Guesstimate Displacement? - Ships Nostalgia
02:48

Welcome
Welcome!Welcome to Ships Nostalgia, the world's greatest online community for people worldwide with an interest in ships and shipping. Whether you are crew, ex-crew, ship enthusiasts or cruisers, this is the forum for you. And what's more, it's completely FREE.

Click here to go to the forums home page and find out more.
Click here to join.
Log in
User Name Password

Guesstimate Displacement?

User Tag List

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 23rd August 2015, 20:23
Almace Almace is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 2
Guesstimate Displacement?

Hello all,

Can anyone estimate the displacement of a ship based on its GRT, DWT, or measurements? For example, what might have been the weight of the RMS Media (13,345 GRT, 11,636 DWT, 531' long, 70' beam, 26' draught)?

I know I'm asking to guess weight from volume, which can't be done with any certainty or precision, but as a landlubber I'd like some idea of how big a ship is in terms I can easily grasp.

Thank you,
Eric
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 23rd August 2015, 21:59
randcmackenzie randcmackenzie is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
My location
Posts: 1,383
Hello Eric.

There is no easy correlation between G/T and deadweight or displacement.

However if you transpose all the dimensions in to metres, it become a little easier.

So, underwater volume of the block = (length) 162 x (beam) 21.3 x (draught) 7.9 = 27,260 cubic metres.

You now have to guess the co-efficient of fineness, which is the relationship between the volume of the underwater hull and a block of the same dimensions.
Normally this will be found in the ship's hydrostatic tables.

The finest lined ships I was ever on were container ship at about 0.55 - it varies with draught, of course.

Let us take a guess of 0.65 for Media.

So 27,260 x 0.65 = 17,719 cubic metres, x 1.025 if the draught is in salt water = 18,162 metric tonnes. (17,875 long tons)



Displacement also equals deadweight + lightship.

The deadweight you are quoting is 11,636 - long tons since the dimensions you quote are imperial, say 11,822 metric tonnes.

If you now subtract that from the displacement we calculated (18,162 - 11,822) you get a light ship of 6,340 metric tonnes, which would not have been that very far from the truth.

Confused? Sorry!

Last edited by randcmackenzie; 23rd August 2015 at 22:11..
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 24th August 2015, 06:35
TOM ALEXANDER's Avatar
TOM ALEXANDER TOM ALEXANDER is offline  
Senior Member
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Department: Deck
Active: 1958 - 1960
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,929
It's that draught measurement that is causing the problem. Navy vessels, I believe are usually given as deadweight numbers, total weight of the vessle, stores, ammunition, fuel, etc. because there is usually very little difference in draught -- there is no large variable such as cargo. The vessel in question, however is given as "RMS", or Royal Mail Ship and therefore most likely a cargo vessel. The question then goes into many variables such as is the draught, the submerged depth of the vessel, given as referenced to which part of the Plimsoll marks, which will vary as to legal loading, and then applying to an even keel condition. If the vessel is trimmed by the stern a draught of 26 feet may be considerably less at the bow.

IMHO the best understanding of size is the GRT, (gross register tonnage) which is the interior volume of the vessel excluding the funnel and some deck houses, but including all accomodation. By definition one register ton = 100 cu. ft. of space. Net register tons is essentially the cargo carrying capacity (volume) of the vessel.

This way we can equate the size of the modern cruise ship (with huge superstructure), for example, with a cargo/container ship. The one exception that I am aware of is the tanker which carries a more or less uniform (volume of cargo of a more or less constant specific gravity) and is usually rendered as a deadweight tonnage, or the weight of cargo when fully loaded (excluding the weight of the ship), but again referenced to the applicable Plimsoll line.

I haven't been at sea for many years, so maybe one of our younger members can update my remarks, but out of the remarks so far, size doesn't always equate to weight as even the purpose for construction of any vessel will have a large bearing on the actual weight.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 24th August 2015, 12:52
Almace Almace is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 2
Gentlemen, I thank you sincerely for your answers!
Eric
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 24th August 2015, 16:17
NoR's Avatar
NoR NoR is offline  
Senior Member
Department: Deck
Active: 1963 - 1979
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,214
Tonnage

Attached in 3 jpegs is one of the better explanations of tonnage that I have read.
Scanned from British Ocean Tramps Vol 1 by P N Thomas.

This book plus Vol 2 are worth getting hold of.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg tonnage 1.jpg (246.6 KB, 14 views)
File Type: jpg Tonnage 2.jpg (145.9 KB, 8 views)
File Type: jpg Tonnage 3.jpg (244.0 KB, 7 views)
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Displacement oilers Cangarda The Engine Room 3 12th April 2009 23:10



Support SN


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging v3.1.0 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.