . the vessel dimensions did not

change from the optimum at 38.5 c e n t s / l t r . but the speed of the vessel was

reduced. At 77 c e n t s / l t r . the vessel dimensions changes, producing a f i n e r

ship, which i s expected. When price was increased to $1.00 per l t r . the

optimum vessel dimensions were the ame as the 77 c e n t s / l t r . optimum but the

vessel speed was reduced. Table V shows the vessel paramters for each

price change.

A possible explanation of the r e s u l t s shown i n Table V may come from

the d e f i n i t i o n of the optimum vessel i n terms of the optimization criteria.

As stated previously the optimum set of design variables defining the ship

would be those that resulted i n the lowest f i s h hold capacity (FHC) to

 42.

Table V

Fuel P r i c e Increase E f f e c t s

FUEL PRICE
(cents/ltr.) 38.5 38.5 50.0 77.0 100.0

DESIGN VARIABLES EASTWARD HO OPTIMUM 1 OPTIMUM 2 OPTIMUM 3 OPTIMUM 4

XI (m) 29.26 30.395 30.395 31.247 31.247

X2 (m) 8.894 9.704 9.704 9.179 9.179
X3 (m) 2.926 2.948 2.948 2.532 2.532
X4 .8241 .874 .874 .8274 .8274
X5 .5251 .544 .544 .5135 .5135
X6 1.0206 .964 .932 .9188 .8915

dollar expended r a t i o . By using this c r i t e r i a the fuel price i s taken as

part of the t o t a l annual cost to operate the vessel, which may cause the

optimization to be less sensitive to small price changes. Since the

optimum vessel i s the ship with the lowest merit function, the e f f e c t of

reducing speed for small changes i n f u e l price appers to be more cost

e f f e c t i v e than changing the e n t i r e vessel. For large changes i n f u e l price

( i . e . double) i t i s apparent that a f i n e r , shallower vessel i s required to

reduce resistance and increase f u e l savings. Fishing vessels designers of

the future (when fuel prices increase d r a s t i c a l l y ) w i l l therefore have to

be more concerned with the hydrodynamic e f f i c i e n c y of the h u l l s .

7.4 Percent F i s h Hold Capacity Required to Break Even

The optimum f i s h i n g vessel was derived independent of the type of f i s h

caught. This section has therefore been included to determine what

percentage of the f i s h holds must be f i l l e d i n order for the owner to

realize a profit.
 43.

This study has been centered around a trawler design which means the

the only type of f i s h that i t i s allowed to catch are bottom dwellers like

cod, sole, and herring, etc. The season i s very short for herring, so the

bulk of the trawler's catch w i l l most l i k e l y be bottom f i s h .

The density of bottom f i s h i s approximately 7 9 0 kg/m while that of 3

herring i s approximately 9 3 0 kg/m 3

[ 1 3 ] . Since the cost function i s

independent of the type of catch, i t i s easy to derive the price per pound

of f i s h required when the holds are completely f u l l . The price per pound

of f i s h using the optimized cost function i s :

CMF
P r i c e Per Lb. = , ._. x .4537 $/lb.
Density(Fish)

Therefore the price per pound required for bottom f i s h with holds

completely f u l l i s :

Bottom F i s h = 6
^ ' Q 2
X .4537 = .0383 $/lb.

For Herring:

Herring = 6
^ Q 2
X .4537 = .0326 $/lb.

Bottom f i s h include rock code at 1 4 . 5 cents/lb, sole at 2 5 cents/lb

and cod at 16 cents/lb [ 2 5 ] . Since trawling operations are indiscrimminant

about the type of f i s h i t i s assumed that the average price of the f i s h i n

the return to the fisherman, therefore the price per pound paid to the

fisherman i s : 1 8 . 4 2 cents/lb for bottom f i s h . Herring i s a d i f f e r e n t case

as the price dictated by the market i s very v o l a t i l e , i n the 1 9 8 4 Herring

Roe season the average price per lbs paid to the fisherman was 5 5 cents/lb

[25].
 44.

Table VI shows the price per pound of f i s h required f o r various

percentages of f i s h hold capacity f o r the optimum vessel.

Table VI

F i s h Hold Capacity Price Require ($/lb)

% Full Bottom F i s h Herring

10 .3832 .3255
20 .1916 .1623
30 .1277 .1085
40 .0958 .0814
50 .0766 .0651
60 .0639 .0543
70 .0547 .0465
80 .0479 .0407
90 .0426 .0362

It i s evident from Table VI that the owner of the Optimum vessel

should f i s h herring a l l the time as with the holds only 10% f u l l he

realized a p r o f i t approximately 22.5 cents per pound. Fishing for bottom

f i s h the owner must have h i s holds at l e a s t 25 percent f u l l at a l l times to

break even. As stated previously the herring season i s very short

therefore the owner would increase p r o f i t s by f i s h i n g f o r the assumed 225

days at sea.
 45.

CHAPTER 8

DISCUSSION OF FUTURE TRENDS IN FISHING VESSEL DESIGN

Ship designers [10] and ship builders [23] were canvassed to deter-

mine t h e i r thoughts about future developments i n f i s h i n g vessel design, i n

order to have a 'bench mark' by which to measure the program effectiveness.

Appendix B i s an example of the questionnaire used to discuss f i s h i n g

vessel trends.

The trends predicted by t h i s study follow s i m i l a r trends to those

predicted by the designers. This optimization indicates that as f u e l price

increases the vessel that Is produced has a f i n e r h u l l form than that of an

existing vessel, which i s what was expressed by the l o c a l industry.

Both the designers and builders f e e l that the e x i s t i n g P a c i f i c Coast

Fishing Fleet vessels are too big and that a well designed 55-60 f t . ship

would be best f o r the industry. It was evident that more time would have

to be spent developing fishing vessels with f i n e r lines and good f i s h hold

capacities. Future h u l l s would be displacement type, constructed of s t e e l ,

which indicate that the assumption of s t e e l construction used i n this study

w i l l be acceptable f o r vessels which are to replace the f l e e t . Future

vessels w i l l be similar to existing vessels except that they w i l l be more

hydrodynamically e f f i c i e n t , and the only dimension that would probably

change would be the L/B ratio.

Designers f e e l that d i e s e l engines w i l l be the predominant propulsion

prime mover, but f e e l that more time should be spent i n a l l o c a t i n g space so

that separate a u x i l i a r y machinery can be used as i t i s more economical.

The l o c a l industry Indicated that i n future a fisherman's p r o f i t w i l l be

determined by q u a l i t y of f i s h rather than quantity therefore have predicted

 46.

that most vessels w i l l be f i t t i n g with r e f r i g e r a t e d sea water systems for

cooling the holds.

It was a l s o stated that the P a c i f i c Coast Fishery should look at large

mounted processing plants to reduce t r a n s i t time for the fisherman, thereby

reducing f u e l costs.

As evidenced by Table III t h i s program can work f o r vessels i n the

50-60 f t . range and therefore could be of use i n future developments of the

vessels required for the industry.

The author f e e l s that t h i s optimization program i s a f a i r l y accurate

tool to be used at the preliminary design stage. Using this method the

designer can quickly recommend the best dimensions f o r a vessel to conduct

fishing operations.

8.1 Recommendations for Future Work

It i s f e l t that to have a t r u l y dependable preliminary design t o o l ,

the following areas should be developed.

1) The engine s e l e c t i o n routine should have a l l makes and models of

engines used i n f i s h i n g vessels.

2) A study of the actual centers of g r a v i t y of components should be made,

to accurately determine the s t a b i l i t y of the v e s s e l .

3) A comprehensive propeller design technique should be implemented.

4) The optimization program should be incorporated into a program l i k e

'Spiral' to be able to c a l c u l a t e the hydrostatics, cross curves of

s t a b i l i t y , strength, and also l o f t the vessel. This would make the

program a very e f f e c t i v e preliminary design t o o l .

5) The net resistance should be developed and incorporated into the

f i s h i n g scenario.
 47.

6) The f i s h i n g simulation should be made more f l e x i b l e , so the vessel can

t r a v e l at various speeds f o r different periods of time. This means a

v a r i a b l e scenario, as opposed to a fixed scenario.

7) A better or more accurate method to determine construction and

operating costs should be looked into.

 Figure 4. Steel Weight Vs. Length Changes.

300

OH 1 1 r 1 1 1
15 20 25 30 35 40
LENGTH (m)
Figure 5. West Coast Beam Vs. Depth.

Legend
A ACTUAL DATA
x REGRESSION FIT

DEPTH (m)
Figure 6. West Coast Beam Vs. Length.

Legend
A ACTUAL DATA
x REGRESSION FIT

—r- —T—
20 40 50 60
10 30
LENGTH (m)
Figure 7. Cost Function Vs. Length.
Figure 9. Cost Function Vs. Draft.
Ul
 Figure 12. Fuel Cost Vs. Length.

8000-1

6600
26 28~" 30 32 34
24
CHANGES IN LENGTH
Figure 13. Fuel Cost Vs. Beam.
 Figure 14. Fuel Cost Vs. Draft.

6600 n

6000 H T 1 r
2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3
CHANGES IN DRAFT
 Figure 15. Fuel Cost Vs. Midship C o e f f i c i e n t .

6100 H 1 ——I 1 —i 1 1
0 70 0.76 0.80 0.86 0.90 0.96 1
MIDSHIP COEFFICIENT
 Figure 16. Fuel Cost Vs. Prismatic Coefficient.

8000-1

7600

h-
co 7000 H
O
(J
_J
UJ
3

6600

6000 -r
0.60 0.66 0.80 0.66
0.46
PRISMATIC COEFFICIENT
 61.

REFERENCES

1. S.M. C a l i s a l and 0. Fung; "Fuel Optimization Studies for Fishing

Vessels". In p r i n t .

2. R.D. Murphy, D.J. Sabat and R.J. Taylor; "Least Cost Ship
C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s by Computer Techniques". Marine Technology, Vol. 2,
pp. 174-202, Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, New
York, N.Y. , 1965.

3. B. Paterson; "Least Cost C r i t e r i o n Applied to Fishing Vessels". In

print.

4. P. Mandel and R. Leopold; "Optimization Methods Applied to Ship

Design". Transactions, V o l . 74, pp. 477-521, Society of Naval
Architects and Marine Engineers, New York, N.Y., 1966.

5. L.K. Kupras; "Analysis of Main Dimensions, Displacement, Block

C o e f f i c i e n t and Speed of a Stern Factory Trawler". FAO, Vol. 2, 1965.

6. C. Hamelin; "An Optimum Trawler for Groundfish: Design Study". U.S.

Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service,
S p r i n g f i e l d , VA, 1971.

7. B. Mcllwaine; "Private Communications". Chief of Development,

Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Vancouver, B.C., 1982-1984.

8. " C a t e r p i l l a r Marine Engine Manuals". Steveston Marine, Richmond,

B.C., 1983.

9. W.B. Wilson; "Fishing Vessel Design Curves". NOAA Data Buoy Center,
NTSL, M i s s i s s i p p i , 1980.

10. R.F. Allan; "Private Communications". Robert Allan Naval A r c h i t e c t s .

500 - 1380 Burrard St., Vancouver, B.C., 1984.

11. A. van Oortmerssen; "A Power Prediction Method and i t s Application to

Small Ships". Netherlands Ship Model Basin, Wagingen, The
Netherlands, 1970.

12. S.M. C a l i s a l and 0. Fung; "Resistance Comparison for Fishing Vessels".

In p r i n t .

13. M.F.C. S a n t a r e l l i ; "Preliminary Determination of Main Characteristics

of Fishing Vessels". Lecture Notes f o r Sixth Wegemt School, Fishing
Vessel Technology, Madrid, Spain, 1982.

14. Comstock; "Principles of Naval Architecture". Society of Naval

Architects and Marine Engineers, New York, N.Y., 1969.

15. Preliminary Steel Weight Data, Department of Fisheries and Oceans,

Halifax, N.S., 1983.
 62.

16. M.L. Frew; "Western F i s h e r i e s " . 1132 Hamilton Street, Vancouver,

B.C., 1970-1982.

17. R. Read and R. Latorre; "Fishing Vessel Intact S t a b i l i t y C r i t e r i a and

Compliance Due to Variations i n Vessel Dimensions". International
Conference on Design, Construction and Operation of Commercial Fishing
Vessels, Melbourne, F l o r i d a , 1984.

18. International Maritime Consultive Organization; "Safety of Fishing

Vessels". Torremolos Conference, 1977.

19. J.R. Amy, R.E. Johnson and E.R. M i l l e r ; "Development of Intact

S t a b i l i t y C r i t e r i a f o r Towing and Fishing Vessels". Transactions,
Vol. 84, pp. 75-114, Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers,
New York, N.Y., 1976.

20. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, I n d u s t r i a l Development Bank;

"Private Communications". Vancouver, B.C., 1984.

21. B.D. Smith; "Private Communications". Marine Surveyor, Vancouver,

B.C., 1984.

22. Openshaw Insurance & Lloyds; "Private Communications". Insurance

Brokers, Vancouver, B.C., 1984.

23. MacLaren; "Private Communications". President A l l i e d Shipbuilding Co.

Ltd., North Vancouver, B.C., 1984.

24. B. Henry; "Private Communications". Wilkinson Steel of Canada,

Vancouver, B.C., 1984.

25. J . Kemp; "Private Communications". B.C. Packers, Steveston, B.C.,

1984.
 63.

APPENDIX A

COMPARISON OF STEEL WEIGHT ESTIMATES

TO WEST COAST INVOIDED STEEL WEIGHTS

The decision to use the average of the s t e e l weight estimate formula-

tions was based on the percentage error between known invoiced s t e e l

weights (for West Coast vessels) and the estimates. The following tables

show the actual s t e e l weight, f o r 3 classes of vessel constructed at A l l i e d

Shipbuilding i n North Vancouver, as well as the estimates and percent

error.

Class I Vessels

Dimensions: L = 16.69 m
B = 5.03 m
D = 2.44 m

Formulation Steel Weight % Error

Actual 27.28 tonne -

East Coast 41.66 tonne 52.71

Santarelli 1
25.68 tonne 5.87
Santarelli 2
40.86 tonne 49.78
Santarelli 3
57.73 tonne 111.62

Wilson 24.05 tonne 11.84

Superstructure = 0
Superstructure = 50
Superstructure = 100

Since there are no vessels constructed without superstructures the

f i r s t S a n t a r e l l i formulation i s neglected. The t h i r d S a n t a r e l l i formula-

t i o n i s neglected because of too high of e r r o r . Therefore:

Avg. Steel Weight Estimate = 35.52 tonne

Avg. Percent Error = 30.22 percent

 64.

Class I I Vessels

Dimensions: L = 23.17 m
B = 7.01 m
D = 3.20 m

Formulation Steel Weight % Error

Actual 77.85 tonne -

East Coast 79.00 tonne 1.48

Santarelli 2
80.05 tonne 3.40

Wilson 61.50 tonne 21.00

Avg. Steel Weight Estimate = 73.52 tonne

Avg. Percent Error = 5.57 percent

Class I I I Vessels

Dimensions: L = 35.36 m
B = 9.75 m
D = 4.75 m

Formulation Steel Weight % Error

Actual 216.35 tonne -

East Coast 328.67 tonne 51.92

Santarelli 2
200.2 tonne 7.47
Santarelli 3
225.08 tonne 4.04

Wilson 198.23 tonne 8.38

The East Coast formulation i s neglected because of the high error.

Therefore:

Avg. Steel Weight Estimate = 207.84 tonne

Avg. Percent Error = 3.93 percent

 65.

Proper estimation of s t e e l weight i s very important as the sum of a l l

the weight groups are subtracted from the ship's calculated displacement,

to check that there i s p o s i t i v e buoyancy, I.e. so the ship w i l l f l o a t . It

i s also used to determine the construction and operating costs of the

vessel.
 66.

APPENDIX B

QUESTIONNAIRE USED IN DISCUSSION WITH LOCAL INDUSTRY

WITH REGARD TO FUTURE TRENDS IM FISHING VESSEL DESIGN

Date:

Name of Designer/Builder:

Most Recent Fishing Vessel Design:

Section I Trends i n H u l l Forms

1. What type of h u l l w i l l be used i n f i s h i n g vessels of the future?

Displacement, semi-planing, planing.

2. W i l l h u l l s of the future have f u l l middle bodies?

3. What type of stern w i l l be used?

4. W i l l there be changes i n the ranges of c o e f f i c i e n t s used for vessels

of the future?

5. What materials w i l l be used i n future vessel construction?

Section II Power Requirements

1. What type of powering w i l l be used i n the vessels? (Diesel, gasoline,
outboard-inboard.)
2. W i l l separate a u x i l i a r i e s be used?

3. W i l l the ships have refrigerated sea water systems?

Section III General

1. What are your impressions about future vessel requirements?

 67.

APPENDIX C

PROBLEMS EXPERIENCED WITH THE DESIGN AND OPTIMIZATION

The following problems have been experienced when using the programs.

1. In using only C a t e r p i l l e r engines i n the engine s e l e c t i o n , many

vessels are rejected because no suitable engine can be found.

2. The resistance subroutine i s very dependent on prismatic c o e f f i c i e n t ,

which when varied too much causes the resistance r e s u l t to be

erroneous.

3. The fishing simulation causes problems, when the engine selected i s a t

either end of the scale, by not being able to match engine RPM to the

required horsepower when the displacement of the vessel i s increased.