<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="https://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Transport Research International Documentation (TRID)</title>
    <link>https://trid.trb.org/</link>
    <atom:link href="https://trid.trb.org/Record/RSS?s=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" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <description></description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <copyright>Copyright © 2026. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.</copyright>
    <docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
    <managingEditor>tris-trb@nas.edu (Bill McLeod)</managingEditor>
    <webMaster>tris-trb@nas.edu (Bill McLeod)</webMaster>
    
    <item>
      <title>TANKER BUILDING SHIPYARDS</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/165470</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The 1970s saw a huge increase in the capacity of the world's shipyards to build tankers.  The well-known slump in the market after 1973 left a surplus of ships and a surplus of building yard capacity.  Some yards closed, and efforts have been made by the traditional shipbuilding nations to further reduce capacity and to co-operate on policy.  Simultaneously however, new shipbuilders have emerged in third world countries.  The end of the 1970s saw a modest revival in tanker ordering, but for smaller ships.  The study analyses the historical output of tankers by each of the world's shipyards, and the present yard-by-yard orderbook for newbuildings in order to assess the size and location of capacity which will exist to build the tankers which may be ordered in the 1980s.  The study also looks at historical newbuilding price trends.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 21 May 1981 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/165470</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>WORLDWIDE SHIP REPAIR FACILITIES</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/166392</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The list includes about 1000 repair yards from about 140 countries, and contains information on dock and crane capacity, types or repairs, repair manpower, maximum ship size, etc.  The list itself covers 43 pages, in addition there is a large foldout map showing every repair yard.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 21 May 1981 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/166392</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>TECHNOLOGY SURVEY OF MAJOR U.S. SHIPYARDS</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/157359</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This is a report on a technology survey of 13 major U.S. shipyards and 16 of the best comparable foreign shipyards. A standard procedure is followed in assigning one of four technology levels to a broad range of shipbuilding operation and processes in each shipyard.  Over 2000 technology level determinations are placed in perspective.  First they are treated in aggregate form, and secondly they are treated in a more detailed but selective manner to emphasize the most important shipbuilding operations.  The results are presented in terms of comparison among U.S.shipyards and between U.S. and foreign shipyards.  The results identify 16 critical areas where U.S. shipyards lag behind their foreign counterparts.  There are nine critical areas where the level of technology could be raised with minor capital investment and five areas which could be raised with modest investment.  Only two areas would require major investment.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Feb 1981 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/157359</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>TECHNOLOGY SURVEY OF MAJOR U.S. SHIPYARDS 1978</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/82094</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This report, is organized as follows: Chapter I. Introduction--Sets forth the circumstances that caused the survey to be made and what it should accomplish, along with its limitations.  Chapter II.  Survey Procedure--Describes how the survey was conducted in the United States and abroad, what shipbuilding activities were covered and how technology was measured.  Chapter III.  Comparisons and Analyses--Puts in perspective over 2000 technology level determinations made in 13 U.S. shipyards and 16 comparable foreign shipyards.  First, they are treated in aggregate form.  Second, they are treated in a more detailed but selective manner to emphasize the most important shipbuilding operations, highlighting areas where U.S. shipbuilding technology is high and low.  Chapter IV.  Basic Data--Consists of a series of tables which present all of the technology level determinations developed during the survey, in three different ways.  Chapter III is based on these data.  Chapter V.  Summary--Sets forth the highlights of the survey, including comments from A & P Appledore (London) Ltd., who developed the technology level standards and surveyed the foreign shipyards.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 Apr 1979 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/82094</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>SYSTEM HARBINGER FOR STEEL THICKNESS TESTING</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/80773</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Material Materingen, the Holland-based company trading as Harbinger B.V., have facilities throughout the world for conducting steel-thickness surveys on ships and other steel structures.  The company, which uses the ultrasonic method of thickness measurement, is independent of ship-repair companies and classification societies, and can keep records on behalf of the shipowner to show where and how much the plating and other steelwork is corroding throughout the life of the ship.  Such information is important in planning a ship's drydocking programme.  The company's surveyors work without needing assistance from the shipyard, and can take up to 100 measurements per hour; staging is not required, and the work can, if required, be carried our during a voyage.  The company has been operating successfully for a number of years, and results of its surveys are recognised by governmental authorities and the classification societies.  Customers are usually shipowners, but much work is done for classificaiton societies when their own personnel are not available.  The article also gives some information on the company's other activities, which include agencies for sacrificial anodes and for various types of ships' and other equipment.  Order from BSRA as No. 49,214.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 13 Jan 1979 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/80773</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>AMERICAN BUREAU OF SHIPPING (ABS) CASUALTY DATA (ANALYSIS)</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/78793</link>
      <description><![CDATA[In accordance with its function as a seaworthiness and marine plans classification society, the ABS provides casualty survey services to vessel owners.  The basic instrument for data collection is a full narrative report from the surveyor.  The following data are extracted from the report for computer input: file number, survey date, report number, year of ship's build, gravity of the problem, the ship's hull number, its tonnage, the name of the shipyard where built, the ship's name and type, the ship's flag, damage information, and a descriptive commentary of the casualty.   The services of the ABS are usually paid for by the owner of the vessel and in most cases written permission is required from the owner before the data can be released.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 14 Nov 1978 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/78793</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>THE PROBLEM OF DETERMINING THE NUMBER OF PREVENTIVE SURVEYS OF SHIP MACHINERY IN THE PERIOD BETWEEN OVERHAULS</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/79345</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The importance of preventive surveys between overhauls is stressed, because prevention is generally cheaper than cure. At the same time, too frequent (and unnecessary) prophylactic work should be avoided, since it is not only tiresome for the crew, but may also adversely affect the machinery items to which it is applied.  From considerations of reliability theory the Author drives a general formula for determining the optimum number of preventive surveys ensuring maximum operating reliability.  He regards this analytical approach as a necessary basis for further, work, where the formula is related to and verified by operating practice.  It is also pointed out that the formula does not take into account the idle time for items which are sound but unused, because their services are not required.  The assumption of zero idle time is considered justified by the underlying assumption that the machinery will be used profitably, i.e. that capital amortisation will occur as planned.  In these conditions idle time may be neglected. Order from BSRA as No. 49,067.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 31 Oct 1978 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/79345</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>VIBRATION FROM A SHIPBUILDER'S POINT OF VIEW</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/76276</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Increased propeller loading on large ships makes the avoidance of hull vibration correspondingly more difficult. The problem of the shipbuilder is compounded by the owner's insistance on numerical performance criteria, and in some cases on specific guarantees.  The dilemma of the shipbuilder is discussed within the loose framework of all the uncertainties attendant to reliable prediction of ship vibration performance for a specific class of ships.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 31 Oct 1978 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/76276</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>THE ROLE OF THE CLASSIFICATION SOCIETY IN THE SEARCH FOR RELIABILITY</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/71283</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The paper deals with the function of the classification society in the design, survey during construction and service of ships.  The rules of a classification society are briefly reviewed, and the testing procedure for oil engines components is submitted as an example.  Statistics on screwshaft failures and stern bush defects are given. Technical advisory service and condition monitoring are dealt with.  Order from: NSFI as No. 14473.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 19 Aug 1978 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/71283</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>IN-SERVICE PERFORMANCE OF STRUCTURAL DETAILS</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/70949</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This report includes the results of a structural detail survey of twelve families of approximately fifty different ships.  Seven ship types were surveyed to determine whether or not predicted failures actually occurred.  The families are beam brackets, tripping brackets, non-tight collars, tight collars, gunwale connections, knife edge crossings, miscellaneous cutouts, clearance cuts, deck cutouts, stanchion ends, stiffner ends, and panel stiffeners. Fifty-six groups evolved with a total of 553 observed variations in structural configuration.  The data are synthesized by family groups.  During the survey 490,210 details with 3,307 failures were observed.  Eighty-two percent of the failures were in the cargo space and were predominately located in structure adjacent to the side shell.  The remaining 18% were distributed, 10% forward and 8% aft of the cargo spaces.  Feedback data of this type should be invaluable to design and repair offices.  It depicts, with sketches and photographs, the variations of structural configurations and tabulates all of the data collected during the survey.  As an aid to engineers and designers, failure causes such as design, fabrication, maintenance and operation are postulated.  Systematic performance studies of this type should be conducted in all areas of ship construction.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 29 Jul 1978 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/70949</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>SURVEY OF STRUCTURAL TOLERANCES IN THE UNITED STATES COMMERCIAL SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/70950</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Deviations from ideal structural design of different types of vessels during construction and service are investigated. Selected U.S.  commercial shipyards, ship owner/operators, steel mills, and foreign classification societies are surveyed or interviewed with the purpose of documenting major deviations and recurring structural imperfections, and determining the factors leading to these deviations.  An effort is also made to determine the extent of deviations from theoretical design and to establish, wherever possible, structural tolerance limits which are most commonly used in U.S. yards and which can therefore be considered representative of U.S. shipbuilding practice.  These are compared to published international structural tolerance standards, and recommendations are given for further study.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 29 Jul 1978 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/70950</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>THE EMERGENCE OF THIRD WORLD SHIPBUILDING</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/71732</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The study examines the development of shipbuilding in Third World nations since 1970 and analyses the motives which have led to the growth of such highly capital intensive industries in countries with scarce capital resources. National fleet development and the desire to industrialise are the foremost reasons for this growth, and common denominators in examining individual countries are not only central government involvement but also the existence of co-ordinated shipping/shipbuilding policies.  Further, the rapid growth of shipbuilding in the Third World could not have been achieved without substantial technical and financial aid from established shipbuilding nations.  These factors and many others are examined in Part 2 of the Study, where the shipbuilding industries of Third World nations are analysed.  The Study concludes by forecasting and estimating the role these emerging nations will play in the future and, perhaps more importantly, what the role of the traditional shipbuilding countries will be in the light not only of increased competition from the Third World but also of significant competition from COMECON countries.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Jul 1978 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/71732</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>SURVEY OF LARGE REPAIR DOCKS</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/70598</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The report gives a survey of world wide repair docks which can accomodate ships exceeding 100.000 tons deadweight. Each dock is described with its equipment and in some cases docking and painting tariffs.  The total number of docks described in the report are 74.  Typical dimensions of a tanker/bulk carrier of 100.000 t.dw. are set to be: Length overall 260-270 m or 850-890 ft; Beam 38-41 m or 125-135 ft depending on the ratio of length to breath.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Jul 1978 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/70598</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>RESULTS OF A SURVEY ON SHAFT ALIGNMENT PROCEDURES USED BY AMERICAN SHIPYARDS</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/70327</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Despite its importance, the subject of shafting alignment is not always adequately addressed during construction and repair of ships.  Therefore, in an effort to determine just how well shafting alignment is understood and handled in American shipyards an alignment survey of American shipyards was conducted.  The results of the survey are presented in this report.  In addition to the survey results, the report addresses some of the basic criteria used to evaluate the acceptability of a shafting system from an alignment standpoint and suggests certain features found in some shafting systems which make them very prone to alignment problems.  Methods of establishing and checking alignment are also discussed.  The report should offer both owners and shipyards some guidance concerning what types of alignment checks can and should be expected when a problem exists.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 28 Jun 1978 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/70327</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>STRUCTURAL DETAILS OF SHIPS IN SERVICE</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/69067</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This paper discusses and evaluates the data collected from structural detail survey of twelve typical families found on various ship types.  The fifty ship survey included seven ship types.  Engineers in the Hull Technical Department of Newport News Shipbuilding conducted the survey which was under the sponsorship of the Ship Structures Committee by means of a Naval Sea Systems Command contract.  The families surveyed were beam brackets, tripping brackets, non-tight collars, tight collars, gunwale connections, knife edge crossings, miscellaneous cutouts, clearance cuts, deck cutouts, stanchion ends, stiffeners ends, and panel stiffeners.  Sketches and pictures depict the 553 observed variations in structural configuration which evolved into fifty-six family groups.  The data are synthesized by summarizing the observed data according to family groups and by normalizing the data and summarizing it by ship type. During the survey, 490,210 details with 3,307 failures were observed.  Eight-two percent of the failures were in the cargo space and were  predominately located in structure adjacent to the side shell.  The remaining 18% were distributed, 10% forward and 8% aft of the cargo spaces. Figures and tables are used to present failure trends and percentages.  Feedback data of this type is beneficial to design and repair offices.  It provides, in systematic manner, the results of "full scale operational testing" on individaul shipboard components.  Data of this type has not, to the authors' knowledge, been available in the past.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 May 1978 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/69067</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>