DOCSLIB.ORG

In the United States Commercial Shipbuilding Industry

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
In the United States Commercial Shipbuilding Industry SSC-273 SURVEY OF STRUCTURAL TOLERANCES IN THE UNITED STATES COMMERCIAL SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY This document has been approved for public release and sale; its distribution is unlimited. SHIP STRUCTURE COMMITTEE 1978 SHIP STRUCTURE COMMITTEE AN INTERAGENCY ADVISORY COMMITTEE DEDICATED TO IMPROVING THE STRUCTURE OF SHIPS MEMBER AGENCIES ADDRESS CORRESPONDENCE TO: UNITED STATES COAST GUARD SECRETARY NAVAl SHIP SYSTEMS COMMAND SHIP STRUCTURE COMMITTEE MII hART SEALIFT COMMAND U.S. COAST GUARD HEADQUARTERS MARITIME ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON. D.C. 20591 AMFRICAN BUREAU OF SHIPPING SR-l233 With, the vast increase in ship size during the past two decades, great emphasis has been placed on reducing hull scantlings through rational determination of loads, working stresses and material properties. To support an extended use of rational analysis in ship design, it is necessary to determine the deviations from 'ideal'1 design that can be expected in construction and their effects during the vessel's service life. The Ship Structure Committee initiated a project to deter- mine the factors leading to and the extent of deviation from theoreti- cal design that can be expected. This is the final report of that project and is being pub- lished to assist in developing a rational approach to ship design0 £/ ,&.J:i W. M. Benkert Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard Chairman, Ship Structure Committee SsC.23 FINAL REPORT on Project SR-1233 'TStructural Tolerance Survey" SURVEY OF STRUCTURAL TOLERANCES IN THE UNITED STATES CO1MERCIAL SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY by N. S. Basar R.F. Stanley M. Rosenblatt & Son, Inc. under Department of the Navy Naval Ship Engineering Center Contract No. N00024-76-C-4059 This document has beenapproved forpublicrelease andsale:itsdistribution is unlimited. U. S. Coast Guard Headquarters Washington, D.C. 1978 ABSTRACT Deviations from ideal structural design of differenttypes of vessels during construction and serviceare investigated. Selected U.S. commercial shipyards, ship owner/operators, steel mills, and foreignclassification societies are surveyed or interviewed with thepurpose of documenting major deviations and recurring structuralimperfections, and determining the factors lead incj to these deviations. An effort is also made to deter- mine the extent of deviations fromtheoretical design and to establish, wherever possible, structural tolerance limitswhich are most commonly used ¡n U.S. yards and whichcan therefore be considered representative of U.S. shipbuilding practice. These are compared to published internationalstruc- turai tolerance standards, and recommendationsare given for further study. CONTENTS ABS TRA C T List of Tables List of Figures Section 1. INTRODUCTION 1 Background 1.2 Objective and Scope 1.3 Limitations of Surveys Section 2. SURVEY METHODOLOGY 2-1 2.1 General 2l 2.2 Standard Survey Format 2-2 2.3 Scope of Vessels for Actual Surveys 2-2 Section 3. STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS/SUBSYSTEMS AND DEVIATIONS 3-1 3.1 Structural Imperfections/Deviations 3-4 3.2 Extent of Consideration for Each Deviation 3-6 Section 4. DISCUSSION OF SURVEY RESULTS AND TRENDS 4-1 4.1 Shipowners and Operators 4-2 4.2 Shipyards and Steel Fabricating Facilities 4-5 4.3 Steel Mills 4-23 4.4 Classification Societies 424 4.5 Foreign Institutions 4-29 4.6 Overview 4-29 Section 5. FOLLOW THROUGH OF A TYPICAL STRUCTURAL DEVIATION 5-1 5.1 Factors Related to Ideal Design 5-1 5.2 Influence of Structural Deviations on Strength Section 6. CONCLUSIONS 6-1 Section 7. RECOMMENDATIONS 7-1 Shipyard Practice in 7.1 Recommended Guide to U.S. 7-1 Structural Tolerances 7-1 7.2 Relation of Tolerances toRational Design Quality Assurance and InspectionRequirements 7.3 7-4 in Shipyards Section 8. REFERENCES 8-1 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 8-3 Section 9. APPENDIXES 9-1 9.1 Bibliography 9-1 9.2 U.S. Commercia] Shipyard Standards 9-8 9.3 Existing International Standards 9-63 iii LIST OF TABLES Table N Descriytion Pase Nc. 4.1 Structural Tolerance Standards as Reported 4-4 by Shipowners/Operators 4.2 Deviations and Tolerances at Shpyards 4-8 6.1 Comparison of USA Practice in Structural Tolerances with Published International 6-3 S tanda rds 7.1 Structural Tolerances in United States 7-2 Shipyards iv LIST OF FIGURES Fiure No. Descr t ion Pase No. 4.1 Bulkhead Misalignment 14_3 4.2 Damage Occurence Rate 4-6 by Age of Vessel 43 Example of Poor Detail ing 4-6 of Design 1414 Graphical Representation of Reported Struc- 14-18 tural Deviations and Tolerances 14 5. A. Full Penetration Weld 14-27 Alternate Detail 14-27 Explosion Bonding k-27 5.1 General Relationship of Cost to Dimen- 5-5 sional Accuracy 5.2 Alignment of Subassemblies 5-5 5.3 Detail Design of a Beam Bracket 5_9 5.14 Effects of Weld Undercut 5-11 7.1 Critical Quality Areas 7-3 V SHIP STRUCTURECOIiTTEE The SHIP STRUCTURE CMITTEE is constituted to prosecute a research programto improve the hull structures of ships by an extension of kno;ledge pertaining to design, materials and methods of fabrication. RAUM W. M. Berikert, USCG (Chairman) Chief, Office of Merchant Marine Safety U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters Nr. P. M. Palermo Mr. N. Pitkin Asst. for Structures Asst. Administrator for Naval Ship Engineering Center Corraiercial Development Naval Ship Systems Command Maritime Administration Nr. John L. Foley Nr. C. J. Whitestone Vice President Engineer Officer American Bureau of Shipping Military Sealift Coiriiand SHIP STRUCTURE SUBCOMMITrEE The SHIP STRUCTURE SUBCOMMITTEE acts for the Ship Structure Committee on techn-ical matters by providing technical coordination for thedetermination of goals and objectives of the program, and by evaluating andinterpreting the results in terms of ship structural design, construction and operation. NAVAL SEA SYSTEMS COMMAND NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES SHIP RESEARCH CONMITTEE Nr. R. Johnson - Member tir. J. B. O'Brien - Contract Administrator Nr. O. H. Oakley - Liaison Nr. C. Pohier - Member Mr. R. W. Rumke - L{aison Mr. G. Sorkin Member SOCIETY OF NAVAL ARCHITECTS & GUARD U.S. COAST MARINE ENGINEERS LCDR T. H. Robinson - Secretary Mr. A. B. Stavovy - Liaison LCDR S. H. Davis - Member CPT C. B. Glass - Member WELDING RESEAPSCH COUNCIL Dr.W. C. Dietz -Member Mr. K. H. Koopman - Liaison MARITIMEADMINISTRATION INTERNATIONAL SHIP STRUCTURES Mr. F. Dashnaw - Member CONGRESS Mr. N. Harner - Member Prof. J. H. Evans - Liaison Mr. R.K. Kiss - Member U.S. COAST GUARD ACADEMY Mr. F. Seibold - Member CAPT W. C. Nolan - Liaison MILITARY SEALIFT COMMAND STATE UNIV. OF N.Y.MARITIME COLLEGE Mr. T. W. Chapman - Member COR J. L. Simmons - Member Dr. W. R. Porter - Liaison Mr. A. B. Stavovy - Member N'IERICAU IRON & STEEL INSTITUTE Mr. D. Stein - Member R. H. Sterne - Liaison ERICAN BUREAuOF SHIPPING tir. Mr. S. C. Stiansen - Chairman U.S. NAVAL ACADEN'! D.. H.Y. Jan - Member Dr. R. Bhattacharyya -Liaison Mr. I.L. Stern - Member U.S. MERCHANT MARINE ACADEMY Oc. Chin-Bea Kirn - Liaison vi 1.0 INTRODUCTION .1 Back9 round A ship or any vessel, like any other complex structure,is sub- jected to certain imperfections or deviationsfrom their ideal structural design during construction. The deviation can be avoidable or un- avoidable depending on its location, ease ofinspection, and the pos- sbility of accomplishing corrective action. For purposes of clarity, it may be desirable tofirst attempt a definition of the''ideal design.'' The structural design of ships is based on strengthcalculations performed using the dimensional characteristicsof the vessel, the loading criteria for the service the vesselis to be employed in, and the prevailing sea-states. Assumptions are made in carrying out the design, and safety factors are used to compensatefor unknown or un- predictable parameters. The structural model of ships developed in this fashion is expected to perform its intended service underall conditions. This is labelled the''ideal design.'' The ideal design assumes that the finished constructionwill repre- sent accurately the configuration shown onthe theoretical structural drawings. Even though there have been cases where allowance wasmade in the ideal design for certain major deviations, ingeneral, a great ma- jority of newly constructed vessels do not have any suchallowance as- sociated with their design except for what is intrinsicallyallowed in the classification society rules. Yet in everyday practice, it is impossible to maintain an exact duplication of the geometric configuration depicted onideal design draw- ings on the physical ship being constructed. The ideal design is deviated from during the production of shipbuilding materials, duringfabrication and assembly operations, and during erection on thebuilding ways. These deviations may consist of flaws in base material, errors¡n fit-up and alignment work, unfairness of plating, errors originatingfrom the manu- facturing processes used, and errors in the detail designof structures. A ship may develop additional imperfections or deviationsfrom the ideal design during its service life. These ''in-service' deviations may originate from the actual service conditions of the vessel. Impact loads experienced during operations in heavy seas, or mechanical damageduring operations in port or at sea, may result in deviations such asunfairness of the plating, distortion or deflection of structural members, orreduc- tion of steel thickness due to corrosion, etc. If an initial imperfection exists on a newly built vessel, the service conditions may cause a worsen- ing of an otherwise tolerable deviation and lead to brittlefracture or fatigue cracks. Even with today's technology, which allows the use of improved quality shipbuilding materials, much improved manual or automatic fabrication and assembly procedures, sophisticated welding techniques, and new non destructive testing methods, some shipbuilders may not be, for varying reasons,in a position to fully utilize these improvements and provide a finished product reflecting the available technology. Furthermore, even when all available technology ¡s Fully utilized, it ¡s still impossible to eliminate all structural imperfections due to the inherent errors ¡n the automatic fabrication equipment and the human factors involved.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Port Master Plan Amendment No. 27 (North Embarcadero)
    STATE OF cw,JFORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGENCY _,;. ,_ CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION SAN DII!GO AREA 7575 METROPOLITAN DRIVE, SUITE 103 II!GO, CA 92108-4402 RECORD PACKET COPY 67-2370 • W19b February 21, 2000 TO: COMMISSIONERS AND INTERESTED PERSONS FROM: DEBORAH N. LEE, SOUTH COAST DEPUTY DIRECTOR SHERILYN SARB, DISTRICT MANAGER, SAN DIEGO DISTRICT DIANA LILLY, COASTAL PLANNER, SAN DIEGO DISTRICT SUBJECT: Staff Recommendation on San Diego Unified Port District Port Master Plan Amendment No. 27 (North Embarcadero). For Commission consideration and possible action at the Meeting of March 13-16, 2001) SUMMARY OF STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending that the Commission approve, in part, and deny, in part, the proposed amendment to the certified Port District Master Plan which would allow for the following development within the area of San Diego's waterfront known as North Embarcadero. The plan would allow the construction of a 600-800 room hotel, office building, retail and parking facilities on the old Lane Field site; the narrowing of Harbor Drive from four lanes to three between Grape Street and Pacific Highway; the extension • of B and C Streets between Pacific Highway and North Harbor Drive; construction of a new 25-foot wide pedestrian esplanade along the water's edge at Harbor Drive; the replacement of 3 existing industrial piers with one new public pier at Grape Street; construction of a small commercial recreation facility on the new Grape Street Pier; construction of a restaurant on the bayfront inland of the Grape Street Pier; modernization of the cruise ship terminal at the B Street Pier, including an increase of building height up to 50 feet; and docking the U.S.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Wang P.E.1, M
    DESIGN OF THE CAMPBELL SHIPYARD SEDIMENT REMEDIATION PROJECT, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA T. S. Wang P.E.1, M. Whelan P.E.2, D. Keith R.G.3, J. Verduin P.E.4 and P. Brown5 ABSTRACT The former Campbell Shipyard site is located on San Diego Bay and owned by the Port of San Diego. In 1995, the California State Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) issued a Cleanup and Abatement Order (CAO) requiring cleanup of sediments over approximately 3.7 hectares (9.2 acres) offshore of the site, due to the presence of metals, hydrocarbons, PAHs, PCBs and TBT. In-place capping of impacted sediments with targeted dredging was selected as the preferred remedy due to its environmental protectiveness, constructability, cost-effectiveness, and consistency with current and planned site uses. The Campbell Shipyard remedial design needed to account for the fact that the site is in an active industrial area with regular vessel activities, and also needed to address the concerns of multiple stakeholders. In particular, the design needed to account for a number of key technical challenges: - Designing a clean sediment cap to isolate underlying chemicals from the environment and the water column. - Protecting the cap against potential erosion from vessel-generated propeller wash, ship generated waves, tidal currents and wind-waves. - Providing sufficient water depths for ongoing container ship operations at the adjacent Tenth Avenue Marine Terminal (TAMT). - Ensuring that the project could be successfully constructed without impeding (or being impacted by) traffic to and from the TAMT facility. - Providing mitigation for loss of existing eelgrass beds and creating a stable, protected area at shallow subtidal elevations for this purpose.
    [Show full text]
  • General Disclaimer One Or More of the Following Statements May Affect
    General Disclaimer One or more of the Following Statements may affect this Document This document has been reproduced from the best copy furnished by the organizational source. It is being released in the interest of making available as much information as possible. This document may contain data, which exceeds the sheet parameters. It was furnished in this condition by the organizational source and is the best copy available. This document may contain tone-on-tone or color graphs, charts and/or pictures, which have been reproduced in black and white. This document is paginated as submitted by the original source. Portions of this document are not fully legible due to the historical nature of some of the material. However, it is the best reproduction available from the original submission. Produced by the NASA Center for Aerospace Information (CASI) Y C y F SPACE BENEFITS THE SECONDARY APPLICATION OF AEROSPACE TECHNOLOGY IN OTHER SECTORS OF THE ECONOMY N76-29060 (NASA-CR- 14850 9) BENEFITS BRIEFING NOTEBOOK: THE SECONDARY APPLICATION OF AEROSPACE TECHNOLOGY IN OTHER SECTORS O^GTHE 4 Linclas ECONOMY (Denver Pesearch Ynst.) 17 CSCL 05A G3/85 15291 %6.75 o APR 1976 RECE; VEQ NASA sr! FAcrtiy C-, N/%SA National Aeronautics and Space Administration 76 -1 L NASA :BENSF'ITS BRIEFING NOTEBOOK - Prepared for The Technolog3r Utilization Office (code KT) National Aeronautics and Space Administration Contract NASW-2607 rrc T PREFACE This 'Benefits Briefing Notebook" has been prepared for the NASA Technology Utiliza ion Office by the Denver Research Institute, "Program for Transfer Research and Impact Studies,, to provide the Agency with accurate, conven- ient, and integrated resource information on the transfer of aerospace tech- nology to other sectors of the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Community Plan Barrio Logan Harbor 101 Community Plan
    Barrio Logan Harbor 101 Community Plan Barrio Logan Harbor 101 Community Plan City of San Diego Planning Department 202 C Street, MS 4A San Diego, CA 92101 Printed on recycled paper. This information, or this document (or portions thereof), will be made available in alternative formats upon request. - i - Barrio Logan / Harbor 101 Community Plan The following information has been incorporated into this November 2005 posting of this Plan: Date Approved by Resolution Date Adopted by Resolution Amendment Planning Commission Number City Council Number Barrio Logan/Harbor 101 November 30, 1978 Community Plan Adopted. Certified by the California Coastal Commission on November 9, 1979 Amendment in June 10, 1982 3910 November 9, 1982 R-257473 conjunction with adoption of the PDO Certified by the California Coastal Commission on February 23, 1983 Amendment in April 25, 1991 May 7, 1991 R-277878 conjunction with the adoption of the Barrio Logan Redevelopment Plan - ii - November 30, 1978 The Honorable Mayor and City Council The City Planning Commission City of San Diego, California I am pleased to present to you the accompanying Barrio Logan/Harbor 101 Community Plan (Plan). This Plan represents a comprehensive guide for the maintenance, upgrading and future development of the Barrio Logan/Harbor 101 community through 1995. Much of this Plan’s proposals and information have been based on a previous comprehensive consultant study; “The Barrio Logan/Harbor 101 Community Improvement Study” a consultant joint venture of Simpson Gerber and Bundy, and the Chicano Federation of San Diego, Inc. Upon Council acceptance of this study, the Planning Department was directed to prepare a community plan for the Barrio Logan/Harbor 101 Area.
    [Show full text]
  • Shipbreaking" # 41
    Shipbreaking Bulletin of information and analysis on ship demolition # 41, from July 1 to September 30, 2015 Content Offshore platforms: radioactive alert 1 Pipe layer 21 Reefer 37 Waiting for the blowtorches 3 Offshore supply vessel 22 Bulk carrier 38 Military & auxiliary vessels 7 Tanker 24 Cement carrier 47 The podium of best ports 13 Chemical tanker 26 Car carrier 47 3rd quarter overview: the plunge 14 Gas tanker 27 Ferry 48 Letters to the Editor 16 General cargo 28 Passenger ship 56 Seismic research 17 Container ship 34 Dredger 57 Drilling 18 Ro Ro 36 The End: Sitala, 54 years later 58 Drilling/FPSO 20 Tuna seiner / Factory ship 37 Sources 60 Offshore platforms: radioactive alert The arrival of « Nobi », St. Kitts & Nevis flag, in Bangladesh. © Birat Bhattacharjee Many offshore platforms built in the 1970s-1980’s have been sent to the breaking yards by the long- lasting drop in oil prices and the low profile of offshore activities. Owners gain an ultimate profit from dismantlement. Most of the offshore platforms sent to be demolished since the beginning of the year are semi-submersible rigs. This type of rig weighs 10 to 15,000 t, i.e. a gain for the last owners of 2-4 million $ on the current purchase price from shipbreaking yards. Seen in the scrapyards: Bangladesh: DB 101, Saint-Kitts-and-Nevis flag, 35.000 t. Nobi, Saint-Kitts-and-Nevis flag, 14.987 t. India: Ocean Epoch, Marshall Islands flag, 11.099 t. Octopus, 10.625 t. Turkey: Atwood Hunter, Marshall Islands flag. GSF Arctic I, Vanuatu flag.
    [Show full text]
  • R&D in the Maritime Industry
    R&D in the Maritime Industry: A Supplement to an Assessment of Maritime Trade and Technology May 1985 NTIS order #PB85-246932 Recommended Citation: R&D in the Maritime Industry: A Supplement to An Assessment of Maritime Trade and Technology (Washington, DC: U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, OTA- BP-O-35, May 1985). Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 85-600540 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402 Foreword Since the publication of “An Assessment of Maritime Trade and Technology” by OTA in October 1983, various proposals have been made to provide incentives for re- search and development (R&D) in an effort to enhance the industry’s competitive posi- tion. Consequently, the Senate and House Subcommittees on the Merchant Marine jointly requested OTA to analyze the Federal role and/or incentives for improved maritime R&D including new institutional arrangements, financing and priority setting. This sup- plement is in reply to that request. In order to investigate the subject in more detail than our original assessment, OTA conducted an industry-wide survey, receiving replies from approximately 85 U.S. ship and barge operating and building firms. Respondents to the survey represented about one-half of the firms and work force in these two major sectors of the U.S. maritime industry. The results of that survey and other analyses are contained in this supplement. The OTA survey provided some valuable basic data on R&D activities and views about problems and opportunities from a broad spectrum of the maritime industry.
    [Show full text]
  • Recent Dredging Projects at BAE Systems San Diego Ship Repair - Questions
    Dredging Projects at BAE Systems San Diego Ship Repair Maintenance, Capital Improvement, and Cleanup Dredging Barry Snyder, Kimbrie Gobbi, and Tyler Huff – AMEC E&I Shaun Halvax – BAE Systems San Diego Ship Repair BAE Systems San Diego Ship Repair 40-acre facility (composed of 23-acres of land and 17-acres of water) located on Port of San Diego Tidelands One of 3 major San Diego shipyards: National Steel & Shipbuilding Company (NASSCO) and Continental Maritime of San Diego The site has been in operation as a shipyard since 1915 (prior operators San Diego Marine Construction and Campbell Industries) BAE Systems (and its predecessor company Southwest Marine) took over the site in 1979 Operations include ship repair, modification, and maintenance Primary client is the US Navy (facility is of strategic importance) Operate a dry dock capable of servicing up to LHD Class Navy Ships 1 BAE Systems San Diego Ship Repair Location Map 2 Dredging Projects at BAE Systems San Diego Ship Repair 1. Pride of San Diego (POSD) Dry Dock Sump Dredging Dredging with upland disposal 2. Pier 4 Replacement Project Dredging Pier demolition and replacement Wharf restoration Dredging with ocean and upland disposal 3. San Diego Clean Bay Project Dredging Cleanup and abatement order dredging with upland disposal Pride of San Diego (POSD) Dry Dock Sump Dredging Project Features Project Description Maintenance dredge accumulated sediment from POSD Dry Dock Sump Dry dock sump constructed in 1984; operational depth is -70 ft. MLLW; No dredging since 1984 On-scow thickening with cement; stockpiling; and landfill classification Environmental bucket/double silt curtain Post-dredge sediment confirmation testing in the CAO Area Disposal Volume and Disposal Location Upland disposal at Otay Landfill: ~7,900 cy total; ~2000 cy within the remedial footprint (completed in January 2011) Project Team AMEC – Sediment characterization, permitting, and construction/post-construction monitoring Anchor QEA – Water quality control plan R.E.
    [Show full text]
  • Wednesday May 15, 1996
    5±15±96 Wednesday Vol. 61 No. 95 May 15, 1996 Pages 24433±24664 federal register 1 II Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 15, 1996 SUBSCRIPTIONS AND COPIES PUBLIC Subscriptions: Paper or fiche 202±512±1800 FEDERAL REGISTER Published daily, Monday through Friday, Assistance with public subscriptions 512±1806 (not published on Saturdays, Sundays, or on official holidays), by General online information 202±512±1530 the Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration, Washington, DC 20408, under the Federal Register Single copies/back copies: Act (49 Stat. 500, as amended; 44 U.S.C. Ch. 15) and the Paper or fiche 512±1800 regulations of the Administrative Committee of the Federal Register Assistance with public single copies 512±1803 (1 CFR Ch. I). Distribution is made only by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC FEDERAL AGENCIES 20402. Subscriptions: The Federal Register provides a uniform system for making Paper or fiche 523±5243 available to the public regulations and legal notices issued by Assistance with Federal agency subscriptions 523±5243 Federal agencies. These include Presidential proclamations and For other telephone numbers, see the Reader Aids section Executive Orders and Federal agency documents having general applicability and legal effect, documents required to be published at the end of this issue. by act of Congress and other Federal agency documents of public interest. Documents are on file for public inspection in the Office of the Federal Register the day before they are published, unless earlier filing is requested by the issuing agency.
    [Show full text]
  • Eceived 2280
    NPS Form 10-900 (Oct. 1990) REECEIVED 2280 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service JAN 0 7 2009 National Register of Historic Places NAT.REGISTER OF HISTORIC PUCES Registration Form MATIONAL PARK SERVICE This form is for use in nominating or requesting determinations for individual properties and districts. See instructions in How to Complete the National Register of Historic Places Registration Form (National Register Bulletin 16A). Complete each item by marking "x" in the appropriate box or by entering the information requested. If any item does not apply to the property being documented, enter "N/A" for "not applicable." For functions, architectural classification, materials, and areas of significance, enter only categories and subcategories from the instructions. Place additional entries and narrative items on continuation sheets (NPS Form 10-900a). Use a typewriter, word processor, or computer, to complete all items. 1. Name of Property ______________________________________ Historic name RVJohnN. Cobb Other names/site number R-552, FWS-1601 2. Location street& number NOAA NW Regional Office - 7600 Sand Point Way NE ___ not for publication city or town Seattle_________________________________ ___ vicinity State Washington code WA county __ code 033 zip code 98115-0070 3. State/Federal Agency Certification As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, I hereby certify that this _nomination request for determination of eligibility meets the documentation standards for registering properties in the National Register of Historic Places and meets the procedural and professional requirements set forth in 36 CFR Part 60. In my opinion, the property ^^ meets _ does not meet the National Register criteria.
    [Show full text]
  • Spac Benefits the Secondary Application of Aerospace Technology in Other Sectors
    spac benefits the secondary application of aerospace technology in other sectors National Aeronautics and Space Administration SPACE BENEFITS : THE SECONDARY APPLICATION OF AEROSPACE TECHNOLOGY IN OTHER SECTORS OF THE ECONOMY - Prepared for - The Technology Transfer Division (Code ETD-6) National Aeronautics and Space Administration Contract NASW-3113 - Prepared by - Program for Transfer Research and Impact Studies Industrial Economics Division Denver Research Institute University of Denver PREFACE . Space Benefits is prepared for the NASA Technology Transfer Division by the Denver Research Institute, "Program for Transfer Research and Impact Studies," to provide the Agency with accurate, convenient, and integrated resource information on the transfer of aerospace technology to other sectors of the U.S. economy. Since it was first published in 1975, portions of Space Benefits have been updated and/or expanded in various editions; currently, new editions are prepared annually. The 1981 edition contains 443 paragraphs that describe 585 examples of beneficial use for NASA technology by public and private organizations. These examples, selected on the basis of existing documentation, illus- trate how NASA's mission-oriented programs affect technological progress in the U.S. It should be noted that many potential transfer cases have not been, and may never be, fully documented. The examples in this publication are only a portion of all such transfer activity and, therefore, do not indicate the magnitude of technological effects from NASA programs. This document is divided into three sections: (I) Transfer Overview, (2) Benefit Cases and (3) Indexes. The Transfer Overview section presents general observations concerning technology transfer activity. The questions of concern are: what technical contributions are considered; how are they transferred; and what are the beneficial effects from this activity ? The benefits section is subdivided into 20 subject areas.
    [Show full text]
  • 2019-Cafr.Pdf
    i The San Diego Unified Port District (District) was established on December 18, 1962 in accordance with laws of the State of California. The District operates under the Public Trust Doctrine, which specifies that the waterways and waterfronts are primarily reserved for water-dependent uses such as fishing, cargo activity, bay tours, and recreational access such as hotels and restaurants; as well as environmental and natural-habitat preservation. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Introductory Section (Unaudited) Page District Overview 2 Vision, Mission, Guiding Principle, and Core Values 3 Letter of Transmittal 4 Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting 13 District Organization Chart 14 Board of Port Commissioners 15 Executive Leadership Group 16 Financial Section Independent Auditor’s Report 19 Management’s Discussion and Analysis (Unaudited) 23 Basic Financial Statements 39 Statements of Net Position 40 Statements of Revenues, Expenses, and Changes in Net Position 42 Statements of Cash Flows 43 Notes to the Basic Financial Statements 45 Required Supplementary Information (Unaudited) 91 Schedule of Changes in Net Pension Liability and Related Ratios - Last Ten Fiscal Years 93 Schedule of Changes in Preservation of Benefits (POB) Liability and Related Ratios - Last Ten Fiscal Years 94 Schedule of Employer Pension Contributions - Last Ten Fiscal Years 95 Schedule of Changes in Other Postemployment Benefits (OPEB) Liability and Related Ratios - Last Ten Fiscal Years 96 Statistical Section (Unaudited) Contents 99 Net Position -
    [Show full text]
  • San Diego Trolley Guideway Implemewtation Monitoring Study
    SAN DIEGO TROLLEY GUIDEWAY IMPLEMEWTATION MONITORING STUDY ftiase I: Before Implementation January 1982 Draft Table of Contents CHAPTER 1 Introduction and Executive Surmary 1 CHAPTER 2 San Diego Trolley Project 26 CHAPTER 3 Transportation System and Travel Characteristics 40 CHAPTER 4 Land Use, Employment and Housing 100 CHAPTER 5 Socioecononic Profile 124 CHAPTER 6 International Border Crossings 135 CHAPTER 7 Construction Iirpacts 147 APPeroiCIES (not included in this draft) I. Study Area Canmunities and Census Tracts II. Study Area Taxicab Operators III. Driver Trip Productions and Attractions IV. Turning Movements V Centre City Pedestrian Counts VI. Land Use Description (delete?) VII. Major Eiiployers, by cormiunity (delete?) VIII. Land Values IX. Windshield Survey (1/81) (delete?) CHAPTER 1 INTRDDUCTIOM AND EXEXXTTIVE SUMMARY Because it is the first light rail system to be built in this cxjuntry in over 26 years,* the San Diego Trolley represents a unique opportunity to study the impact of light rail transit on the modem urban environ- ment. Planned, designed and constructed by the San Diego Metropolitan Transit Development Board (WTCe), the Trolley started operation in the summer of 1981. Ho evaluate the impact this system will have on travel characteristics, land use, and socioeconomic changes in the area, MTEB and the San Diego Association of Governments (SATJIW]) have developed a three-phase Guideway Implementation ftonitoring Study, with funding support from the Urban Mass Transportaticxi Administration (UMTA). Unlike other impact studies funded by the federal government (i.e., BART and MARTA) which have attempted to measure a broad range of transportaticMi effects, this impact study will concentrate on more localized changes in travel characteristics, land use development, and socioeconcxnic characteristics.
    [Show full text]