Analysis and Design of Floating
Drydocks
BY ARSHAM AMIRIKIAN,' MEMBER
With the objective of furnishing helpful
data and guides on the design of .floating
drydocks, a comprehensive treatment of the
subject is presented in this paper. In the
development of the design, use is made first
of the conventional approach, then a de-
tailed discussion is given of the most ad-
vanced concepts of analysis. Arrangements
and framing are given in considerable de-
tail not only for steel-flamed docks but
also for those of concrete and timber. In
order to simplify the analytical work, gen-
eral expressions are derived for computing
dock stresses under various conditions of
loading at sea and in docking of ships.
Further design aids are provided in the
form of supplementary design tables and
charts, including a set for coefficients o f
moments and shears in the dock pontoon,
which is considered as an elastic cellular
slab supporting the ship loading.
NOMENCLATURE
T h e following n o m e n c l a t u r e is used in
paper:
A = area of cell in shear c o m p u t a t i o n s
B -- width of p o n t o o n
BM = t r a n s v e r s e m e t a c e n t r i c radius
B1 - w i d t h of dock c h a n n e l
B, = b e a m of vessel to be docked
b -- w i d t h of wingwall
D = t o t a l d e p t h of dock
d - draft of dock
t Special Structures Consultant, B u r e a u of Yards and Docks,
Department of the N a v y , W a s h i n g t o n , D. C.
Presented at the Annual Meeting, N e w York, N. Y.,
November 14-15, 1957, of THE SOCIETY OF NAVAL ARCHITE(~TS AND
MARINE ENGINEERS.
d, = d r a f t of vessel .to be docked
E - m o d u l u s of elasticity
F = freeboard of dock a t m a x i m u m - s u b -
mergence
f = m i n i m u m docking freeboard of p o n t o o n
G = m o d u l u s of elasticity in shear
g = acceleration due to g r a v i t y
H = height of wingwalls a b o v e dock floor
h = d e p t h of p o n t o o n
I = m o m e n t of i n e r t i a
Is = m o m e n t of i n e r t i a of ship in dock
K = keel of dock
K G = vertical distance from K to c e n t e r of
gravity
M = vertical distance from K to t r a n s v e r s e
metacenter
k = m o d u l u s of f o u n d a t i o n , also mass r a d i u s
of g y r a t i o n
L = l e n g t h of dock
L~ = over-all l e n g t h of s u p p o r t i n g blocks
Lw = l e n g t h of wave
l = l e n g t h of plate in cell
M = bending moment
Mt = t o r q u e
M . = b e n d i n g m o m e n t in X - d i r e c t i o n of elastic
slab
My = b e n d i n g m o m e n t in Y-direction of elastic
slab
the M.v = twisting m o m e n t of elastic slab
m = ratio of dock l e n g t h L to dock Width B
P = block load per linear foot of dock
-Q = m o m e n t of cross-sectional a r e a a b o u t
n e u t r a l axis
q = flexural shearing force in shell p l a t e
q' = torsional shearing force in shell plate
r = one half height of wave, also radial dis-
tance in rolling
s = s p a n of p o n t o o n , c e n t e r to center of
wingwalls
t = thickness of shell p l a t i n g
V = shear, also v o l u m e of d i s p l a c e m e n t
Vz -- shear in X - d i r e c t i o n of elastic slab
507
508 ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF FLOATING DRYDOCKS
Vu = shear in Y-direction of elastic slab
We = weight of dock per linear foot
Ws = weight of ship per linear foot
0 = angle of roll or of twist, also a parameter
= Poisson's ratio
INTRODUCTION
Because of their limited field of application,
floating drydocks have received only scanty at-
tention in technical literature. For the same
reason, there is but little information generally
available regarding the m a n y aspects and prob-
lems associated with their analysis and design.
Prior to World W a r II, there were probably less
than a score of floating drydocks in the active.
service of commercial and military establishments
in all the maritime countries of the world. Nor-
mally, repair operations to commercial vessels and
naval fleets are accomplished in waterfront facili-
ties fixed to the shore. These consist mainly of
graving docks and wet slips, in some cases sup-
plemented b y marine railways. With the advent
of modern warfare, the factor of mobility became
an important consideration in the provision of re-
pair facilities. Coupled with this requirement, the
critical time element brought about b y the tre-
mendous and rapid expansions of naval fleet and
marine-transport systems rendered the creation of
the needed additional facilities a problem of prac-
1--DEVELOPMENT
DIMENSIONAL OUTLINE
Functional Concept. A floating dock is a chan-
nel-shaped floating structure, devised b y its con-
trolled buoyancy to lift marine craft out of water
for inspection, maintenance and repair work.
T h e channel is formed by three pontoon-like ele-
ments, one constituting the floor of the dock and
the other two its wingwalls. By controlling the
amount of water ballast contained in the hollow
confines 'of the cellular framing, the dock is sub-
merged or floated to various drafts as required }~y
the operational procedure.
Basic Types. The dock m a y be of either con-
tinuous or segmental arrangement. The continuity
m a y be complete or partial. In the former ease,
the entire framing is assembled together to form
a single rigid body an example of which is sketched
in Fig. l(a). This type is generally designated as
a rigid or unit dock. Those with partial con-
tinuity m a y conform to several variations. Some
m a y have two continuous sidewalls and a detach-
able pontoon composed of single or multiple
tieability in construction which could be best
coped with by the construction of floating docks.
Consequently, a great number of these structures
were built during the war and the emergency
period preceding it.
From design point of view, the framing of a
floating dock presents problems mainly in the
field of structural engineering. Lacking in self-
propulsion, and being towed at relatively low
speeds, shape and arrangement are predicated pri-
marily on considerations of structural efficiency
rather than those normally prevalent in naval
architecture. For the same reason, some of the
concepts of framing and the methods and ap-
proaches used in the analysis of the dock are some-
what slanted toward reflecting the best thinking of
current structural design practices.
The t r e a t m e n t of the subject is given in three
p a r t s . . T h e first part is devoted to a preliminary
design, with the objective of establishing the main
dimensional outline, framing and c o m p a r t m e n t a -
tion arrangement. The second part-is concerned
with a general analysis of flexure of the dock
under docking and sea conditions. The third part
is a detailed analysis of stresses and design of the
framing of the dock. As an aid in the application
of certain phases of the presented analytical proce-
dures, some supplementary data, in the form of
charts and tables, also are given in the Appendix
OF F R A M I N G
segments as shown in Fig. l(b). This is the com-
posite or Rennie type. In others, the dock channel
is subdivided into three segments, but the con-
tinuity of the sidewalls is still maintained b y pro-
viding an overlapping splice between the walls of
the center and end segments as indicated in Fig.
l(d). This arrangement makes possible docking
of the end segments within the center segment, and
also enables lifting of the center segment out of
water b y raising it on top of the wingwalls and
pontoon of the end segments. This is the three-
piece self-docking type Harris dock. Still in some
others, the dock m a y have a closed bow and a
hinged stern gate to form a ship-shaped floating
basin, such as the one shown in Fig. l(f). This is
the A R D - t y p e steel dock developed b y the
Bureau of Vards and Docks.
The truly sectional dock m a y conform to one of
the two shapes sketched in Figs. 1(c) and l(e).
The former typifies the commonly known U-
shaped, non-seagoing y a r d dock, usually built of
timber framing. The latter is a modification of
the basic U-shape for service u s e at advanced
 ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF FLOATING DRYDOCKS
(o) (hi
(d) (e)
FIG. I TYPES OF FLOATING DRY DOCKS: (a) UNIT DOCK; (b) COMPOSITE DOCK; (C) SI~CTIONAL DOCK; (d) THREE-
PIECE DOCK; (e) AB SECTIONALDOCK; (f) SHIP-SHAPEDDOCK
bases and, hence, it is designated as AB-type.
Here, in order to facilitate towing of the segment,
the pontoon is extended beyond the wingwalls to
form a shaped bow and stern. As a further aid in
towing, the wingwalls have a hinged arrangement
to enable their being lowered onto the top of the
pontoon during the sea voyage.
Dimensional Outline. Dimensional characteris-
tics of a floating dock are established b y a number
of considerations which m a y be grouped under two
main headings : (a) Requirements imposed b y the
craft to be docked; and (b) those concerning the
dock itself. T h e first group defines the require-
ments of clearance and lift, governed b y such fac-
tors as m a x i m u m beam, draft and over-all length
of the vessels to be contained in the dock, as well
as their blocking or supported length, their weight
and KG. The second group covers the require-
ments of strength, safety, and stability of the
dock. Except f o r ship-shaped docks, the cross-
sectional outline remains nearly the same through
the length of the dock.. For design purposes, it
will accordingly be satisfactory to consider a sec-
tion of unit width. Such a typical section is
shown in Fig. 2. Here the characteristic dimen-
sions are indicated b y the following.notations: B
and h, the width and depth of the pontoon; b and
H, the width and height of wingwalls above the
dock floor; B1, the width of the dock channel; D,
depth of dock; Bs and d~, the beam and draft of
509
(c)
(f)
the vessel to be docked; a, docking block height;
c, clearance between dock wall and ship; cb
clearance between docking blocks and b o t t o m of
ship; F, freeboard of d o c k at m a x i m u m sub-
mergence; and f, minimum docking, freeboard of
pontoon. With these notations, the main cross-
sectional dimensions m a y be restated as follows
B = B1 + 2b
B1 = B, + 2c
D =H+h
H =d~+a+cl+F
Clearance and freeboard figures are governed
b y practical considerations and operational ex-
perience. T h e following are the m i n i m u m values
normally used in design : c = 5 ft; cl = 2 ft; F =
3.5 ft for docks up to 300 ft in length, with an
additional 6 in. for each 100 ft of added length.
The block height a m a y v a r y from 4 ft to 6 ft.
Again based on operational requirements, the
width of the wingwalls b is made a m i n i m u m of
10 ft, although stability computations m a y dictate
a greater width.
T h e depth of the dock pontoon h is determined
mainly b y lifting requirements. For this purpose,
it is necessary to have the weight of the heaviest
ship to be docked, and also the assumed or esti-
m a t e d weight of the dock. Let Ws indicate the
 310 ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF FLOATING DRYDOCKS
B)
E~s
r_CI r
I I
/\
b
:IX J I
t" \ q
m
u-
FIG. 2 C R O S S S E C T I O N AND C L E A R A N C E D I A G R A M OF F L O A T I N G D O C K
weight of the ship per foot of dock length, and We
the weight of the dock per linear foot, both ex-
pressed in long tons. Then the required draft d,
given in feet, is
d - 35(Ws + W~)
B .......... [11
Adding to this draft the pontoon freeboard, the
total depth of the pontoon is accordingly
h=d+f
There remains one more dimension yet to be
determined; that is, the length of the dock L.
Normally thisis obtained from the over-all length
of the longest ship to be docked, also making al-
lowance for some additional length beyond the
ship, both at bow and stern, to provide working
space. Usually this is accomplished b y extending
the pontoon a short distance beyond the ends of
the wingwalls in the form of an apron or working
platform.
In sectional docks the lifting capacity is specified
for the entire section rather than per linear foot of
dock. Since the section must lift that part of ship
load directly over it, the design load of the section
will be greater than that obtained from average or
distributed weight of the ship; that is, the maxi-
mum local ship load. Accordingly, in,determining
the pontoon depth, the average ship weight W,, in
Equation [1] must be replaced by an average
weight obtained from the maximum ship. load
covering a length equal to the length of the dock
section. In docks with gates, such as shown in
_-Ib
.I
I
I
,.t MAX
DRAFT
//
Fig. l(f), since pontoon freeboard is no longer an
applicable limitation, the depth of pontoon is
governed by structural strength requirements.
For this reason, for the same lifting capacity,
floating docks with gates generally will have a
shallower pontoon than those with open ends.
The length of segments in sectional docks is
governed by requirements of self-docking. This
would limit it to the dimension B1, distance be-
tween wingwalls, less a reasonable'clearance mar-
gin.
FRAMING ARRANGEMENT
Materials of Framing
Floating docks are built normally of steel fram-
ing. Because of critical shortage of steel, as a
consei-vation measure during World War II, the
framings of a number of the docks constructed
during that period were made of timber and some
others of reinforced concrete. While the use of
these two materials did not truly constitute a new
application, since they had been also utilized pre-
viously in a few docks, their large-scale substitu-
tion for steel at that time created certain design
problems which had to be resolved without the
benefit of actual service experience. However, the
generally satisfactory service performance of these
docks observed to date makes it mandatory that
in future designs proper consideration be given to
both concrete and timber as competitive materials
with steel. With this thought, an a t t e m p t will be
made here to cover certain design aspects, which
may differ in accordance with the type of framing
 ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF FLOATING DRYDOCKS
i//
~ RANSVERSE
WALL
SHELL PLATING
FIG. 3 TYPICAL SEGMI~NT OF A CONTINUOUS STEEL DOCK
material, under a separate heading for each of the
three types. In addition, it may be helpful to in-
clude a fourth category under the designation of
composite framing, obtainable b y using differing
materials in the framing of the wingwalls and pon-
toon in a number of possible combinations, such as
(i) concrete pontoon and steel wingwalls, (ii) tim-
ber pontoon and steel wingwalls, and (iii) concrete
pontoon with timber wingwaUs.. The composite
type of framing is generally more advantageous
for use in docks with continuous wingwalls; hence
the prevalence of steel wingwalls in the various
combinations, since that medium readily provides
the-needed flexural strength with a minimum of
framing weight.
311
DETAILED "
ERsE
/ CENTER BULKHEAD
/
Details of Framing
The framing of a dock is arranged to provide
maximum strength with a minimum amount of
materials of framing. In continuous docks,
strength is required both in the longitudinal as well
as in the transverse direction of the dock. Longi-
tudinal strength is obtained primarily through the
wingwalls, and transverse strength is developed
mainly through the pontoon. The basic element
of framing in either direction is furnished b y the
o u t e r skin or shell. This, in turn, is supplemented
with a stiffening system consisting of frames and
bulkheads and, in t h e case of steel docks, by a
series of stringers. While all the docks conform
to the same basic concept of framing, certain de-
312 ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF FLOATING DRYDOCKS

. . . . . . / ~ = = - = - I L . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . J

REINFORCEDPLATE

HOLE IN TRANSVERSI:FRAME
II ij

II II,,,,
SECTION A - A SECTION B-B

,A ' j~l~j B
FILLER PLATES(AS R E Q U I R E D ) , ~) ~
1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ ................. SHE[t e~TING-~___J ...........................1-/-_.._~_" . I
"/ ~1" ~ 11 li~l ,ill, lilt ill, H,, 111 [111.,

STIFFENERS~

TRANSVERSEFRAME TRANSVERSEFRAME.---.

FIG. 4 CONTINUOUS STRINGER AND CONNECTION DETAILS

tails and arrangement differ for each type in ac- ther economy, stringers are made of serrated sec-
cordance with the kind of framing material. T h e tions cut from channel shapes. As shown in Fig. 5,
following is a brief description of the characteris- through the serrated cut the depth of the resulting
tics of each type. two elements is increased b y an amount equal to
(a) Steel Docks. A typical segment Of a con- half the depth of the serration. T h e spacing of
tinuous dock, schematically illustrating the gen- stringers m a y v a r y from 18 to 30 in. depending on
eral framing arrangement, is shown in Fig. 3. T h e location and loading.
segment is taken from a 6000-ton dock whose Transverse Frames. T h e transverse frames ex-
characteristic dimensions are given in the figure. tend from pontoon'into the wingwalls in the form
T h e interior framing is composed of stringers, of open-web trusses. T h e y are spaced at 6 or 8-
transverse frames, and longitudinal and trans- ft intervals, the use of the latter spacing gen-
verse bulkheads. The details are designed for all- erally resulting in more economical framing. In
welded construction (1). 2 the wingwalls a K - t y p e arrangement of truss web-
Stringers. The stringers span longitudinally bing is used. However, the webbing is omitted
and provide direct support to the shell plating in above the safety deck to provide operational clear-
transmitting the load to the transverse frames. ance, and thus the framing becomes a composite
In addition, they serve as stiffeners to the flange truss-Vierendeel bent.
plating of the frames and also furnish a p a r t of the In the pontoon, a truss of either P r a t t or Warren
cross-s.ectional area of the dock in longitudinal type is utilized. The two arrangements,, together
bending. The continuity required for longitudinal with typical joint details, are shown in Fig. 6. T h e
strength is equally beneficial for local flexure be- sections to be used for truss chords and web m e m -
tween frames. The details of connection for the bers of the frames depend on the adopted type of
desired continuity are shown in Fig. 4. For fur- joint detail. In general, the various methods of
interconnection can be grouped under two head-
Numbers in parentheses refer to the Bibliography at the end of
the paper. ings: (a) lap type, and (b) b u t t type. T h e former,
 ANALYSIS AND
.,,d ~1
3" r-oR :2" ANO :5" c~,/-t -1- . . . . . . . . .
2" FOR OTHERS'**"
FIG. 5 TYPICAL SHELL-PANEL SHOWING SERRATED STRINGERS
which is the simpler of the two methods of connec-
tion, is illustrated b y the details shown in Figs.
6(e), (f), and (g) and the latter is typified b y the
detail sketched in. Fig. 6(d). When a lap-type
jointing is used, it will be necessary to use built-up
angle sections for chords and T-shape sections for
the web members. However, in the wall frames,
where the chord stresses are relatively small, T-
sections m a y be used also for the chord, in which
case the web members m a y be connected by gus-
set plates welded to the backs of the T's, as shown
in Fig. 6(h). When a butt-type connection detail
is adopted, the web members m a y consist of either
H or T-sections, and the chords of T-sections,
either cut from I or H-sections or built up from
two plates.
Obviously, b u t t - t y p e connections are more dif-
ficult for fit-up and welding than those of the lap
type. On the other hand, lapped connections in-
troduce some secondary stresses owing to the
joint eccentricity in a direction normal to the plane
of the frame.
Bulkheads. The bulkheads consist of stiffened
plating. Longitudinally there are three bulk-
heads; one main watertight bulkhead located on
the longitudinal centerline of the pontoon, and one
at each wingwall, either watertight or nonwater-
tight, depending on stability condition. Trans-
versely, watertight bulkheads extend from within
the pontoon into the wingwalls. Their spacing
will vary in accordance with the adopted com-
partmentation f o r pumping.
DESIGN OF FLOATING DRYDOCKS 313
2424
------ ............... I
TYPICAL CHANNEL ,SERRATE
PLATE
Safety Deck. Location of the safety deck is
governed by the weight and b y the height of free-
board at maximum submergence. In steel docks
it is placed in the upper part of the wingwalls, at a
distance below the top deck sufficient for the de-
sired operational clearance. For this reason, its
elevational location may vary in different parts of
the dock.
(b) Concrete Docks. A typical cross section,
taken from a poured-in-place concrete dock of
6000 tons lifting capacity, is shown in ]Fig. 7.
Here the transverse frames are located 6 ft on
centers. In order to simplify its construction, no
diagonals are used in the frames, thus resulting in
a Vierendeel bent both in the walls and in the
pontoon. For the same reason, beams or stringers
are omitted from shell and deck slabs which are
supported directly on the frames.
Because of the relatively heavy weight of the
framing, the light draft and pontoon depth are con-
siderably greater than the corresponding values
in a steel dock of the same lifting capacity.
There are three longitudinal bulkheads in the
pontoon, one along the centerline and one at each
wingwall. T h e y are of watertight construction
and extend continuously from end to end of the
dock. The transverse bulkheads in the pontoon
and wingwalls consist of rib-stiffened slabs, span-
ning between the shell slabs.
The safety deck in the wingwalls is usually lo-
cated at dock-floor level. In some instances, this
may necessitate a controlled height of ballast
 C R A N ~ CLIPSWELDEDTOBEARINGPLATES oq

DETAILC ~'-'. /RAIL

BEARINGPLATES
24"OC
WELDEDTODECKPLATE

~ D~TA,LD --~,'" 7~ I/2" EXTRA-HEAVY

PI~
7~ STRUCTURATEE
L ~ H 1;
/ \ 7~
\ /
]r /'E'LL~ WEL~ AS SHOWN
>
/\ Z',. SHELLPLATING
~
H I~----STR~T~'AL TEE
>
L (c) .
TYPICAL TRANSVERSE FRAME TYPICAL TRANSVERSE FRAME
TYPE1 TYPE2
(a) (b) DETAIL C
>

1 Lf- ~ "~ ~lt~l 7I 1 BEVELSTEML.

"~ ~. ~
'1 .,,. ~,
/ ~ ~ OF ALLtEES
I
c~
2~
: i ~ (<l) 0

0
SECTION >
~H
DETAIL A METHOD 3 DETAIL B
:Z
C~
41 ~..- ~1 e'
- l
J. BEVELSTEMIfJ/~JI I ,~"i' ~4
i +o, ALITEESr I III ~ STRUCTURATEE
L
0
FIAt~[H~
E Ew
~L /F FILLsETSHO~S "" SHELLPLATING
~ ~t"
~-~-GdSSETp~:AT~~
-#..
r~
// ,
TEES ~'~__ ~6_L i STRUCTURATEE
L
SECTION STRUCTURATEES
L SECTION
DETAIL A METHOD2 DETAIL A METHOD 1
(f) (g) (h)
FIG. 6 TYPICAL JOINT DETAILS OF TRANSVERSE FRAMES FOR STEEL FLOATING DOCK
 ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF FLOATING DRYDOCKS 315

water in the pontoon during maximum sub- each wingwall. While it is common practice to
mergence. This is accomplished by means of provide a center bulkhead in all docks, additional
draft piping arranged to entrap air under the bulkheads longitudinally may or may not be re-
pontoon deck. I n construction, the contractor is quired for stability alone. In so far as longi-
generally given the option to precast part or all of tudinal stab!lity is concerned, this i s seldom a
the transverse frames and some of the bulkheads. problem in unit docks and, for this reason, the
(c) Timber Docks. Because of difficulties in- arrangement of transverse bulkheads is influenced
herent in jointing, it is not practicable to develop by the other two considerations.
full continuity and the corresponding strength in From an operational point of view, compart-
unit docks of timber framing. For this reason, mentation is devised to provide an economical
timber-framed docks are usually of the sectional pumping system, easily adaptable to trim and
type. In the fewer applications of the continuity listing of the dock, and, in case of accidental dam-
concept to timber docks, both the over-all length age and the resulting flooding, n o t subject to
and the capacity o I the dock are limited to rela- serious conditions of instability and submergence.
tively smaller values. A typical cross section of For this condition it may be assumed that any two
such a dock is shown in Fig. 8. The dock is 240 ft adjacent compartments would be flooded due to
long, and has a lifting capacity of 1000 tons. accidental damage.
Frames. In timber docks the transverse frames Three typical arrangements are shown in Fig. 9.
are spaced 4 ft on centers. Here the arrangement These are unit docks, exemplifying three kinds of
consists of a tapering-depth pontoon truss and a framing: Fig. 9(a), a steel dock of 6000 tons lifting
cross-braced Wingwall frame. Chord splices and capacity, subdivided into 16 compartments; Fig.
web-to-chord jointing are made b y means of bolts 9(b), a 3000-ton-capacity concrete dock, sub-
and split-ring connectors. divided into 12 compartments; and Fig. 9(c), a
Shell. The skin consists of a main layer of 4-in. 1000-ton timber dock, with 20 compartments. Of
planking, spanning longitudinally between the the relatively larg e number of compartments in
frames. In the wingwalls, in order to provide the timber dock, the peripheral 12-tanks serve to
added shear strength, the horizontal planking is minimize collision flooding, and also facilitate the
supplemented b y an underlying layer of 2-in. listing operations. The pumping, however, is
diagonal sheathing. Planking of greater thick- accomplished by means of only four p u m p s - - t w o
nesses are utilized at the keel, bilges and near top on each side of the dock.
of wingwaUs to furnish added longitudinal In sectional docks, generally, each segment is
strength. subdivided into six compartments through a
Bulkheads. There are three watertight longi- central longitudinal bulkhead and two interior
tudinal bulkheads, located at the pontoon center- transverse bulkheads. An arrangement of this
line and at each wingwall, composed of 6-in. plank- type is shown in Fig. 10(a). In some docks, the
ing and assembled together with tongue-and- segment may have only two compartments by the
groove jointing. The transverse bulkheads are omission of the watertight trmlsverse bulkheads
similarly arranged. as shown in Fig. 10(b). Still in others, there m a y
There is no interior safety deck in timber docks, be provided a dry compartment, located at the
since the water level inside the wingwalls remains longitudinal eenterline of the pontoon, to serve as
below that of the outside water. As a matter of a buoyancy chamber and also to house machinery
fact, in order to submerge the dock to its maxi- and pumping equipment. This is the scheme
mum draft, it is necessary to increase its light utilized in Advance-Base-type sectional docks, as
framing b y some additional weight, generally in illustrated in Fig. 10(c). In this case, the dry
the form of concrete ballast placed at the bottom chamber itself is subdivided into three tier com-
of the pontoon. partments b y means of two interior decks.
F

COMPARTMENTATION
Compartmentation o f a dock is predicated on
three considerations: (a) stability, (b) pumping,
and (c) damage control.
In order to assure transverse stability, the pon-
toon is subdivided longitudinally into two or more
compartments. For this purpose, there is pro-
vided a watertight bulkhead along the Idiagi-
tudinal centerline of the pontoon, supplemented by
a longitudinal bulkhead under the inner shell of
2--ANALYSIS
CONDITIONS OF LOADING
General Considerations. A floating dock being
a device for lifting vessels out of water, the main
source of stress is derived from conditions inciden-
tal to docking operations. These are designated as
docking loads or docking conditions. There is
also a supplementary source of stress which is ob-
tained when the dock is transferred b y towing
 0,1
oh
13'
"T,,

t t
INBOARD SHELL
-",'--'-8"x 1 4 " MAXIMUM DRAFT
"-- 1'4" >
~-- 1'2" 51,~',--~ BILGE BLOCK RUNNER TO BE :z
I! 8"x12" ~ i 4---- 8"xl 0" WOOD FENDERS ENGINE ROOM FLUSH WITH TOP OF DOCK
OR FLOOR. PROVIDE SCUPPER
STRUCTURAL SHOP FOR DRAINAGE
8"x16" ~
\ BILGE BLOCK
SOFT WOOD CAP
5" -'*" >
~.. - ,-- 1'4" :z

c~
[ 8"x12" ,i ~.
b

L

~=~

~....--u--x2o-- B 4-~ ~o
-o - " - - "- 2'2" ~ SHELL "1 0
~ ' ~ DOCK FLOOR /rE
...-~. JLIHEAD .
I0 4 ~.. . . . . . . -;;
" !I 0>
::::_-_-_-s---::~8,,x30.
~. . . . . . . . ~ ' t ~ TAIR HOLE
/t ~'\ / \'/ \
8'x30"
8"x30" ~ 8"x20" ~ 8"x20" ~ 8"x30"
6"--" ..- 2'-,.-- --- ~-~I ",--1'8" 6 " -* SECTION SECTION
--" ~ 2 ' 9 " -I' ~ 1' ! --el.- A-A
- 2'6" B-B
! ~ ~o , 8"x30"
0C~
-* ~ 6 " ~ I ~ DRAIN HOLES
f \/ OUTBOARD SHELL

Ln
BILGE 3' RADIUS
' ' I*,
BI-I kl~_ J i ] ,
11'3" ~ 11'3" : : 11 '6"
13' - - = 34' . . . . ~ SYMMETRICAL ABOUT ~.
4"/, IEXCEPT AS SHOWN.
94'

FIG. 7 TYPICAL TRANSVERSE FRAME FOR A 6000-TON CONCRETE FLOATING DOCK

 ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF FLOATING DRYDOCKS 317

6"x12" ~ 3"x8" PLANKING ~::::~..14 CONN

~ I BOLT

' 6"xB BLOCK l iJ BLOCKS

"cUT TO BEAR
! ~6"xI0" CLAMP ~ . ~ " ~ BOLTS
~ m~'~"x3" STRAP "
BLOCK
e- ~'4"x14 ' DIAGONALS

w Z
3"x8" PLANKING 6"xl 4" ~ 4 ~ 1 / 4"x8"6
i~ CONNBOLTsBLOCKS
2" DIAGONAL
z
Z
,~
. SHEATHING
0 :~
U " X SECTION A-A (AS SHOWN)
ALL DIAGONALS SECTION B-B (SIMILAR)
TO BEAR ON
HORIZONTAL STRUTS FIVE
SYMMETRICAL ABOUT 10"x10"
KEEL
PLANKING BLOCK

ll - - 2 4 ' 3 ~ "

[-~B .
4"x8" PLANKING
x
KEEL BLOCKS-

AIR VENT, ONE REQUIREDk

I-~A
TRACKS

l~h" AIR HOLES FOR EACH TANKI ~'~

" TWO 6"x14" . - o q : : . ~ I .':, '.~' ', ':: ::.

TWO
4"x 16"
SPUCE

G"xl0" PLANKING~f / ~

I
6" WT BULKHEADI / 6" INT SWASI"1
BULKHEAD
~" ~ DB x 2'6" STAGGERED a ~ ' B / NK'NG / Two
~v I" SHEATHING I" SHEATHING ~ A 6-xlO"
/ FIVE 8"x10"
2' CCTHROUGHOUT 4"x12" BoI"rOM CREOSOTED CREOSOTED PLANKING
PLANKING BETWEEN THESE LINES AND SHIP FELT AND SHIP FELT WT BULKHEAD

FIG. 8 TYPICAL TRANSVERSE FRAME FOR A TIMBER FLOATING DOCK

from one location to another. The loads resulting
from these conditions are called sea loads.
Docking Conditions. The upper part of Fig. 11
shows four conditions of loading in a docking
operation. I n Fig. 11 (a) the dock is shown afloat
at light draft. This may be considered as the
minimum water load condition, consisting of the
light-draft net buoyancy forces acting" on the pon-
toon. In Fig. l l(b) the dock is submerged at
maximum draft. This is the condition for the
maximum water loading on the safety deck and
the wingwall framing located above it. In Fig.
l l ( c ) the dock is emerging out of water, partially
supporting the vessel on its blocking. This is the
period of critical stability which prevails until the
dock floor is out of water. In Fig. 11 (e) the dock
is pumped dry, with the vessel on its blocks. This
is the condition for maximum docking load.
Sea Conditions. In the lower part of Fig. 11 are
shown three conditions of loading while the dock
is being towed at sea. In Fig. ll(f.) .the dock is in
a hogging wave, with the wave crest at the trans-
verse centerline. This is the hogging condition.
In Fig. ll(g) the dock is in a sagging wave, with a
518 ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF FLOATING DRYDOCKS

.,, 448,_ o,, _ . . . . . . .

r
q i

,I
::i .......................

(a)
a)
CONTINUOUS WINGWALLS

389'-0"

I
T~
i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

?1
"1
I ............................... (b)

i
(b) 240'-0"

TI
240'-0"

i
I
! i

i_
(c)
FIG. 9 TYPICALARRANGEMENTS OF COMPARTMENTATIONS
IN UNIT DOCKS: (a) 6000-TON
CONCRETE; (C) 1 0 0 0 - T O N T I M B E R
wave crest a t b o w and stern and the wave through
amidships. This is the sagging condition. In
Fig. l l ( h ) t h e dock is in a quartering wave, with
a wave crest at port bow and starboard stern, and
the wave trough crossing the centerlines of the
dock at an angle of 45 deg. This is the condition
of maximum torque, accompanied b y antisym-
metrical bending of the wingwalls and pontoon,
dynamic stresses due to rolling, and by some sag-
ging flexure.
DOCKING MOMENTS
Conventional Approach
The important stresses under docking conditions
occur in the pontoon. The governing condition is
that of a heavy ship on blocks and the dock
pumped dry, as shown in Fig. 12(a), where P is
the load.per linear foot of dock. An average value
of P is obtained by dividing the total ship load
Ws by the over-all length LB of supporting blocks.
Also, the average or design draft
35(Ws + WD) . . . . . . . . . .
d ..... =
(i
J
,, ,, -it 1
. ~ OI L TANKS
SEGT. I - I
STEEL; (b) 3000-TON
(c)
FIG. 10 T Y P I C A L A R R A N G E M E N T S OF C O M P A R T M E N T A -
TIONS OF S E C T I O N A L D O C K S
in which W~ is the weight of the dock (including
contained water), and B and L the width and
length of the dock, respectively. In this expres-
sion W , and Ws are in tons, and B, L and da,.g are
in ft. Then, the loading on a typical transverse
strip of dock 1 ft wide will consist of a concentrated
load P applied at the centerline of the section and
a uniformly distributed load Wd, representing the
net buoyancy force; that is, the buoyancy force
reduced by the dead weight and the contained
water per foot of the strip.
Here the concentrated block loading from the
ship is balanced by the net buoyancy force of the
dock, essentially b y transverse bending of the
dock. In conventional design approach certain
simplifying assumptions are made regarding both
the load distribution and the mode of flexure of
the pontoon. For this purpose, it is first assumed
[2] that the total ship load is uniformly distributed
BL over the supporting blocks; then, in order to pro-
 ;>.

(c) (d) . (e)

(b)
D O C K I N G C O N D I T i 0 N S
U

L \ r /Jo w, C~

j
(f) H 0 G G I N G
0

rPORT
I ~
I
~ .~ .-:-- ----,-- , - - ~ . _ ~ .

ELEVATION 0
(cJ) S'AGG I N G (h) T O R S I O N

S E A C O N D I T I O N S
FIG. i i LOADINGCONDITIONS OF FLOATING DOCK

Oq
 320 ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF FLOATING DRYDOCKS

' , W3/FT "~

imllillimJmuiiHimliliill i~ lalllllllhlllllllllllllllttllillillllil
\ I\ I\ / I /I _/
rlilllrlllml iillllillliltllllllliililllliillll !lllli~lllllll
R,I '~.w=/FT R, (b)
LI-" S Ir 1

-
P _P P -

(c)

; -

\ FIG. 12 LOAD CONDITIONS DURING DOCKING OF SHIP

V//I. (d)

vide a measure of compensation for the nonuni- ].25 w~

formity, the average block load thus obtained is
increased b y a factor of 1.25. I t is also assumed
t h a t the weight of the dock is uniformly dis-
tributed through its length, and t h a t the draft is
the same everywhere. With these assumptions,
the design block load becomes
P - L. ............. [31
corresponding to the average draft, and a balanc-
ing reaction R, applied at the center of each wing-
wall. The system, shown in Fig. 12(a), will pro-
duce simple truss stresses in the frame, accom-
panied b y local bending of the b o t t o m plating,
 ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF FLOATING DRYDOCKS
,..._._.... - ,....,..-.-""
~ 1
F---
I ~ ,_
CENTER OF END
BLOCK
FIG. 13
stringers and chord members. In some cases it
also may be necessary to investigate the stresses
resulting from the condition of loading indicated in
Fig. 12(b). Here, due to the water on the dock
floor, there will be local bending in both top and
bottom chords of the truss frame. As a further
variation, a part of the ship load may be trans-
mitted to the dock through the bilge blocks. The
load P will then be divided into three com-
ponents. Two such conditions generally investi-
gated in design are shown in Figs. 12(c) and (d).
In unit docks, the load P is used for the design
of frames in the longitudinal middle half of the
dock. For the frames in the end quarters of the
dock, it is taken as the average ship blOck load,
that is, 4/5 P, since that load was increased b y a
factor of 5/6.
In addition to the transverse bending of the
dock pontoon, there is some flexure in the longi-
tudinal direction of the dock due to nonuniform
weight distribution of the ship. This is obtained
by simple beam bending of the dock as a unit.
For this purpose, after balancing gravity and
buoyancy forces, a net load curve is drawn or
computed, from which the shears and moments
are determined by the usual method of successive
summations.
Elastic Slab Method
The flexural maalysis of the pontoon b y the con-
ventional approach will result in a very conserva-
321
[ 1
[ i_._
I O,ST,isu rEo
SH,P LOAD --.--
GURVE 1
SHIP
L
LOADING ON BLOCKS
~0!
A
BLOC~~
SPAGI NG
LOADED BLOCK LENGTH 02
SHIP LOAD CURVE AND DOCK BLOCK LOADING
tire design. This is due to two basic considera-
tions: (a) The method used to determine the de-
sign block load; and (b) the assumed unidirec-
tional bending of the pontoon under block loading.
Neither of these two assumptions has a realistic
basis.
(a) Block Loading. The determination of the
imposed ship load at each and every block is a
highly complex problem. I t is a function of the
bending of the ship and the dock and the unequal
compression or yielding of the interposed blocking
system. If we should neglect the deflections of the
dock with reference to the ship, and this is a
reasonable assumption--since ordinarily the dock
is much stiffer than the ship, then the problem will
reduce to the relatively simpler case of bending of
a steel beam on an elastic foundation, the former
representing the ship's structure and the latter the
timber blocking.
A treatment of the elastic foundation problem
is given b y Timoshenko (2). In this concept it is
assumed that the distribution of reaction forces on
an elastic foundation, which supports a loading
transmitted through an elastic m e m b e r , is pro-
portional to the deflections of the foundation.
The deflections are given b y the expression
p -a=
y = 803E I e (Cos 13x + Sin Bx) . . . . [4]
in which y is the deflection, so a concentrated load
on the supported member, I the moment of inertia
322 ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF FLOATING DRYDOCKS

TABLE 1.VALUES OF FUNCTIONS USEDIN EQUATIONS [4] AND [6]

Functions of ~, ff a n d 0 ~ = eL~x(Cos Bx -- Sin fix)

= e-Ox(Cos # x + S i n #x) 0 = e - a x Cos Bx
o ~x ~ 0

0 1.0000 --1.0000 1.0000 3.55 --0.0378 0.0150 -0.0264

0.05 0.9976 --0.9025 0.9500 3.60 --0.0366 0.0124 -0.0245
0.10 0.9907 --0.8100 0.9003 3.65 --0.0354 0.0100 -0.0227
0.15 0.9797 --0.7224 0.8510 3.70 --0.0341 0.0079 -0.0210
0.20 0.9651 --0.6398 0.8024 3.75 --0.0327 0.0058 --0.0193
0.25 0.9473 --0.5619 0.7546 3.80 --0.0314 0.0040 -0.0177
0.30 0.9267 --0.4888 0.7077 3.85 --0.0300 0.0023 -0.0162
0.35 0.9036 --0.4203 0.6620 3.90 --0.0286 0.0008 -0.0147
0.40 0.8784 --0.3564 0.6174 3.95 --0.0272 --0.0006 -0,0133"
0.45 0.8515 --0.2968 0.5742 4.00 --0.0258 --0.0019 -0.0120
0.50 0.8231 --0.2415 0.5323 4.05 --0.0244 --0.0030 -0,0107
0.55 0.7934 --0.1903 0.4919 4.10 --0.0231 --0.0040 -0,0095
0.60 0.7628 --0.1431 0.4530 4.15 --0.0217 --0.0049 -0,0084
0.65 0.7315 --0.0997 0.4156 4.20 --0.0204 --0.0057 -- O, 0074
0.70 0.6997 --0.0599 0.3798 4.25 --0.0191 --0.0064 - O, 0064
0.75 0.6676 --0.0236 0.3456 4.30 --0.0179 --0.0070 -0,0054
0.80 0.6354 0.0093 0.3131 4.35 --0.0166 --0.0075 -0,0046
0.85 0.6032 0.0390 0.2821 4.40 --0.0155 --0.0079 -0.0038
0.90 0.5712 0.0657 0.2527 4.45 --0.0141 --0.0081 -0.0030
0.95 0.5395 0.0896 0.2250 4.50 --0.0132 --0.0085 --0.0023
1.00 0.5083 0.1108 0.1988 4.55 --0.0121 --0.0087 --0.0017
1.05 O.4777 0.1294 0.1741 4.60 --0.0111 --0.0089 --0.0011
1.10 0.4476 0.1457 0.1510 4.65 --0.0101 --0.0089 -0.0006
1.15 0.4184 0.1597 0.1293 4.70 --0.0092 --0.0090 --0.0001
I: 20 0.3899 0.1716 0.1091 4.75 --0.0083 --0.0090 0.0003
1.25 0.3622 0.1815 0.0903 4.80 --0.0075 --0.0089 0.0007
1.30 0.3355 0.1897 0.0729 4.85 --0.0067 --0.0088 0.0011
1.35 0.3097 0.1962 0.0568 4.90 --0.0059 --0.0087 0.0014
1.40 0.2849 0.2011 0.0419 4.95 --0.0052 --0.0086 0.0017
1245 0.2611 0.2046 0.0283 5.00 --0.0045 --0.0084 0.0019
1.50 0.2384 0.2068 0.0158 5.05 --0.0039 --0.0082 0.0021
1.55 0.2166 0.2078 0.0044 5.10 --0.0033 --0.0080 0.0023
1.60 0.1959 0.2077 0.0059 5.15 --0.0028 --0.0077 0.0025
1.65 0.1762 0.2066 0.0152 5.20 --0.0023 --0.0075 0.0026
1.70 0.1576 0.2047 --0.0235 5.25 --0.0018 --0.0072 0.0027
1.75 0.1400 0.2020 --0.0310 5.30 --0.0014 --0.0069 0.0028
1.80 0.1234 0.1985 --0.0376 5.35 --0.0010 --0.0066 0.0028
1.85 0.1078 0.1945 --0.0433 5.40 --0.0006 --0.0064 0.0029
1.90 0.0932 0.1899 --0.0484 5.45 --0.0003 --0.0061 0.0029
1.95 0.0795 0.1848 --0.0527 5.50 0.0000 --0.0058 0.0029
2.00 0.0667 0.1794 --0.0563 5.55 0.0003 --0.0055 0.0029
2.05 0.0549 0.1736 --0.0594 5.60 0.0005 --0.0052 0.0029
2.10 0.0439 0.1675 --0.0618 5.65 0.0008 --0.0049 0.0028
2.15 0.0337 0.1612 --0.0638 5.70 0.0010 --0.0046 0.0028
2.20 0.0244 0.1548 --0.0552 5.75 0.0011 --0.0044 0.0027
2.25 0.0241 0.1399 --0.0579 5.80 0.0013 --0.0041 0.0027
2.30 0.0080 0.1416 --0.0668 5.85 0.0014 --0.0038 0.0026
2.35 0.0008 0.1349 --0.0670 5.90 0.0015 --0.0036 0.0025
2.4O --0.0056 0.1282 --0.0669 5.95 0.0016 --0.0033 0.0025
2.45 --0.0114 0.1215 --0.0665 6.00 0.0017 --0.0031 0.0024
2.50 --0.0166 0.1149 --0.0658 6.05 0.0017 --0.0028 0.0023
2.55 --0.0213 0.1084 --0.0648 6.10 0.0018 --0.0026 0.0022
2.60 --0.0254 0.1019 --0.0636 6.15 0.0018 --0.0024 0.0021
2.65 --0.0289 0.0956 --0.0623 6.20 0.0018 --0.0022 0.0020
2.70 --0.0320 0.0895 --0.0608 6.25 0.0019 --0.0020 0.0019
2.75 --0.0347 0.0835 --0.0591 6.30 0.0019 --0.0018 0.0018
2.80 --0.0369 0.0777 --0.0573 6.35 0.0019 --0.0016 0.0017
2.85 --0.0388 0.0720 --0.0554 6.40 0.0018 --0.0015 0.0016
2.90 --0.0403 0.0660 --0.0534 6.45 0.0018 --0.0013 0.0016
2.95 0.0414 0.0613 --0.0514 ~x ~ 0
3.00 --0.0423 0.0563 --0.0493 6.50 0'.0018 --0.0011 0.0015
3.05 --0.0428 0.0515 --0.0472 , 6.55 0.0018 --0.0010 0.0014
3.10 --0.0431 0.0469 --0.0450 6.60 0.0017 --0.0009 0.0013
3.15 --0.0432 0.0425 --0.0428 6.65 0.0017 --0.0007 0.0012
3.20 --0.0431 0.0383 --0.0407 6.70 0.0016 --0.0006 0.0011
3.25 --0.0427 0.0344 --0.0385 6.75 0.0016 --0.0005 0.0010
3.30 --0.0422 0.0306 --0.0364 6.80 0.0015 --0.0004 0.0010
3.35 --0.0416 0.0270 .--0.0343 6.85 0.0015 --0.0003 0.0009
3.40 --0.0408 0.0237 --0.0323 6.90 0.0014 --0.0002' 0.0008
3.45 --0.0399 0.0206 --0.0302 6.95 0.0013 --0.0002 0.0008
3.50 --0.0389 0.0177 --0.0283 7.00 0.0013 --0.0001 0.0007
 ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF FLOATING DRYDOCKS 325

ELASTIC SLAB

" U~loa
~ CENTER OF
WINGWALL
I

P
X

I
,,, ' / LONGITUDINAL
. AXIS
Y
" OF P O N T OO1~ J

1
, I

S
i / A N Y TRANSVERSE
r AxIS IN ELASTIC I~
X SLAB
L
FIG. 14 Co-ORDINATE SYSTEM FOR DOCK PONTOON BENDING AS AN ELASTIC SLAB

of the member,, E its modulus of elasticity, and due to the overhanging weight of the ship and the
the term/3 indicating the relation end block load, indicated b y P0 and P1 in Fig. 13,
( k ~ 1/4 is as follows
/3 = \ 4 E ? ] ..... '. . . . . . . . [5] e-t3z
Yl - 2~3E I [P0 + P1 Cos/3x
where k is a constant, called the modulus of the
+/3P0 a(Cos Bx - Sin B x ) . . . . [61
foundation.
In applying this-concept to the block-loading In this expression, the x distances for the other
problem, first it will be necessary to define the loads are measured from center of the end block.
values of k and I. In this case k will represent the As an aid in these Computations, the .expressions
so-called spring constant of the timber-block as- e -~x (Cos/3x + Sin/3x), e-~* Cos/3x, and
semblies; t h a t is, the required force per unit area e-a* (Cos 13x - Sin j3x)
to cause a unit elastic deflection of the blocks.
have been computed for various values of/3x, in
This will then be simply the modulus of elasticity
increments of 0.05, and are given in Table 1.
of the wood used for blocking, taken in a direction
(b) P o n t o o n M o m e n t s . The flexural behavior
normal to the grain, since the segments are ar-
of the pontoon under block loading is essentially
ranged horizontally. This modulus m a y v a r y from
t h a t of a cellular elastic slab, where the floor and
one tenth to one twentieth of the modulus of elas-
plating serve as flanges, and the frames and bulk-
ticity of the wood along the axis of the grain. For
heads act as web members in the transverse and
[, it will be satisfactory to use I,, the average
longitudinal directions. By neglecting the small
cross-sectional m o m e n t of inertia of the ship be-
rotational restraint exerted b y the wingwalls, the
tween the'end blocks. I t is also to be noted that,
pontoon m a y be considered as an .unrestrained
the docking keel blocks being located 6 ft on cen-
slab, simply supported on the wingwalls, with a
ters along the longitudinal eenterline of the dock
span s, extending from center to center of the
floor, the load P will correspondingly represent 6
walls.
ft of ship load, assumed to be concentrated at the
The general solution of this problem is given b y
center of each block. Also, the term x in {he deflec-
Nadai (3), Westergaard (4) and Timoshenko (5).
tion expression, Equation [4], represents the dis-
By using Westergaard's approach, and referring
tance from a load point where the reaction is to be
to Fig. 14, the moments and shears per unit width
computed to any other load point. The total
of cross section can be expressed as follows
block load is then obtained b y summing up the
reactions due to all the loads, t h a t is, b y sub- ~1 4- Ulog A (1 -- U)Y
stituting for x in Equation [4] the proper value M~ = k-g;-~ B + 8s
corresponding to each load.
At the end blocks, the expression for deflection Sin h tsr y\[B1 - A ) I P = C~P .... [7]
324 ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF FLOATING DRYDOCKS

['l+u A (1 - - t~)Y due to wave action. These consist of (a) hogging

M~ = t _ - - g ~ log. B 8s and sagging moments arid the accompanying
shears, and (b) torque combined with flexure, when
Sinh s\B-- P = CuP . . . . [8] the dock is at an angle to the waves. In analyzing
these stresses, it is satisfactory to assume the dock
Sin --
weight to be uniformly distributed along its
length. With this assumption, the required
mzy (' gs- [ s analytical work becomes primarily a problem for
Sin['(x? v)]) determining certain properties of the areas of the
wave profile with reference to calm-water level.
+ B P = C, vP . . . . [9] Hogging and Sagging
The wave considered in sea-stress computations
(1 ~- u) y ( S i n [ ~ (7xA v)] is a trochoidal wave, the geometric formation of
M%y = _ _ which is shown in Fig. 15(a). The co-ordinates
of this curve, with reference to axes X and Y are
Sin[~'(x? v)]) given b y the following relations
-- B P = C'.vP . . . . . [10] x = RO+rSinO} [13]
y = Cos 0 ..........
where r, the radius of the small circle, indieates
one half the wave height, that is, the height of the
V~ . . . . A
wave crest above the calm water level, and the
equal depth of the trough below the same' level;
R, the radius of the large circle, equals Lw/2r, and
+ ~ s .... 0 is a parameter.
Assuming the wave erest to be at midship of the
V u = -- ~ S i n h -- = C~v-.s . . . . [12] dock and the trough at stern, the curve A B C will
then represent one half the profile of a hogging
in which wave on the dock. As ean be noted, the curve is
not symmetrical with reference to the X-axis.
A = Csh~r-ZYs + C s l Y ( X - s v) 1 Consequently, the wave-profile area AOB lo-
cated below that axis does not equal area BCD
above it. The former area represents hydrostatic
B = Cosh Zrys.- C s [ ~ r ( x s + v ) ] underpressures, or negative buoyaney forees, and
the latter, overpressures or positive buoyaney
u = Poisson's ratio forees. The extent of unbalance, determined by
integrating the two areas, is as follows
To obtain the final values at a given point, a
summation must be made of the values due to eaeh p~/2
Area AOB = .~, y6x
and every load on the pontoon. However, the
loads located at distances greater than 2s from
the point under consideration will have a negligible = rj o Cos0(R60 + r C o s 0 6 0 )
effect and thus may be omitted from computa-
tions. In order to simplify the analytical work,
numerical coefficients have been computed for a = [Rr Sin 0 +
series of loads, placed at various locations on the 1
pontoon. Certain of these values, covering prac- r2(~ SinOCosO + ~ O ) l : / 2 . . [14]
tical ranges of dock pontoon widths, are given
~r 2
in the .Appendix in chart form. These are for = Rr + - ~ -
the loads on the centerline. Similar charts giving
the values for loads off the centerline can be ob- and
tained from the Society. ~-r 2
AreaBCD = -Rr + ~-
SBA MOMENTS
Aceordingly, in order to balanee the two areas, the
Nature of Stresses referenee axis X must be lowered a distanee d',
At sea, unit docks are subject to major stresses equal to
 ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF FLOATING DRYDOCKS ' 325

'n'R d

Xm

I--F

(Q)

i /

(b)

\ ...-v / ]

L
L

(c)
FIG. 15 WAVE FORMS: (a) TROCHOIDAL WAVE; (b) COSINB WAVE (HOGGING); (C)
CosmB WAVB (SAGGING)

27rr 2 L ~rr 2 equal Rr, which is the area obtainable from a co-
d ' = - + = [15] sine curve.
4 2- L .........
Substitution of a cosine curve for a trochoid will
W i t h this correction, each area will a p p r o x i m a t e l y greatly simplify the derivations of shear and
526 ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF FLOATING DRYDOCKS

IA~\ i \
~,.<,1
\ ....... ,,>,,
-,.~
\ !~/ I "~./v\
L

Cos= e STBD SIDE--~ / ""

)RAFTS
(a)

r Cos (0*~1 i ["-PORT SIDE

(L+ B)G
2Tr
[ pB2X(,LB)r F^,
M~'- ~ - T C - ) ~ L=me(,-cost<i- si.cxcose]o
TORQUE
(b)
. - - T - -
d ' = - r(l+m)2mw I+Cos l'~mSin ~-~ - Sin ~ I-Cos

LOA'D
-f- (c)

SHEAR
(d)

MOMENT
/e)
FIG. 16 LOADS, MOMENTSAND SHEARS UNDER QUARTERING WAVES
 ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF FLOATING DRYDOCKS 527

m o m e n t computations. For practical design pur- latter figure the ordinates y and y,, indicate the
poses, this is an entirely satisfactory approxima- draft at port and starboard walls in a transverse
tion. With a cosine curve, the co-ordinates of the cross section. The expressions are.
water profile become
y = r Cos 0
x = RO t [16] yl = r Cos (a + 0) . . . . . . [22]
y r Cos 0 . . . . . . . . . . . .
2~
and the area of the profile where a L
1+ 2
A, = Rr Cos 0~0 = Rr[Sin 0]0 -
The differential draft is given b y
Area A, when multiplied b y Bp, B being the Y - - yt -= r[(1 -- C o s a ) C o s 0
width of the dock and p the weight of unit volume + Sin a Sin 0] . . . . . . [23]
of water, will give the shear-expression for the
and, assuming a linear variation of draft trans-
dock for normal sea waves. Thus
verse to the pontoon, the corresponding torque per
V = BpRr(Sin O) . . . . . . . . . . [171 unit length of dock b y
Obviously, the m a x i m u m value of l/ is obtained
when 0 = rr/2; t h a t is m, = (y- Yl)BI~
'Vmax : BpRr ............ [18] B2pr
-- 12 [(1 -- Cos a) Cos 0
or, since R = Lw/2r, and assuming a wave height- + Sin a Sin 0] . . . . . . [24]
to-wave length ratio of 1/20
Total torque ~[t, at a distance x from the end of
Vmax -- BpLw~- BpL2 the dock is obtained b y integrating mr. Noting
807r - 807r . . . . . . . . [19] that
The m o m e n t expression, similarly obtained b y in- B+L
tegrating the shear areas, is in the following form x - 0
2~-
M = f , .V6x = BpR2r f Sin 0~0 I M, = f mt~x
B 2 B+L
BpR2r(1 -- Cos 0) I . . . . . [20]
12 2~"
Bp~(1 -- CosO)

The m a x i m u m moment' at midship is then, under [

pr (1 -- Cos o~) Sin 0 - Sin a Cos 0
B2(B + L)
1 o

either a hogging or sagging wave

- 24r pr[ (1 -- Cos a) Sin 0
L3
Mmax = Bp 807r2. . . . . . . . . . . . [21] + Sin a(1 - Cos 0)] . . . . . [25]
The expression is shown graphically in Fig.
The graphs for wave load on the dock w, bend- 16(b). The m a x i m u m torque, occurs at x = L / 2 ,
ing shear V, and bending m o m e n t M, are shown where 0 = Lrc/(B + L)
in a composite way in Fig. 15(b). In normal pro-
cedures, where dock weight is nonuniform and a 3It ...." - B2(B24rc
+ L) pr{( 1 _ C o s a )
trochoidal wave is used, the net load curve is
established b y trial balancing of dock weights and
buoyancy forces. Based on t h a t curve, the shear Sin ( B ~ L ) + Sin a l l - Cos ( B ~ L ) I }
and m o m e n t curves are then obtained in sequence,
the needed summations of areas being conven- or, letting the ratio L / B = m
iently. ~ccomplished b y graphic computations.
- (1 + m)L 'rt [1 - Cos (1-V2~r )l
24rn3r ]
Torsion m,r 2r
Again assunfing a cosine curve for the wave Sin ( 1 ~ ) + Sin ( ~ - ~ )
profile, general expressions can be derived for tor-
sional and flexural stresses produced in the dock
b y quartering waves. This condition of loading is
I1-
sketched in Fig. 16 and the w a v e profiles on the -In addition to twist, the loading produces (a)
two wingwaUs are shown in Fig. 16(a). In the sagging moments and shears in the dock as a unit,
328 ANALYSIS A N D D E S I G N OF F L O A T I N G D R Y D O C K S

(b) antisymmetrical bending of the wingwalls, and Vc- (1 + rn)L2pr~V 1 27r

(c) transverse bending of the pontoon. 4m
~ IL + Cs (1-+-m)]
Again referring to Fig. 16(a), the average draft
at a dock cross section can be expressed as follows Sin ( 1 mTr
~ ) - Sin ( ~ )21r
1 . . . . "[321
d.., = ~ (y + yl)
r
= ~ [(1 + Cos a) Cos0 -- Sin a S i n 0 ] From Equation [32] it can be seen that shear is
not zero at midship, indicating that the water load
and the corresponding load per unit length of shown in Fig. 16(c) is not in balance. To obtain
dock, shown in Fig. 16(c) the needed balance, We must adjust the waterline
a distance d', determined thus
tv = Bp 2[(1 + Cos a) Cos 0 -- Sin a Sin 0].. [27]
Vc + d'Bp L~ = 0
The resulting shear expression is, Fig. 16(d)
+ 2~r
V = fw~x = Bp (B2~r
+ L)
mTr 2~r
Sin ( 1 - - ~ ) -- Sin ( 1 - - ~ )
~ (1 --F Cos a) Sin 0 -t- Sin a Cos 0 o

B(B + L)pr t ..... I%1

- - 47r [(1 + Cos a) Sin 0
The corresponding corrections to the shear and
-- Sin a(1 - Cos 0)] . . . . [28]
moment expressions are, respectively
Similarly, the expression for the bending-
moment curve, sketched in Fig. 16(e), is obtained
V~ = V + d'Bp x . . . . . . . . . . [34]
by integrating the shear areas x2
M1 = M + d'Bp ~ . . . . . . . . . [35]
M = ~ V6x = B(B + L)2pr
3 8 ~ -2 The expression for torque, Equation [26], is not
affected by this correction. In so far as the anti-
[ (Sin a S i n O - O) - (1 + C o s a ) CosO
1
0
symmetrical bending of the individual wingwalls
is concerned, the forces which produce this mode
_ B(B + L ) ~ p r [ S i n a ( S i n O - O) of flexure are obtained from the dock twist. This
87r I
is done by simply dividing Mt by s, the distance
+ (1 + Cos a)(1 - Cos 0)] . . . . [29]
between the centers of the wingwalls. Accord-
and the maximum moment at x = L / 2 ingly, the torque curve in Fig. 16(b) represents also
the shape of loading for antisymmetrical bending.
Mm.x = (1 +~m--~
2m)~L3pr~''~m ( ~ ) 2 ~ r The loading for transverse bending of the pon-
toon consists of two triangular loads, With ordi-
[sin +[ 1 +cos nates of y and yl, respectively at port and star-
board faces of the pontoon.
21r , mlr
(1--~)] [1 Cos ( 1 ~ ) ] } .... [30]
3--DESIGN
Maximum shear at
DESIGN DATA
L LTr _ rn~r
x----- ~ - a n d 0 = 2(B + L) 2(1 + m ) Design Criteria. The design of a floating dock is
controlled by the criteria furnished for that pur-
Vm.x (l +- m)L2pr~F1 pose. The requirements may be grouped under
= 4 rn2~ IL + Cos ( '12 ~1 r ) 1 two main headings: (a) Functional requirements,
m~r 2~r and (b) specification requirements. In order to
Sin ( ~ - ( 1 - ~ - m ) - Sin ( 1 ~ ) conform with the former, the designer is first
furnished with a list of ships or vessels con-
[ i - Cos (2(mm~1))]} . . . . . [31] templated for docking, together with such data as
over-all and blocking length, maximum beam,
Shear at x = L / 2 where 0 = L~r/(B + L) docking draft, weight-distribution curve, and the
 ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF FLOATING DRYDOCKS 329

TABLE 2 DESIGN STRESSES (IN PSI) IN CONCRETE DOCKS

~Doeking condition~ ~Sea condition~-
Poured-in- Poured-in-
place Preeast place Precast
Concrete in flexure
f,' (ultimate) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4000 5000 4000 5000
fo (working) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1800 2250 2250 2800
Reinf. ff, u (Int. grade, yield) . . . . . . . . . . ' 40000 40000 40000 40000
Steel \f, (Int. grade, working) . . . . . . . . 20000 20000 25000 25000
Wire mesh (yield) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60000 -60000
Wire mesh (working) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30000 37500
Shear
No web reinf. )
No spec. aneh.,( . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 I00 100 125
No web reinf.\
Special aneh. S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 150 150 187
Web reinf.
No spec. aneh.S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240 300 300 375
Web reinf.
Spee. aneh.j . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 480 600 600 750
Bond
Plain bars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160 200 200 250
Deformed bars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200 250 250 312
Bearing
On full area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1000 1250 1250 1560
On 1/3 area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1500 1875 1875 2340
Concrete cover (clear), in . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V, sis -- --

vertical and longitudinal location of the center of of the building industry. Except for some unusual
gravity. As stated before, these are needed for cases of design requirements, no special quality
establishing some of the basic dimensions of the or premium grade materials are used. With the
dock as well as for performing the stability calcu- same thought of conformance to prevailing struc-
lations. Other requirements of this nature in-" tural design practice, the allowable working
elude specified limitations for m i n i m u m freeboard stresses given for the design of docks do not
for dock and pontoon, clearance for docking, and differ materially from those specified for shore
possible limitations for minimum wingwall width structures. T h e following are the required
and pontoon depth. Still other requirements m a y properties and stresses for the three kinds of ma-
define the type of the dock and its framing, and terials used in the respective type of dock.
also specify the needed equipment and service
facilities. Steel Docks
Specification requirements in general will cover 1 Specifications. Rolled structural shapes for
matters pertaining to the properties of the ma- interior framing. A S T M A-7 or Federal Spec.
terials o f framing and the equipment of the dock, QQ-S-741. Plating for shell, dock and bulkheads :
to some details of fabrication and construction, A S T M A-373.
and to certain procedures for testing. 2 Basic Stresses. Docking conditions, 20,000
Applicable Standards. There are no definite psi; sea condition, 24,000 psi; air test conditions,
standards applicable to the design of floating 24,000 psi.
docks. However, in the course of the limited 3 Design Loads. Wing deck: crane load, 300
practice in this field, certain procedures have been psf live load, 5 psi air test pressure. Safety deck:
developed which serve as important guides in the machinery load, 300 psf live load, 10 psi air test
preparation of adequate and economical designs. pressure. Quarters and stores deck: 200 psf live
Also, in so far as details are concerned, use is made load, 5 psi air test pressure. Hull plating and bulk-
of the applicable standards of the industry, such heads: 10 psi air test pressure below safety deck;
as those of the American Welding Society and the differential water pressures during submergence
American Institute of Steel Construction, for and improper pumping. Other loading during
steel-framed docks, of the American Concrete In- docking and at sea: as described previously.
stitute, for docks of concrete framing, and of the 4 M i n i m u m Thickness. Hull plating, s t r e n g t h
American Institute of T i m b e r Construction, for decks and bulkheads, ~/~ in. Other plating, ~/~6 in.
docks built of timber. Rolled shapes: flanges ~ in., webs, ~/~6 in.
Materials and Working Stresses. T h e materials
of framing generally utilized in the construction Concrete Docks
of floating docks conform to the normal standards 1 Specifications: General clauses as given in
550 ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF FLOATING DRYDOCKS
the Building Code of the American Concrete Insti-
tute.
2 Grade of Concrete:
(a) Poured-in-place concrete
Class G--4000 psi (air entrained cement)
Ec = 3,750,000 psi (short time load-
ing)
E, = 30,000,000 psi
n-8
(b) Precast concrete
Class H - - 5 0 0 0 psi (air entrained cement)
Ec = 5,000,000 psi
E , = 30,000,000 psi
n=6
3 Design Stresses: see Table 2.
4 Design Loads: Same as for steel docks.
T i m b e r Docks
1 Specifications: General requirements and
design data in accordance with the Design Stand-
ards a n d Specifications of National Lumber
Manufacturers Association.
2 Working Stresses (timber untreated and
occasionally wet) :
Maximum fiber stress in bending, psi . . . . 1200
Compression normal to grain, psi . . . . . . 165
Compression parallel to grain, psi . . . . . . 1065
Maximum horizontal shear, psi . . . . . . . . 103
.Stresses for bolts and split rings : same as
those specified b y NLMA.
3 Design Loads: Wing deck, 300 psf live load;
hull planking and bulkheads, applicable pressure
differential due to docking load and !mpr0per
pumping.
LOCAL FRAMING STRESSES
Plating. T h e stress pattern of the shell plating
in steel docks, and that of the skin slab in Con-
crete docks, is biaxial. In a steel dock, a typical
shell panel is bound longitudinally b y two
stringers and transversely b y two frames. Under
local hydrostatic loading the plate bends in two
directions and, owing to its continuity over the
supports, important stresses are developed at the
boundaries. These stresses for panels of various
ratios of width-to-length are given in Fig. 17.
In addition to local panel bending, shell plating
provides flange material for the stringers and
frames, and also furnishes the principal part of the
hull section in the longitudinal bending of the
dock as a whole. Thus, under sea-loading condi-
tion, bottom plating of the pontoon will have
three stress components in the longitudinal direc-
tion, and two transversely.
Stringers. In steel docks stringers serve pri-
marily as stiffeners to the shell plating. In this
action, they also transmit the load from plating to
the transverse frames in longitudinal bending. By
providing a moment-resisting connection at the
frames, such as s h o w n in Fig. 4, the efficiency of
the member is further increased since the con-
tinuity produces a more favorable moment dis-
tribution in local bending, ar/d also makes the
section an effective part in the 0ver-all bending of
the dock. Neglectingthe effect of the end-connec-
tion brackets, the maximum moment of the
stringer, for a uniform load of w and a span of l, is
then given b y the continuity relation
wl 2
M = -12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [36]
Effective Flange Width. In computing the sec-
tion moduli of the stringers and the chord mem-
bers of the transverse frames, assumptions must be
made regarding the extent of plating which acts
as effective flange material. In conventional prac-
tice, it has been customary to express effective
flange width in terms of plate thickness. Various
values have been suggested and used. For
stringers in steel-dock framing, the Bureau of
Yards and Docks' current practice is to assume
an effective flange width equal to 48 plate thick-
nesses, with a limiting value of three quarters the
spacing of the stringers. For slabs in concrete
docks, an effective width of 16 thicknesses is used,
in accordance with the Building Code require-
ments of the American Concrete Institute.
A more rational treatment Of this problem is
given b y M u r r a y (6) and also by Boyd (7). Using
an approach b y Timoshenko (8), Boyd has
derived the following relation for effective flange
width of stiffened plating
b _ - _e- ~
-
C 2c "
. . . . . . . . . [37]
+e l
in which b is the effective flangewidth, k is a con-
stant and equals 0.181 for a continuous plate
under uniform loading, and c: and l are, respec-
tively, the spacing and span of the stringers.: The
values of b/c, corresponding 't6 various ratios of
l/c, are indicated by the curve in Fig: 18.
In the case of the transverse f~ames, where the
flange plating is stiffened b y the stringers, ex-
periments (9) conducted on models of docks and
measurements of strains on dock pontoons disclose
no significant stress differential in the plating be-
tween the frames, thus indicating that the entire
width of the plating is effective in resisting flexure
of the flange. However, in order to compensate
for possible reduction in section due to corrosion,
 ANALYSIS AND D E S I G N OF F L O A T I N G D R Y D O C K S 331

L. b
-]_t
,~= = M A X I M U M STRESS N O R M A L TO SIDE b
'fz = MAXIMUM STRESS N O R M A L TO SIDE o.

0. 2
(1. = S H O R T SIDE OF P A N E L .f, = K, p'tz
b = LONG S I D E OF P A N E L
.f~ = K 2 P ~
p = UNIFORM LOAD PER UNIT AREA

t = THIGKNESS OF P L A T E

NOTE: PLATING FIXED ALONG THE FOUR SLOES

2.5

" - K~
-ol d
/
b-

o
2.0
/
/
03
K I- -/
bJ /
/
J
_J 1.5 f
/
J
f
> /
j
jr
J
I

/ _f
f j .,,,,'-
I
1.0
0.3 0.4 0.5

VALUE S OF K
FIG.-17 COEFFICIENTS FOR MAXIMUM STRESS FOR RE~TRAINED PLATES UNDER UNIFORM LOADING

in designing the chords, only three fourths of the LONGITUDINALSTRENGTH

plate section is considered as effective flange area.
With the same thought, if effective flange Width
for the stringers is determined by Equation [37 ],
a similar factor of reduction must be applied to
provide for corrosion.
Elements of Dock Strength. The cross-sectional
a r e a needed for the longitudinal flexure of the
dock is furnished mainly by the shell plating, sup-
plemented by the continuous deck plating, longi-
tudinal bulkheads and stringers. After these corn-
332 ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF FLOATING DRYDOCKS

I.o

f ~
/
/
1"
I--
Q
/-
W
tl.l /
Z
,I fl:
.-I l -
LL ID
/
W
m
I--"
O 1.9
laJ Z
u.
0.5

/
/
U. O
LU
0.
LL ,0
O
O
O I-
I--
',:I
n,"

0
0 5 10

t
c
RATIO OF STRINGER SPAN TO SPAOING
FIG. 18 EFFECTIVE FLANGE WIDTH FOR STIFFENED PLATES

ponents have been proportioned for local condi-
tions of loading, the section moduli are computed
along the length of the dock for a review of the
stresses resulting from longitudinal bending of the
dock.
Flexural Stresses. Maximum bending stresses
occur at midship when dock is on a hogging or
sagging wave. The maximum moment, as
derived before, is given by Equation [21]. Since
the neutral axis is located near the top of the pon-
toon, maximum tension and compression generally
will develop at the top deck. Indicating the
moment of inertia of the dock by ID, the distance
of the outermost fiber of the top deck by et, then
the maximum flexural stress f,, is given by the re-
lation
B p L 8 et
ft = M=,x =
[38]
D 80~r 2 Iv .......
However, in view of the presence of large local
stresses in the bottom plating of the pontoon,
critical stresses also may develop at that location
in a hogging condition.
Longitudinal dock stresses under ship loading
are relatively small. For this purpose, to com-
pute the docking moments, it will be satisfactory
to use the actual ship loading--without the benefit
of redistributions through the blocking and the
bending of the pontoon.
Flexural Shear. Maximum shearing stresses, re-
sulting from longitudinal symmetrical bending in
hogging Or sagging, occur in the quarter-point
zones of the dock length. The maximum total
shear expression for these two conditions is given
by Equation [19]. The corresponding shearing-
force distribution on the dock cross section is ob-
tained from the relation
 ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF FLOATING DRYDOCKS 333

I.

L3 te I ~ .
t3 t5
L4

t9
L5 " I"~ tic
t7 tll
ql L6
(a)
q4 q2 I

~- q3-~

qe
q9
qlo
q7 ]qt6
qll

lo,.l (b)

q~
q~

(c)
FIG. 10 SCHBMATICPRESENTATIONOF SttEAR FLOW: (a) SIIEAR CSLLS; (b) FLEXURE; (C) TWZST
 c.,1

_m 10.3r 10.3
[~-.L
~-,.T
b j
" o.
;,. IT1 ~ I
-I,6~
27.6 -- ;~t k-,~ 27.6 V i V- ml
" -- ~"PL -- 29.7 -~.1 29.7 ~
I
b
NA
, []

I
31.0
r-21 "-- I J'9'6 1 ;>
~" * t 1 . 2 ~ '
o []

k
i-
~ "PL
i2'-0"
> _

_L
-~
,8-. -r
19%0 `'
252 _,..-.--~ ,
~ 1 6 . 7 i +11.2
_ itl C/3
C~
(a) (b) (c) ~z
0
+97 "il.9
r

0
(0) TYPICAL HALF CROSS SECTION
(b) ASSUMED STATIC SHI~AR FLOW FOR UNiT V
292 V t
2.,17 V, 0
(C| CORRECTION FOR TWIST
I
C~
23.6 r 35.8 l Z (d) TOTAL SHEAR FLOW (NO TORQUE)
+
~2.49 (e) SHEAR FLOW FOR A TORQUE OF I01000 UNITS
2~ _ _ : ' 1 t Mt = I 0 , 0 0 0

t 37. I 0
19.41 C~
17.7 t --'-I" "1
~2.70 ', '

2.49. 2.70~,~ Ir
.'. 13.7
19.1
24.l

(d) . (e)

FIG. 20 NUMERICAL ]~XAMPLE OF SHEAR COMPUTATIONS

 ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF FLOATING DRYDOCKS 335

q = VQ BpL2 Q [39] 19 llo lll le ,

- I -- 80~ ID . . . . . . . :" L q9 - qlo - tl- qH + qo
;~ .4' ! : ',. . "

in which q is the shearing force per unit length of "+ 16 l, llo lu\ , le
plating, measured at a height or distance z from
the neutral axis of the dock cross section, and Q = 2GOAa = 0 . . . . [40c]
is the moment of the cr0ss-sectional area located
In these expressions ql to qu represent the average
beyond z, taken about the neutral axis.
flexural shears for the respective plates. The
Because of the cellular composition of the cross
three unknown torsional shears qx', q,' and qa' are
section, the distribution of shearing forces between
computed in terms of these flexural shears. The
the inboard and outboard plating of the wing-
final or corrected values of the shears are then ob-
walls is indeterminate. In conventional prac-
tained b y combining these q'-values with the
tice, it is assumed that equal shear forces prevail
corresponding q-values determined in the first
in opposite shell sections at each l~vel and, hence,
step.
the same thickness plating is used in the two faces.
This procedure for correeting the eonventionally
In accordance with this thought, when computing
computed shears i s further illustrated b y the
the values of Q in the application of Equation
numerical example shown in Fig. 20. Cross-'
[39], the areas of deck plating are divided equally
sectional dimensions and plate thicknesses of a
between the two sides and, similarly, the area of
steel dock are shown in Fig. 20(a); and the con-
the wingwall bulkhead is develol~ed commonly
ventionally obtained shears, corresponding to a
with the top and bottom plating of the pontoon.
unit value of V / I , are given in Fig. 20(b). By
As a general case, consider the dock section
substituting the numerieal values in Equations
shown in Fig. 19(a). Here it is assumed that the
[40]
plate thicknesses diffei', as indicated b y the numer-
als in the cross-sectional outline. The correspond- 0 + 1214ql I -- 330q~' = 0
ing shear forces obtained b y Equation [39] are 14318.78 - 330q1' + 1914q.0' -- 288q3' = 0
shown in Fig. 19(b). The accuracy of shear forces --25674.21 - 288q~' + 2132q3' = 0
thus determined will depend on the moment
balance of the flow. Since any moment unbalance and solving for the unknowns
will result in a twist of the cross section, the re-
sulting deformations must be cancelled b y a ql' = --1.652
counterbalancing shear flow, such as shown in Fig. q-,'= --6.077
19(c).
q3' -- 11.221
The relation between shear stress q/f, and angle
of twist 0, obtained from membrane analogy (10) These are indicated in Fig. 20(c) and the final
is given b y the, expression values are given in Fig. 20(d).
Torsional Shear. Under quartering waves,
Z qt 6l = 2GOA . . . . . . . . . . . [40] maximum torque on the dock is developed amid-
ships. The value is given b y Equation [26], and
in which A is the area enclosed b y the shear cir- the pattern of the resulting shear flow is shown in
cuit, 6l an elemental length, and G is the shear Fig. 20(c). Again applying Equation [40], and
modulus. Applying this relation' to the shears in noting that the angle of twist, 0, is the same for all
Figs. 19(b) and (c), and noting that the average the compartments
values of q~, and q3 are zero, and also that 0 must
equal zero (Ill21314) l~
{, + + + i, ql' - q2' = 2GoAl
l~ 14 , Ill 12 13 14~ ,5 ,o 17 ,8)
/
13 q2' = 2GOA, = 0 . . . . . [40a] le
t.~ -- -t-eq3' = 2GOA ~

15 l~ 17 ls l~ le (16 19 llo /11~ 110

gq5 - ~q6 -- ~qv -- fsqs -- L q , '
- t-o q~' + . ~ + L + ~ + h,] q~' - ~ q3' =
2GOA a
+ L+t L+g+L q-"-LqJ A fourth equation is obtained from the relation
-- 2GOA~ = 0 . . . . . . [40b] between total torque Mr, and the shear areas
 Oh

I0'- O" 1 1025l

"l.4QX/I Ot "t LL ~"

1,0 1.0 i
Z
"o o
"~1 Io 1.0
,-,4
I r#')
i,,.,,-4
~ J VALUES

SYMM. ABT,
7,! r.#)
L8~ 4LLll ~l C~
I''1'1 l l ' l J ' ~ ' l l l ' i l ' l ! ' 7 " l ' l i l i ' " l l i i ' . . . . . ~ [ 6 3 4 21 DL 47. 3
Z
0

245.

42.5 21.7 52.4

77 E ~J

MOM ENT 308.4

Ol AGRAM
FOOT - - KIPS
LOAD DIAGRAM (b)

la)
FIG. 21 LOADING AND MOMENTS OF TRANSVERSE VIERENDEEL FRAME
 ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF FLOATING DRYDOCKS 337 "

M. compartmentational arrangement assumed in the

2 -- 2Alql' + 2A~q2' + 2A3q3' . . . . [41]
preliminary stages of dock-framing development
m a y be subject to considerable changes during the
Simultaneous solution of those four dquations will
progress o f design. As the various components of
give the values of the three shears and the twist
framing are finally determined, successive re-
angle.
visions are made to assure the limiting drafts and
T o illustrate b y a numerical example, consider,
the stability of the dock.
again, the dock seetion shown in Fig. 20(a). Ap-
The critical draft condition occurs during the
plying a torque of 10,000 units (ft-kips, if-tons,
full submergence of the dock. While the assumed
or whatever the ehosen units are), and substitut-
freeboard for the wingwalls will allow for some
ing the numerical values
list and trim, in order to maintain a safe margin, it
1214<21' , 330q2' = 432 GO is necessary t h a t a careful estimate be made of the
--330q1' + 1914q2' -- 288q3' ---- 648 GO weight of the dock and its adjuncts. In these
--288q2' + 1844qJ = 864 GO weight computations, allowance also m u s t be
432q1' + 648q2' + 864qa' -- 5000 made for silt deposit in the dock b o t t o m and
marine growth on the shell. After the weight has
from which been determined, the safety deck is then so lo-
ql' = 2.43 q2' - 2.49 q J = 2.70 GO = 4.93 cated as to provide the specified minimum dock
freeboard in full submergence. T h e same con-
The three shears are sketched in Fig. 20(e). siderations also prevail in the determination of the
An investigation also m u s t be made at quarter minimum freeboard of the dock pontoon with
points of dock length. Under torsion, the com- m a x i m u m ship 10ad. For the latter freeboard, 18
biiaed shear resulting from flexure and twist at this in. is considered to be a desirable value, and 12 in.
location m a y be larger than t h a t due to flexure a limiting value.
alone under normal wave loading. Stability. As stated in Part 1, unit docks
possess ample longitudinal stability. For trans-
TRANSVERSE STRENGTH
verse stability, a preliminary investigation is made
Truss Frames. Transverse dock strength is when the dimensions for a typical cross section are
furnished b y transverse frames and bulkheads. established. For small angles of trim, the meta-
In steel and timber docks, the frames consist of centric radius, BM, is given b y the expression
braced-web trusses as shown in Figs. 6 and 8. De-
tails of framing are discussed in P a r t 1. NO special I - ~i
BM = -~-- ............ [42]
problems are involved in their design; after de-
termining the loading, the analysis is performed in which I is the m o m e n t of inertia of the outside
b y conventional methods. water plane, ~i, the summation of moments of
Bulkheads. Transverse bulkheads are designed inertia of the free water planes within the dock,
to withstand the full differential head between two and V is the displacement. The metacentric
adjacent compartments, or possibly the more height GM, is then o b t a i n e d from the relation
severe loading of specified air-test pressure. Be-
G1V[ = K B + BS~I -- K G . . . . . . . [43]
cause of the large ratio of height to length, major
flexural behavior is essentially unidirectional, the where K B and K G are, respectively, the distances
stiffened plating bending vertically with full re- of centers of buoyancy and of gravity from the
straint at the supports. keel.
Vierendeel Frames. As shown in the typical Normally a minimum value of 5 ft is specified
cross section in Fig. 7, the transverse framing in for G M . However,-in some eases, the required
concrete docks consists of Vierendeel trusses. stability is more appropriately specified in terms
The analysis of this type of framing can best be of a listing moment. This m o m e n t will v a r y with
achieved b y the slope-deflection method. A de- the size of the dock. For a 4000-ton dock, the
tailed discussion and a procedure of solution are minimum value is 75 foot-tons for a list of 1 in.
given in the author's design treatise on rigid frames For other size d0eks, the m o m e n t is proportioned
(11). As an illustration, Fig. 21 shows a typical in direct ratio:
frame of a 3000=ton concrete dock under ship After the design of the dock has been eom-
loading. The resulting moments, computed b y pleted and the weights have been determined more
this method, are sketched in Fig. 21(b). accurately, stability computations are reviewed.
For this purpose, curves of displacement," KB, KG,
DRAFT AND STABILITY and K M for various conditions of submergence in
Limiting Drafts. Dimensional outlines and the docking operations are prepared. Fig. 22 shows
 I I i i i r 1 i | I I I I i ! f i ] i i i i i i i I ' ! i i i i i i , /

MAX. DRAFT DOCK ONLY

/
-~~/~1 >
>
I-
,,i
W
>
"o~ ~ ~Z
Z

I
--.. U~
C~
~Z
(.9 O
v
i
(:13 0>
H
I ZC~
l-- MIN. D1AFT DOCK 8 SHIP! : ' ~ ' ' ~ " - ~ - ~ =
b.
I ~ f ~ ~ - KG DOCK ON

n~ 6
MIN. DRAF DOCK O N L Y j.,...'~Y ~ / 0

i i i i i i i I l I i i i i i i i i I

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 $000 6000 7000 8000 5000

DISPLACE M E NT IN KIPS
FIG. 22 DISPLACEMENT AND STABILITY CURVES
 ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF FLOATING DRYDOCKS
these curves for a 1000-ton steel dock. As dis-
cussed previously, the critical range is when t h e
full ship load is carried b y the dock and the water
level is about at block height. This m a y be
noted b y observing that the vertical distance
between the K G and K M curves for dock and.
ship in Fig. 22 is a minimum at a displacement of
13 ft, which is about the block height above the
dock keel
If the review should reveal a smaller GM than
that specified, it will be necessary to make re-
visions, eithar b y increasing the wingwall width or
b y providing additional w a t e r t i g h t bulkheads in
the longitudinal direction. When widening wing-
walls for this purpose, the old practice was to bat-
ter the inboard walls. However, in current prac-
tice the increased width is maintained for the full
height, thus to simplify fabrication and construc-
tion work, and also to provide additional deck
space.
SUPPLEMENTARY INVESTIGATIONS
D y n a m i c Stresses D u e to Rolling
Under sea conditions of loading, in addition to
the stresses discussed in the foregoing, the dock
wingwalls will be subjected to dynamic forces re-
sulting from inertia effects of rolling. These forces
attain their maximum intensities at the end of the
roll, just prior to re~/ersal of the motion. A
schematic presentation of the roll is shown in Fig.
23(a). For a load of W, located at a radial dis-
tance r from the center of rotation, the dynamic
force is given b y the expression
W 4r ~
F --- - - - - rO . . . . . . . . . . . [441
g t~
in which F is the tangential force, g is the ac-
celeration due to gravity (ft per sect), t is the time
(in seconds) for a complete roll, and 0 is the
maximum angle of roll (in radians) from the verti-
cal axis of the dock. Indicating the angle of in-
clination of r, measured from the horizontal axis,
b y a, the tangential force F and the load W may
be expressed in terms of vertical a n d horizontal
components, both with reference to the axes of
the dock. Thus
V= F C o s a 4- W C o s ~ } [45]
H F S i n a 4- W S i n ......
For a-simple harmonic motion
27rk 1.108k
t (g GM)'/' - G M ' / ' " . . . . . . [46]
in which k is the mass radius of gyration of the
dock about its center of gravity, and, with suf-
ficient accuracy, it equals 0.40 times the beam of
the dock. Accordingly
339
0.44B
t = (GM)'/-~'. . . . . . . . . . . [46a]
For channel-shaped unit docks, the angle of roll
varies from 5 to 10 deg. With these substitu-
tions, all the dynamic forces can then be deter-
mined. As an illustration, assuming 0 = 10 deg,
the wingwall loads have been computed and shown
in Fig. 23(b). The resulting stresses in the com-
posite truss-bent, in the form of axial stresses and
bending moments, are as indicated in Fig. 23(c)
and (d), respectively.
Elastic Stability of D o c k W a l l s
In the past, there has been some concern re-
garding the elastic stability of dock wingwalls
under compressive forces caused b y sagging
moments. Mainly because of this concern, ~ m e
of the earlier docks were reinforced with strong-
backs during their tow at sea. I t is believed that
the use of such devices was predicated more on
personal judgment of the designer than on
analytical or experimental investigations.
In the old concept, the ratio L / b constituted the
sole measure of stability for appraising the strength
of a beam flange in compression. In the present
practice of structural design, this ratio has been
modified in the form of L d / b t . While the use of
this modified factor places the design of I-shaped
members on a more rational basis, its applicability
to box-shaped members still remains an unsatis-
factory procedure.
The buckling of the compression flange of a
cellular member, such as the wingwalls of the
dock, is resisted b y three sources of strength: (a)
The lateral bending of the compression flange, (b)
the vertical or cantilever bending of the wingwall
about the 6enter horizontal plane of the pontoon,
and (c) the torsional bending of the wingwall.
The author has developed and presented a general
solution of this problem (12). With certain sim-
plifying assumptions, which in general are on the
conservative side, an approximate expression for
buckling can b e obtained readily. Referring to
Fig. 24, these assumptions will consist of the fol-
lowing: (a) Compression flange of constant cross
section and consisting of decks A and B; (b)
buckling wave length equal to span of compression
flange; (c) buckling wave a cosine curve; and (d)
flange compression forces vary as a cosine curve.
With these assumptions, and neglecting the effect
of torsional resistance, the relation between the
work of the compression flange W,, and the re-
silience of the flange RI, and the web Rw, is given
by
W, = R ~ + R . . . . . . . . . . . . . [47]
 55.77 K 2.89 K

132.87.~.~ /124.76
0.32
80.99 -20.81
~K z KI
K2

oa 0.08 KPF "P" : GOMP

-- : TENS

4.79 ~ H~
86.85 -35.90 33.I4 -15.29 i,..2o

97.19 ~-(2(~/y/~q/~~\ --25.28 86.41 5.54 .

~: 0.05 Pe

0.14.~.__ 99.59 4.11 3.97 -2 1.78

. O.03KPF
ROLLING
/~0.03 ~F
---- "--~18.85 ----- "--~18.85 i=x7 j ~ . . . . . . . . ~,.85 AT S E A

Id) I,oi
t74.52 65,57
BENDING
LOADS
DIRECT MOMENT C~
STRESS (FOOT-KIPS)
(KIPS)
FI~. 23 DYNAMIC,LOADING AND S T R E S S E S I N W I N G W A L L F R A M B S D'uE TO R O L L I N G OF D O C K
 ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF FLOATING DRYDOCKS 341

~- OF
~ DECK
. .

It I II
=0
'l ' II
t

NA

q AXIS OF PONTOON

(a)

, y

P
X

(b)
FIG. 24 TYPICAL WINGWALL SECTION AND DEFLECTION CURVE OF COMPRESSION FLANGE

or, b y substituting the respective values is as follows

+ br~ P~-2yo2
a = (a2I~ + b2Ib) p = a3 ~1r2( + -~b'I~)+ 3L2+bl
2 - - ~ J [2~ , 1.~,
~ / 16~
E'r4Y2 3ELtbi2y2 [48]
4a%3 + 8h 3 ..... Because of the tremendous stiffness of- the walls
in vertical bending, as can be noted from the last
where a and b are the distances of decks A and B term of Equatio n [49], the obtained P is a large
from the neutral axis, I , and Ib, their moments of force, and the corresponding fiber stress is usually
inertia in lateral bending, t the average thickness far beyond the elastic limit of structural steel.
of the sidewall plating, bI the distance between From this, one m a y conclude that elastic stability
inboard and outboard plate, and h is the dis- is seldom a problem in the design of the wingwalls,
tance from center of the pontoon to top deck. and that basic stresses can be used in the com-
The critical or buckling force P, accordingly, pression flange without a reduction f a c t o r
342 ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF FLOATING DRYDOCKS
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1 "Some Problems of Welding Design and
Fabrication of Steel Floating Drydocks," by A.
Amirikian, The Welding Journal, October, 1946, p.
929.
2 "Strength of Materials," by S. Timoshenko,
D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc., New York,
N. Y., vol. 2, 1930.
3 "Die Elastischen Platten," by A. Nadai,
Julius Springer, Berlin, Germany, 1925.
4 "Computation of Stresses in Bridge Slabs
Due to Wheel Loads," by H. M. Westergaard,
Public Roads , vol. 2, no. 1, March, 1930.
5 "Theory of Plates and Shells," by S. Timo-
shenko, McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., New
York, N. Y., 1940.
6 "Pietzker's Effective Breadth of Flange
Appendix
Figs. 25 to 30 show values of the coefficients
C,, Cu, Cx~, C',~, C0x and Cvu of Equations [7]
to [12] inclusive for a series of loads placed on the
centerline of the pontoon and assuming u = 0.3;
that is, for a pontoon of steel framing. It is to
be noted that the moments Mx and Mu produced
at point 1 by a load P at point 2 are the same as
those produced at point 2 by a load P at point 1.
The twisting moments, on the other hand, do not
follow this law of reciprocity: lll~ u' differs from
Mzlg
It also should be noted that the curves in Figs.
25 and 26 do not show values of the coefficients
for points directly under the concentrated load.
Re-Examined," by J. M. Murray, Engineering,
(London), April, 1946, p. 304.
7 "Effective Flange Width of Stiffened Plat-
ing in Longitudinal Bending," by G. M. Boyd,
Engineering, (London), December, 1946, p. 603.
8 "Theory of Elasticity," by S. Timoshenko,
McGraw-Hill Publishing Company, New York,
N. Y., 1934.
9 "Floating Drydock ARD 3--Model Analy-
sis," unpublished report, Bureau of Yards and
Docks, Navy Department, Washington, D. C.,
1937.
10 Reference (8), p. 270.
11 "Analysis of Rigid Frames," by A. Amiri-
klan, U. S. Government Printing Office, Washing-
ton, D. C., 1942, p. 124.
12 "Elastic Stability of Cellular Girders," by
A. Amirikian, Bulletin No. 4, Public Works of the
Navy, June, 1939.
For these cases, Equations [7] and [8] will give
infinite values for the coefficients Cx and Cu.
The proper values for moment coefficients at these
points, obtained by Equation [146] of reference
(5), are listed in Table 3.
Additional curves showing values of the coef-
ficients for loads placed at various other locations
on the pontoon can be obtained from the Society.
Table 4 gives values of the twisting moments
at the centerline and quarter point, and shears a t
the quarter point for various ratios of LIB.
These values were computed from Equations
[26],.[25], [35] and [34], respectively.
 ANALYSIS AND D E S I G N OF F L O A T I N G D R Y D O C K S 345

TABLE ~ M O M E N T S UNDER BLOCK LOADING

:-X

,I
S v .

MX= k2 P

My -k~P

P = Block Load

Values of k2
0.030 0.035 0.040 0.045 0.050 0.055 0.060 0.065
0.10 0.238 0.235 0.232 0.230 0.227 0.224 0.221 Q217
0.20 0.302 0.300 0.298 0.295 0.292 0.289 0 2 8 6 0.283
0.25 0.372 0.366 0.359 0,353 0.346!0.340 0.333 0.327
0.30 0.402 0.396 0.590 0.382 0.374 0.368 0.560 0.353
0.40 0,422 0.415 0.407 0,400 0.392 0.385 0.3 77 0.370
0.50 0,425 0,418 0,410 0.403 0,396 0.389 0.382 0.375

Values of k5

0.030 0.035 0.040 0.045 0.050 0.055 0.060 0.065

0.I 0 0.215 0.210 0.204 0.199 0.194 0.189 0.184 0.179
0.20 0.280 0,275 0.270 0.264 0.259 0.254 0.249 0.244
O25 0.334 0.324 0,314 0,306 0.298 0.290 0.282 0.275
0.30 0.360 0.350 0,340 0,330 0.321 0.312 0.304 0.296
0.40 0,378 0.368 0.358 0.348 0.339 0.330 0.321 0.314
0.50 0,382 0,372 0,362 0.352 0,342 0,334 0.326 0.318
344 A N A L Y S I S A N D D E S I G N OF F L O A T I N G D R Y D O C K S

tl: ~r :_~ ::'~ "*"

0.28

0.26
,-I

O. 2 4
::: :~:

O. 22 ti:
.-t,
= ,~" Tf*~ ,"

0.20 ..... ' i ~ ?, l : ~1~.~

r:~ .~!
.. ~

Xi ::' ;.:
0,16
,., :i:
:. t~

0.16 i.i
~.' , .,. /;4 -"'%
::: !~L ..*: ,..~:

O. 14
. .. ~ r : ~ - :~:
,. V~/

o. IO

0.06 ~i
0.05 ~

0.04 ~! :.;. ~ly ~ -- ~

: [2~

0.02
~N

0.0 i
i!. -: . : !'.qi ,:
:7: ~ ..

4" ~!i "" '

:~t. '::J::~;l
_. .
-:1 ~F'.:
-,~ 4;-
t
" ~;H ~"
~ ~
::~
.:l-;.l: ' '
- , :~'~" ~ "
'~:---
~'~L- ~ L

- 0.50 0.25 o 0.25 0.50 +

Values: of, JtL "
FZG. 25 VALUES OF C OF E~UATION [7] FOR V = 0
 i

ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF FLOATING DRYDOCKS 345

i t'i I,+-;}ilTl-il n~; i .:'+ l;JliP.~

++~..I ~~.~ I : + ~ :T T
+--+.+Ih ~ +
,: + + t ~ l ~ , ~ .
+."+;V ,P~,i L~:
~- , ++-~+-+.v:-+i-tt+-~
1.;-~Iit;~7;:ii
O. 2 6 ~-~K4.,:l+il~++_r. .it:

0.24 _ . lX .! ..:i
.+:

+ ,+mm~i.i+'-+1~~-
; .; , i.i.: :;. .i. l-+

0.22 -.--._L~=+~+.,-+ ;
: ~+:+.++2-12++- -'.2'

i
"+Tr~.tl-;lt: :'11;. ! it ~;lu :,: f-it .- +
,.--

0.20 ~,~iml ++.

.r+<+'.:,-l:+.~: N ~I+++~!~
H': { ;'ii: '+ ++: " +

0.18
i~.: ;".i b~,+l
+-+.:;~l.:@:N~.i~+::~++~;~+.I,...+++ ;+m +v.' }++p~h :I::F.I-":Xi i.+.l7
+~.:l~tt:!~;l:.::i !+~i~i :. ,.
::,l:~.I+;-'.:.;::l + ....,; . .::.
:-" +I....--+I. ;+, I . : . . - ~ - - . ~ r - :-....
0.16 i :l +tltl-.,l"~:|:q-l,Y!-.~q: < d.'-..~F~+-..:+ I...:+:~.-<,:

+++:l+++:l+;++l
i " i "i " + + ' | i . l ~ ' i " I" ~ t 4 1 t ~ " i l l '

I
F' 'l" " " +.+.
+,++I.",+.Ii.41~.+.; I . ~ - . : .~57
0.14 , .
: +-:].+~I,+.:h+4+;~: ,-+.~::
' ~+-$ . +..+ : --, l.--

d" o.,~ +~t: t:: ++I::21.`+++++M+!?::

. -:. . :1. -+;T ".i illi-l+,,
''
i"4 -':-;+a~-+
~ "++
+ -.i.i4": ~t'
_-_.::t-: ~11":q, :1: .++++-. ~ ' - I rl tit .+-!:"1 ::.i
:..:- - :t
~+,~ : , ~ , . .. -,.- :: +.+:.~ +.+:, ;~-+

0.I0 ++14!!!I-,.I~..W+A~
.... I.++:'+ " ~ ; ++.: . +," ,. ,.~. ~L.
:!!:t :,:l-+h~:g!~;, t ~ t ~ ~+GN+;,:i:.+~;::+I~-~+-
1,.~l~.l;~'~h-~. 1
0.08 I t . ; : : l ul-:.l: . l ! : ~ T !
ia!l:ml m:tt:A:,~ :~+~
~I '+*1 l I 1, t "P" ' Ill" " P i " +j " ' ' I t

0.06 -7J17~.1:::N'~li?+.7
...:)...;.:.' ~+-~ ;;
." ,5t.. ':' - ..i" t :::
"";ti<Fi~9.\.i ": "

i ~: -++ ': +." +

0.04 >t! 1/!;+~t:_+~
t~,-:iL "'_ ,+~I:",++I
0.0~ .#.. "-, .i7.-'4-~++~"::;I
.P_,~l - ' J ~ 1 ~ : : - l f l + ' ~ h ~ A - L ' l : 7 ! : : ;]7
~ ',~-t k"rl" ~ + " :lt~ r-
0.0 ~ + l ~ .-+ ;iiti 7 +"+..7+1+:: + y = o.s.~t::.l .o
i.: ;i::. l . ].'i
~-,._-o. ~ +-+-I
1; y : Q, 9 S - , ] i
- 0.02
I;Y : i. os':ft +. + +
- .+ll-
;u'~l -..1~:1:-:;I:1.+'1: +<7[";T
0.04 Imp. +L; +,il,+ ;-]- ,.
-0.50 0.25 0.0 0.25 0.50-
Volues of~

FxG. 26 VAI,UBS OF ~y OF ]~UATION [8] FOR V = 0

346 ANALYSIS AND D E S I G N OF F L O A T I N G D R Y D O C K S

. 7"

TABLE 4 BENDING MOMENTS, TWIST AND

SHEARS FOR DOCK IN A TROCHOIDAL W A V E AT 45
BEG TO C E N T E R L I N E

L = length of dock Mt = c o e f . L 4 . p . 1 0 -4
B = w i d t h of dock M -- e o e f . L 4 . p - 1 0 -4
p = unit weight of w a t e r V = coef.LS-p -10 -s
T o r q u e , m o m e n t and s h e a r coefficients for v a r i o u s L / B ratios
m
L/B M, a t L/2 M, a t L/4 M at L/2 M at L/4 V at L/4
2.0 3. 426 2.284 2.241 1.210 O. 685
2.1 3. 007 1. 994 2. 270 1. 222 O. 695
2.2 2.65i 1. 750 2. 288 , 1. 230 0.701
2.3 2. 349 1. 543 2. 296 1. 232 O. 703
2.4 2. 090 1.367 2. 295 1.230 O. 704
2.5 1. 867 1. 216 2. 287 1. 224 O. 702
2.6 1. 674 1. 086 2. 274 1. 215 0.698
2.7 1. 056 0 .'973 2. 256 1. 205 0.693
2.8 1. 359 O. 874 2. 236 1.192. O. 687
2.9 1. 231 O. 789 2. 212 1.178 O. 680
3.0 1.118 O. 714 2.187 1. 163 O. 672
3.1 1.018 0.648 2.160 1.148 O. 664
3.2 0.930 O. 589 2.131 1.131 0.656
3.3 O. 851 0.538 2.102 1.115 O. 647
3.4 0. 781 O. 492 2. 073 1.098 O. 638
3.5 0.718 O. 452 2.043 1. 081 O. 629
3.6 0. 662 0.414 2.013 1.064 O. 620
3.7 0.611 O. 381 1. 983 1. 047 0.611
3.8 O. 566 0.352 1.953 1.031 O. 602
3.9 O. 524 0.325 1.923 1.014 O. 593
4.0 O. 487 0.301 1.893 0.998 0.584
4.1 O. 453 O. 279 1. 864 O. 982 O. 576
4.2 0.422 0.259 1. 835 0.966 0.567
4.3 O. 394 O. 241 1.807 O. 950 O. 558
4.4 0.368 0.225 1.780 0.935 0.550
4.5 O. 344 O. 210 1. 752 O. 920 O. 542
4.6 0.323 O. 196 1. 728 0.905 O. 533
4.7 O. 303 O. 184 1. 699 O. 891 O. 525
4.8 O. 284 O. 172 1. 673 O. 877 0.518
4~9 O. 268 0.-162 1. 648 O. 863 0.510
5.0 '0. 252 O. 152 1. 624 O. 850 O. 502
5.1 O. 238 0.143 1.600 . 0.837 O. 495
5.2 O. 224 O. 135 1.576 0.824 0.488
5.3 0.212 O. 127 1. 553 O. 811 0. 481
5.4 O. 201 O. 120 ' 1. 544 O. 800 0. 474
5.5 O. 190 O. 113 1. 509 O. 787 0. 467
5.6 O. 180 O. 107 1.487 O. 780 0.461
5.7 O. 170 0 .'101 1.466 O. 764 0. 454
5.8 O. 162 O. 096 1.446 O. 753 0. 448
5.9 O. 154 O. 091 1. 426 O. 742 0. 442
6.0 O. 146 O. 086 1. 406 O. 732 0. 436
 ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF FLOATING DRYDOCKS 347

' ' 1 ~ :;
/Tt+t',tt'~l " I . "! I . ' . t . " : " t l " f ! ~ . . . . . Z" !t:.'tt4.
~.. ~ : "" ::-:?,

~ ;l;;~;d~ ~:--~.. ~ : , . ~ , , , - ' - , , "~ ' , : ":~ It:-!:.~::.' . ~ . ' i ~ !: '~ : q , l ~ J r .~[~}~
0.04

.~ --- ?:t

0.03

l:T:
..~ 4";:

0.02

~ - ' T "., :"" :~. " . : - - : : . ~ .~-

oot

.!tZ. r!" :'1"~'"

, ,., .., ..... ],.. ~ ....... T.}Y
1< _.- . ' t. . .:'. . . .I .; .. ,. :...;.: t ' , " : : . t , ' ", i";..i:.l~.~ r'!l
' - - t :J
: 1~;:1
_ :~
O0

--t. '--~i, ;' .:..~:-.-t-~T=.. '-' .:-.. i~

~'~ ~.~ :'.l

-o.oV
. . . . ." " : ' " / " ' i . : . ' L .--
~ ~ . ; ' 2 . . . . : ' '.,.~'1~:'~,
. .... . .~, ;itl ~:.::

- 0D2
~. " . . . . ~. . . . . . . 1-':" X "'-=

NC:. r~;i

"" "1 ..... ' '":' "" : ' ~ . 1 : . . . . i' - . ' ', ~,
- 0.03

r-~ --~ -=

i:t;:: .:~:: 1: i. . . . }" '~ i 'i . : ' : , : J ' = O- . 4 S,- ? - . ~ ' - ~ ' ~ . _'
l ~ . . . . .Z : _~~ 7 . . i~ . ,.-.-
Z . .l ; --~.
' :- . : ,' 1. - . . . : . :..., ~ . , l . : - . ' - ]:~:i ! ,

- 0.50 0. 25 0 0.25 0.50

X
Volues of
F~c. 27 V ~ L U ~ S O~ C ~ o ~ E ~ u ^ ~ o ~ [9] r o ~ v = 0
348 ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF FLOATING DRYDOCKS

0.03

0.02

0.01

ODO

(.J -0.01

-0.02

-0.03

-0.50 0,25 0 0.25 0.50+

Values of J-
FIG. 28 VALUES OF Cxv' O F E Q U A T I O N [I0] F O R Y = 0
 ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF FLOATING DRYDOCKS 549

1.60i +,

1"40.1 ~t,~. ~-~4

|.ZO
|.00

0.80

0.60 ~SX
~'~. , .~, " :: :I.'~'

0.40
0.3$.

O.ZO

-, , ~:~ ~Lr~
0.00
:~ ~ . . . . . :"

-0.1~0

_o ,J

ii!' :q~.~
-0.11,0 ~:" "7
~-.-"2 ~.:"~. . . . i~:

~. ,'-" ;~

'"" [ ]
-t.20 ~

.~ ,

.~2"

-I.60 -z:. :!! - i.i .

--0,50 0,25 0 o.P.5 0,5 o+

Volues of J~
FIG. 29 V A L U E S OF Cvz OF E Q U A T I O N [Ii] FOR V ----0
550 ANALYSIS'AND DESIGN OF FLOATING DRYDOCKS

.t T,

! p~
~a

~E
~.I
I1"

*-t
"+L . 1"7t

i
~.7' '~

+~" : rl.

.ty. g: :
, 1
.7
-+~_~
d-
+, .+
~-~ , ,4.

~.+

i+"+ i~ P'I-"

~i~
~r~ N i!
,,, !:~ :tl
r:"

,+@
22i

.
t'd ~
~. ,-~!i.
m }
+ + ,+~- .4.4-4"
".+.~T
,__ +-
I .r:i
I

m
i-:i
"...2
t~i - -

" 2;

~', -i
. !

4
-0.50 0 ~2.~ 0 0.25 0.50+
Volues of
FIG. 30 VALUES OF C~ u OF E Q U A T I O N [121 FOR V = 0
 ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF FLOATING DRYDOCKS
,/
M R . PAUL S. CRANDALL, 3 Visitor:
wishes to supplement this very excellent paper
with a few additional words of caution and general
remarks to emphasize the indeterminate nature
of floating docks and loads they must carry.
Since the a d v e n t of steel vessels, floating dry-
docks have been in use in considerable number.
The firm of Clark and Standfield in England de-
signed as m a n y as 93 between 1877 and 1926,
with more t h a n 75 per cent of these since 1900.
In the United States prior to 1920, W. T. Don-
nelly designed scores of floating docks which
were built with timber pontoons and either steel
or wooden wings, and m a n y are still in operation.
None of these were military type docks, since
there was inadequate space in the wings for equip-
m e n t other than pumps and motors. The actual
design of floating docks is not as straightforward
as one might think. There are special problems
to be solved which require a thorough understand-
ing of materials, future requirements, dock be-
havior, pumping systems, methods of operation
b y the docking crews and considerations of cost.
The designer of a floating drydock must be able
to design his dock to be capable of docking safely
a vessel which m a y not yet be designed. He
must, therefore, exa.mine carefully the charac-
teristics of existing vessels and incorporate added
stability, strength, and even displacement per
foot of length, as his judgment m a y indicate.
In our present situation, we have in the United
States m a n y floating drydocks with adequate
total capacity b u t which are too narrow or with
insufficient draft to accommodate the newer ships.
Very often the displacement of a vessel and loca-
tion of center of gravity are very hard to obtain
since these are affected b y the amount of fuel,
water, and ballast at the time of docking. The
distribution of weight between keel blocks and
bilge blocks is quite indeterminate and depends on
the amount the ship was lifted b y the keel blocks
before the bilge blocks were pulled in place. The
height of the relatively elastic bilge blocks and
the slope against the hull of the ship also affect
the amount of load the blocks will carry. Because
of the complex loadings and the wide variety of
structural framing of the ships themselves, the
drydock designer must be conservative and m u s t
assume the worst possible conditions in making
his analysis.
An additional problem which should not be
3 Crandall Dry Dock Engineers, 238 M a i n
Mass.
351
Discussion
The writer overlooked is the question of improper pumping
or flooding. I t is possible without a ship even
being in dock to damage a f o a t i n g drydock b y
improper control of interior water. This is
particularly i m p o r t a n t when the control of water
flow is done b y means of m a n y valves with only a
few large p u m p s to dewater. For this reason,
water-level indicators are important so the opera-
tor will know the general situation at all times.
In a concrete floating dock it is possible sud-
denly to have a high static pressure between
compartments, which is not the case in steel or
timber docks. The behavior of a floating dock is
greatly affected b y the material of construction
and the resulting specific gravity of the hull and
its total deadweight. A concrete dock is subjected
to m a x i m u m hydrostatic pressure at full sub-
mergence, wheras a steel or timber dock has
m a x i m u m pressure at partial load when the inter-
ior water is level with the pontoo n deck while
lifting a capacity vessel.
Wooden floating docks will not sink to full
draft unless fully filled with water or ballasted.
The late Mr. J. Stuart Crandall developed a
method of p u m p reversal for propellor pumps,
which was patented in 1943, t o enable the dock
operator to force sea water into the dock wings
and thus sink the dock without requiring any
fixed ballast. B y so doing, the dock deadweight
is kept at a minimum. For steel, concrete or
composite docks this feature is not required.
The choice of materials of construction depends
to a certain extent on the location of the dock.
In Hamburg, New Orleans, or Buenos Aires, steel
construction is best because the fresh water will
not corrode mild steel appreciably; electrolysis is
almost nil and domestic timber would rot very
readily. In Boston, New York, San Francisco or
Manila, the salt water makes timber construction
preferred so long as marine-borer attack is con-
trolled. In the tropics, steel suffers terribly from
salt-water corrosion and marine borer attack can
be severe.
Cost is an important factor in floating-drydock
design which should be mentioned briefly. Gen-
erally speaking, military type floating drydocks
will cost from 50 to 100 per cent more than com-
mercial docks of equal capacity because of the
expensive supplementary equipment they require.
For this reason, military-type floating drydocks
are designed strictly for government use and, in
time of peace, are leased to private shipyards. A
commercial .shipyard which can only write off for
S t r e e t , "C a m b r i d g e ,
tax purposes 10 per cent per year of the cost of a
352 ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF FLOATING DRYDOCKS

new dock is forced to build floating drydocks at the more usual trochoid. This simple substitute,
minimum first cost with a m a x i m u m life span for in combination with the prismatic hull form and
the structure. Maintenance costs can be written the assumption that weight is uniformly dis-
off in full and, therefore, are considered secondary tributed longitudinally, results in analytical ex-
for commercial floating docks. However, careful pressions which can be readily solved for m a x i m u m
selection of materials and a well-developed main- vertical shear and bending m o m e n t (Equations
tenance program can keep maintenance costs at a [19] and [20]). This is an i m p o r t a n t simplifica-
reasonable minimum. One important feature tion. The more conventional ship, however, does
should be t h a t floating drydocks be easy to self not have parallel sides; moreover a large a m o u n t
dock. of comparative design data exists for the tro-
Good floating-drydock design depends to a choidal wave, and weight distribution is not flni-
great extent on careful attention to details. If form. Therefore, the analytical approach which
the fastenings of a wooden dock rust out in 20 the author has developed so elegantly for the
years, then the design was not properly balanced drydock becomes unmanageable for the more
with the life of the wood. If structural steel is not conventional ship form. Hence we use graphical
detailed so it can be readily cleaned and painted, methods to derive the bending moments and
then excessive corrosion will result. If waterways shearing forces. Present Bureau of Ships practice
to the p u m p s are not adequate, then excessive is to use a wave height of 1.1 x / L instead of the
dead water and loss of capacity will result. The old L /20.
designer should consider the possibility for future The drydock, being essentially an open cell of
lengthening of a floating drydock and provide U-shape, requires careful analysis of the torsional
adequate width and draft to accommodate future strength, and the author has given a fair a m o u n t
vessels. of attention to this subject. In contrast, even
Simplicity is the essence of design, and when when we design a dry-cargo ship, with its large
properly applied to floating drydoeks produces an deck hatches, we do not seem to be much con-
efficient facility which is simple to operate and cerned with torsion. The reason is t h a t in spite
control at reasonable cost. of its relatively large deck openings, such a ship
behaves as a closed cellular structure, the con-
MR. JOHN VASTA, Member: The author has tinuous deck plating between hatches ' giving the
given the Society a well-organized, detailed structure great torsional strength. In addition,
description of the most important elements t h a t full-scale tests which have subjected the hull to
govern the analysis and design of floating dry- statical torsional moments approximating calcu-
docks. lated values (based on conventional assumptions,
F r o m the author's association with the Bureau with the ship being poised on quartering waves)
of Yards and Docks it is presumed that the paper have not revealed any basic structural weakness
reflects the design practices of t h a t Bureau. One except for localized stress concentrations at the
cannot argue against practices which reflect m a n y hatch corners. The writer is familiar with the
years of successful experience in the construction model tests referred to in (9) of the paper, and
of floating drydocks. However, one m a y still considers the torsional studies of great significance.
discuss the general philosophy of design, and We hope that the Bureau of Yards and Docks will
question some of the design assumptions. make these data available to the profession
The author states, "the methods and ap- generally.
proaches used in the analyses of the dock are. The elastic-stability analysis of the drydock
somewhat slanted toward reflecting the best walls reveals the author's adeptness in developing
thinking of current structural design practice." relatively simple analytical tools Chat the de-
The writer commends him for utilizing the best signer can use. W h a t is disturbing here, however,
tools of structural design, and hastens to add t h a t is the fact that, after the author gets through
such advanced techniques are used also in 'the manipulating the various elements which enter
sister organization, the Bureau of Ships, wherever into the problems, he concludes with the state-
experience indicates t h a t they will lead to more ment, "elastic stability is seldom a problem in the
effective ship design. design of wing walls." We wish t h a t we could
A floating drydock is a special-purpose ship, say the same thing about the conventional ship.
and it is interesting to point out differences and Our experience with the latter type is that elastic
similarities between it and more conventional stability of the flanges of the hull girder is vital.
ships. As for similarity, for example, both are The compression strengths of the deck, and bot-
.designed for sea loads. The author prefers to use tom shell control the over-all strength of the ship.
a cosine wave for determining sea loads instead of In spite of these technical differences, the writer
 ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF FLOATING DRYDOCKS
considers the paper a very valuable contribution
to the technical literature of the Society. It may
well become the future standard reference on this
subject.
REAR ADMIRAL W. H. SMITH (CEC) USN
(RET), A filiate: This paper is an extremely
valuable contribution to American technical
literature. I t fills a long-felt void in published
information on the unique problems of structural
analysis of floating drydocks. There have been
numerous prior attempts to compile treatises on
this subject, including several b y the writer, but
for one reason or another, none has reached the
stage of completion and publication. The author
is to be commended for formulating a systematic,
logical solution of a complex problem and present-
ing both the theoretical and practical aspects in
such understandable form.
The comments that follow are made in the
sincere hope that they will add constructively to
the value of the paper as a standard reference, by
amplifying the author's coverage of certain phases
of the problem, noting additional factors to be
considered, questioning some of the assumptions
and mathematics, and correcting obvious typo-
graphical errors.
1 Basic Types. Referring to "Basic Types"
of floating drydocks, it is believed that the com-
posite dock shown in Fig. l(b) is the Clark and
Stanfield type. In the Rennie type the pontoons
extend under the sidewalls and are bolted to them
at pontoon deck level. Other types are shown in
American Civil Engineers' Handbook (pp. 1858--
9).
2 Dimensional Outline. Equation [1 ] appears
to be incorrect; it should be
d = 35(W~ + Wd) [la]
B ..........
This equation applies only to sea water. For
general application, it may be rewritten
d = 2240(Ws + Wa) [lb]
wB .........
where w = weight of water, in pounds per cubic
foot.
This docking condition corresponds to either
Fig. 11 (d) or Fig. 11(e).
The equation foUowing Equation [1 ] preferably
should be rewritten as
h =d+f
to correspond with the nomenclature and with
Fig. 2. D1 is not consistent with e i t h e r .
3 Docking Moments. Equation [2] also ap-
pears to be incorrect; it should be
353
davg = 35(Ws + WD)
BL ........ [2a]
or for general application
2240(Ws + WD)
d~vg = wBL - ....... [2b]
The author notes that W , includes contained
water. This is an important item; it refers not
only to residual water, i.e., the water in the bot-
tom of. each tank that cannot be pumped out
readily by the main pumps, but also to ballast
water that m a y be retained intentionally to
counterbalance concentrated loadings in order to
reduce transverse or longitudinal stresses.
4 Conventional Approach. The writer feels
that the presentation under "Docking Moments,
Conventional Approach" is not fully representa-
tive of past practice. With respect to load distri-
bution on the blocks, considerable thought has
been given to design loadings, particularly in the
case of battleships having heavy load concentra-
tions under the gun turrets. Docking plans for
battleships normally provided for center keel sup-
port only near the bow and stern, three-point sup-
port for most of the body, a n d five-point support
under the turrets. On the ARD-3, which was
designed under the writer's supervision in 1935,
the late Dr. William Hovgaard, who was retained
by the Bureau of Yards and Docks as consultant,
made a special investigation and report on design
loadings, which was used as a basis for the struc-
tural design. No simplifying assumptions were
made as to weight distribution on the dock, except
in the preliminary stages. Final calculations were
based on comprehensive calculations of the magni-
tude and centers of gravity of all weights.
Detailed consideration also was given to the
longitudinal distribution of concentrated load-
ings, and the two-way action of the pontoon in
redistributing stresses.
Table 3 of this discussion may be of interest as
showing the approach to this problem on the
ARD-3. This table is taken from an incomplete
and unpublished r6sum6 of the design of the ARD-
3 prepared by the writer about 20 years ago, and
needs some explanation.
The column "Original Design" shows the bend-
ing moments at the centerline on the various
frames, assuming t h e f t to act as simple trusses of
135-ft span and subjected to the heaviest loading
possible per frame. The width of the dock was
125 ft to the inside of the sidewalls and 165 ft to
the outside of the sidewalls.
T h e column "Grid," shows the bending mo-
ments obtained by balancing approximately the
deflections of the transverse girders and the three
 354 ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF FLOATING DRYDOCKS

longitudinal bulkheads, b y a cut-and-try method particularly when the softwood caps are actually
of successive approximations. crushed. I t would be interesting to know if the
The column "Cosine" shows the bending mo- Bureau has made a n y experiments to "verify the
ments obtained b y simulating the irregular ship k-factors for the various types of blocking now in
loads b y a series of space curves, both longi- use.
tudinally and transversely; calculating the effects In Table 1, the author gives "Values of Func-
of slab action and end restraint for each separate tions Used in Equations [4] and [6]" which are
curve; and combining them algebraically to useful in applying the elastic-slab method. How-
obtain final moments, stresses, and deflections. ever, the expressions for the functions should read
This analysis was developed b y the late Dr. H. M.
Westergaard, who was retained as consultant on = e-ax(Cos fix + Sin fix)
~b = e-~x(Cos fix -- Sin fx)
the structural design of the ARD-3. 0 = e -~xCosflx
The column "Slab" shows the bending mo-
ments obtained b y the author, based generally on These expressions are given correctly in the text
' w o r k b y Dr. Westergaard. 4 This analysis neg- immediately following Equation [6]. The values
given in Table 1 appear to be correct.
The pontoon m o m e n t and shear formulas
TABLE 3 ARD-3--SUMMARV OF TRANSVERSE
appear formidable, but the author has performed
M O M E N T S AT C E N T E R L I N E - - N E w 3/[EXICO LOAD-
a valuable service in preparing the charts for
ING ( F o o T - T o N s PER G I R D E R )
values of the functional coefficients. Charts for
Original other conditions could be prepared readily b y
Frame design Grid Cosine Slab means of a digital computer.
36. 18120 -- 2394
40 18120 ""0 ""0 627 6 S e a M o m e n t s . Equation [13]. appears to
44 18120 6531) 6248 4902 be in error. The co-ordinates of the standard
48 18120 11270 10616 9062 trochoid wave, 5 generated b y the point A at a
52 18120 12600 13232 11450
56 12350 9780 13448 10022 distance r from the center of a circle while the
60 12350 9250 12264 9126 concentric circle of larger radius R rolls on the
64 12350 8020 10608 8499 line y = R above it, and referred to axes x = 0,
68 12350 7290 10240 8070
72 12350 7480 10608 8134 y = 0, through the center of the circles at the
76 18120 10160 12264 9728 trough should be
80 18120 11700 13448 10637
84 18120 11100 13232 10176 x = RO + r S i n O ~
88 18120 8430 10616 8128
y - - r Cos 0 f ......... [13a]
92 18120 4850 6248 5594
96 11300 0 0 2675
100 11300 . . . . . . 346
Similarly, the signs of the equations for areas
AOB and B C D , to be consistent, should be re-
versed, giving
!eeted end restraint and was based on a slab of
145-ft span, simply supported. This method of AreaAOB = -- ( R r + ~ -2)
analysis is substantially the same as t h a t pre-
sented b y the author in the paper under discussion. 7fr 2
5 Elastic Slab Method. The elastic-slab Area B C D = R r -- - ~ . . . . . . . [14a]
method is, of course, the soundest approach
theoretically, provided the assumptions as to load The negative area indicates deficiency of
concentrations are valid. Two types of blocking buoyancy, while the positive area indicates excess
have been used generally for naval vessels. The of buoyancy.
first type consists of a tier of timbers, uniformly Strictly speaking, Equation [15] should be
12 or 14 in. wide and tapering from 4 ft long at rewritten
the top to 6 ft or more at the deck, and sur- ~-r 2
d t -
mounted b y a 3 or 4-in. softwood crushing strip. Lw
The other type consists of'bl0ck assemblies 3 to 4
ft wide, spaced at intervals of approximately 6 ft. to be consistent with the author's nomenclature.
Some of these assemblies have been composite; In the case assumed by the author, L = Lw. In
the lower portion has been of concrete and the other cases, however, a wave length differing from
upper foot or so only of wood. I t would seem t h a t of the dock might be assumed, as was done
t h a t the spring constant k would v a r y radically, for the ARD-3.
I t should be noted t h a t the expressions for
4 "Computation of Stresses in Bridge Slabs Due to Wheel Loads,"
by FI. M. Westergaard, J o u r n a l o f P u b l i c R o a d s , vol. 2, March 1930, s "Waves and Tides," by R. C. I-I. Russell and D. FI. MacMillan,
pp. 1-23. Philosophical Library, Inc., New York, N. Y., 1953, p. 160.
 ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF FLOATING DRYDOCKS
excess and deficiency of buoyancy are not strictly
correct, because of the "Smith effect." Hydro-
static pressures at a given distance belov the
crest of a wave are less than they would be at the
same distance below a level sea, while pressures at
a given distance below the trough are greater.
I t also should be noted that hogging and sagging
shears and moments increase with increasing
draft, and that the formulas are inaccurate if the
trough of the wave drops below the bottom of the
dock.
The substitution of a cosine curve for the
standard trochoidal wave, to facilitate a mathe-
matical solution, m a y be subject to question.
For a drydock of rectangular or substantially
rectangular section, the writer is inclined to agree
with the author that this is a satisfactory practical
approximation, particularly in view of the
empirical character of the standard wave. For
ship-shaped docks, the writer favors adherence to
the trochoidal wave and final determination of
sea moments and shears by the usual procedures
of naval architecture.
7 Torsion. In dealing with torsion, the author
deals only with the case of a quartering wave
where the line of advance is at 4 5 d e g to the axis
of the dock. In the studies for the ARD-3, calcu-
lations by the Bureau staff indicated maximum
torsion at an angle of 55 deg. Dr. Hovgaard
made an independent analysis and obtained
maximum torsion at an angle of 52.5 deg. I t
Would be interesting to know whether the author
has re-evaluated the maximum conditions or has
adopted 45 deg.as giving a reasonable approxima-
tion while facilitating a mathematical solution.
In developing Equation [27], the author
assumes that the average draft at a dock cross
section can be expressed as
1 TABLE
davg = ~ (y + Yl)
This is open to question, "as the wave is convex
near the crest and concave near the trough. The
approximation is significantly on the unsafe side.
Knowing the longitudinal profile of the wave,
its direction of advance with respect to the dock
axis, and the hull form of t h e d o c k , the draft at
any point m a y be determined either mathemati-
cally using x-y-z space co-ordinates or graphically
by descriptive geometry. The author's method is
advantageous in preliminary calculations for
torque, sagging o r hogging moments, or shears on
the dock as a unit, but is particularly inaccurate
with respect to the loading for transverse bending that such designs will be developed and design
of the pontoon.
8 Design Data. The basic allowable stresses
given for steel are comparable with those generally Li, in Railway Track.and Structures, November 1957.
355
used for buildings, and even higher than those
used for railroad and highway bridges. T h e y are
considerably higher than those used in the design
of the ARD-1, as follows:
Docking conditions ................ ".. . . . . . . . ' . . 16000 p s i
Sea conditions .............................. 18000 psi
Docking (unscientific pumping) ............... 2 0 0 0 0 psi
The allowable stresses given for concrete are on
a comparable basis. In view of the severe condi-
tions to which floating drydocks may be subjected,
such as impact, reversal of stress, fatigue, and
stress raisers, due to discontinuities; and the m a n y
indeterminate factors and approximations affect-
ing the design assumptions, the writer questions
whether the high allowable stresses given are
fully justified, and would prefer to use a basic
steel stress of 18,000 psi and equivalent stresses
for other items as a balanced compromise between
safety and economy.
Since steel floating drydocks are now of welded
construction, consideration should: be given to the
use of A S T M A-373-56T steel rather than ASTM
372. 6 The latter steel is not intended by ASTM
Committee A-1 on steel for use in welded struc-
tures.
With respect to design stresses for concrete
docks, the author's allowable stresses are based
on A C I Committee 318, Building Code Require-
ments for Reinforced Concrete, of 1947. This
was superseded b y . a revised version of April 30,
1956, raising allowable unit stresses in bond be-
cause of the superior grip of ASTM A-305 de-
formed bars, "and modifying design stresses in
shear.
The writer believes the shear and bond stresses
should be given as in Table 4, based on the ulti-
mate strengths given in the author's Table 2.
4 SHEAR AND BOND STRESSES
Shear
No web reinf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
120 150 150 187
Web reinf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
480 600 600 750
Bond
Plain bars (as defined in See. 104,
ACI 318-56)
Top bars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
120 150 150 187
All others . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
180 225 225 270
Deformed bars (as defined in See.
104, ACI 318-56)
Top bars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
280 350 350 437
All others . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
400 500 500 625
The author has omitted all reference to pre-
stressed concrete, which has an obvious applica-
tion to concrete floating docks. I t is to be hoped
data therefore eventually made available.
6 For a comparative discussion of ASTM A-373 steel versus ASTM
A-7 steel, see "All-Welded Steel Railway Bridges" by Dr. Shu-t'ien
356 ANALYSIS A N D DESIGN OF FLOATING DRYDOCKS
9 Plating. The author's coefficients for maxi-
m u m stress for restrained plates under uniform
loading, in his Fig. 17, appear to be based on
diagrams b y Bleich and Ramsey. 7 Additional
data are given in this manual for conditions of
edges other than fixed.
10 Effective Flange Width. The author states,
"for slabs in concrete docks, an effective width of
16 thicknesses is required, in accordance with the
Building Code requirements of the American
Concrete Institute." This code actually reads
"its overhanging width on either side of the web
shall not exceed eight times the thickness of the
slab, nor one half the clear distance to the next
b e a m " and also limits the effective width to one
fourth the span length.
11 Draft and Stability. The final determina-
tion of the proper safety-deck level is a difficult
problem. Usually it can be determined only by
successive approximations as final weights and
their centers of gravity become fixed. In the
A R D docks it is usually necessary to step up the
safety deck at the bow to compensate for its
excess buoyancy, and to control flooding and
pumping to maintain level trim. In some docks,
vents have been extended downward below the
safety decks to pocket air so as to assure adequate
freeboard and balanced trim and list at m a x i m u m
submergence.
12 Stability. Equation [43] should read:
G M = K B + B M -- KG . . . . . .
13 Elastic Stability of Dock "Walls. Equation
[49] should have the p l u s sign in the last term
changed to t and a final bracket added, making it
read
P = 4E a3-~-b~ D Ia + a ~ Ib + 2~r2h3]
. [49a]
. . . .
14 General Remarks. I t must be appreciated
t h a t this paper deals solely with the structural
analysis and design of floating drydocks. In
military-type docks, there are m a n y other phases
of design which are outside the scope of this paper.
I t is to be hoped t h a t these other phases, such as
pumping plant, mechanical equipment, and con-
trols, can be described in some future paper b y
the Bureau's staff. Such published articles would
be a valuable reference source, even for the suc-
cessors of the current technical staff of the Bureau
itself.
7 " A Design M a n u a l on the Buckling Strength of M e t a l Struc-
t u r e s , " b y F. Bleieh and L. B. R a m s e y , Technical and Research
Bulletin No. 2-2, published b y TIlE SOCIETY OF NAVAL ARCHITECTS
AND MARINE ENGINEERS, 1951, pp. 69 a n d 71.
M a n y members of the Society undoubtedly will
be impressed at the scope of the theoretical re-
search and analysis t h a t has been undertaken in
connection with floating drydocks, in comparison
with the practices of design b y ABS rules fre-
quently applied to commercial vessels. I t should
be borne in mind t h a t little precedent existed to
govern the design of military floating drydocks,
and the varied conditions of loading to which
they are subjected have no counterpart in normal
vessels. The Bureau of Yards and Docks de-
serves commendation for its pioneering achieve-
ments in this field.
The writer must acknowledge with gratitude the
assistance rendered by Dr. Shu-t'ien Li, PhD, of
his staff in the review of this paper and its com-
plex mathematics.
MR. EDWARD J. QUIRIN, Affiliate: The author
has a t t e m p t e d to condense the subject of floating-
drydock analysis and design, a subject which
could fill a voluminous textbook, into 44 short
pages. At best, such an a t t e m p t can result only
in a survey of this subject. At worst, it results in
an oversimplification which m a y be dangerous if
it leads to the conclusion t h a t any engineer in-
experienced in floating-drydock design can under-
take such design. The remarks in the following
paragraphs should therefore not be viewed as a
criticism of the paper but rather as an embellish-
m e n t and amplification of the author's task of
[43a] condevsxtion.
Of necessity, the scope of the paper is much less
ambitious than the title suggests. Floating dry-
docks in general are covered only in the section of
the paper entitled " D e v e l o p m e n t of Framing."
The remaining two sections, covering analysis and
design, concern themselves principally with the
one-piece dock. The portions of this paper deal-
ing with sea moments and torsional analysis are
.
also applicable to a single section of a sectional
dock. However, difficulties will arise if a designer
should a t t e m p t to analyze a sectional dock by the
elastic-slab method.
According to the author, the elastic-slab method
is applicable if the deflections of the dock are
negligible with respect to deflections of the ship.
This m a y be true for certain one-piece docks. I t
is generally not true for the sectional dock whose
stiffness can be controlled to a n y desired amount
by the design of the wing walls and their connec-
tions. Only in docking a badly damaged ship
could the stiffness of a sectional dock exceed t h a t
of a ship sufficiently to make the dock's deflection
negligible with respect to t h a t of the ship.
Assuming for the time being t h a t the premise of
a very stiff dock is correct, certain questions still
 ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF FLOATING DRYDOCKS
remain unanswered. For instance, what is the
magnitude of the errors in a p p l y i n g Wester-
gaard's equations to a thick cellular slab?
How are stresses in the components of the
elastic cellular slab computed from t h e moments
and shears? M a y the effect of varying stiffness
between transverse trussed frames and bulkheads
be neglected safely?
W h a t is the state of stress in the shell plating
which functions first in bending between stiff-
eners, second I s a flange for the longitudinal
stiffeners, and finally as a flange for the transverse
frames?
How serious are secondary stresses in the trans-
verse trussed frames?
I t appears to us t h a t the elastic-slab method
makes answers to the foregoing questions un-
necessarily difficult. For this reason it has been
our practice to neglect the effect of keel-block
deformations and to design floating drydoeks for
a ship load based on the known weight distribu-
tion curve of the m a x i m u m ship to be docked. In
sectional docks this load is distributed across the
width of each section b y considering the stiffness
of the transverse trusses', grouped as one system,
and t h a t of the transverse bulkheads, grouped as
another system. The assumption is made t h a t the
longitudinal bulkhead under the wing wall de-
fleets and rotates evenly along its entire length.
These assumptions enable us to apportion the ship
load between the systems of trusses and bulkheads
and make possible the computation of stresses in
the component parts of the pontoons. This
method of analysis is not wasteful of structural
material and presents a pattern of stress distribu-
tion across the width of the pontoon which is as
likely to be correct as t h a t developed b y the elas-
tic-slab method.
In view of the uncertainties of ship loading, it
does not appear to us t h a t a very.exact structural
transverse analysis is warranted, nor t h a t much
material can be saved thereby. We are of the
opinion t h a t material savings will result if the
skin plating is kept to a minimum. Since the
design of this plating is generally governed b y
differential heads, t h a t is, the difference between
water levels outside and inside the dock, it is
important that floodable c o m p a r t m e n t s be so
arranged as to result in the highest possible level
of contained water for a given draft of the dock.
Since the amount of contained water for a given
draft can be determined, this can be accomplished
b y making certain c o m p a r t m e n t s in the pontoon
watertight. I t therefore becomes advantageous to
place buoyancy chambers in the pontoon rather
than in the wing walls, as had been customary.
True, a buoyancy chamber so placed must be
357
designed for a head of water corresponding to
m a x i m u m submergence of the dock. However,
the buoyancy chamber being small relative to tile
remainder of the dock, the additional material re-
quired in its design is more t h a n offset b y the
savings in shell plating in the remainder of the
dock.
The paper contains an excellent deseription of
loading conditions on drydocks. The formulas,
graphs and tables, particularly those for sea
moments and torsional stresses, are derived in a
lucid manner and will prove to be of great value
to the designer of floating drydocks.
MR. BOYD G. ANDERSON, 8 Visitor: T h e authors
(Messrs. Cook and Amirikian) are to be con-
gratulated for the excellent information presented
in the papers describing the N a v y floating-dry-
dock program. These papers are of special inter-
est in view of the lack of recorded information on
the subject.
T h e portion of Mr. Amirikian's paper devoted
to the design manual requires careful study to
appreciate-the scope of material involved in the
contained information. The basic criteria reflect-
ing the Bureau's broad experience in the different
design problems is invaluable to offices engaged in
the design of floating drydoeks. The information
also is of interest to other offices as the analysis
involving two-dimensional flexure, stability and
torsional effects covers a g a m u t o f general engineer-
ing problems. T h e effort involved in developing
and presenting this information in such a lucid
manner will be appreciated b y all engineers.
The distribution of the ship load considering
the average rigidity of the ship, the elastic-founda-
tion support of the blocks and the elastic plate
action of the pontoon deck between wing walls is
certainly a sound yet workable design approach
leading to design strength neither overly conserva-
tive nor resulting in local overstress such as might
occur under the earlier arbitrary design loadings.
At first the writer regretted the omission of the
charts furnishing m o m e n t values for noneenterline
loads which could be used directly in considering
the _upward buoyancy forces in the m o m e n t sum-
mation calculations. However, on further thought
it is evident t h a t the average load as expressed by
the buoyancy forces will transmit laterally in the
critical areas and it is only the unbalanced load
t h a t will transmit stress longitudinally along the
length of the dock.
While not specifically pointed out in the paper
the same cellular elastic-slab t r e a t m e n t is equally
applicable to the wingwall design. The side plat-
s A m m a n and Whitney, C o n s u l t i n g Engineers, New York, N. Y.
 358 ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF FLOATING DRYDOCKS
ing, deck plating and bulkheads form rigid stress
paths resisting sidesway due to water heads and
wave impact forces. Accordingly if the vertical
watertight bulkheads are spaced reasonably close
together, all transverse wall frames can be elimi-
nated and the scantlings can be designed solely to
span locally between plate supports and the wing-
wall space can be left open for working areas and
storage.
A study and research program now being con-
ducted under the direction of the Bureau might be
worth describing to amplify the dock types listed
in the papers. In the papers the operating
advantages of the unit type dock are pointed out
along with the difficulties or impracticability of
accomplishing this unit design for larger docks
subject to seagoing wave forces. In this new
study, intersection connecting units have been
devised t h a t will develop unit action for the dock-
ing operation. These devices utilizing modern
prestressed-concrete techniques appear extremely
useful for furnishing quick-disconnect connections
capable of fully developing docking m o m e n t s
which are much lower than seagoing moments.
Such connections ;ould combine the operating
advantages and the use of shallower basins inher-
ent with unit-type docks with the economy, main-
tenance characteristics, canal transit and simpler
towing characteristics of the sectional-type docks.
VICE ADMIRAL W . MACK ANGAS ( C E C ) USN
(RET), 9 Visitor: The author has made a great
contribution to the technical literature of the de-
sign of floating drydocks, and I wish to compli-
ment him on his t r e a t m e n t of the structural
problems and to congratulate the profession upon
having made available to those of us who are
faced with the problems of the structural design
of floating drydocks the data which he has incor-
porated in his paper.
I wish to comment on the secional dock, having
had some experience with the deep sectional
dock when I was C o m m a n d e r of the construction
forces of the Seventh Fleet in the S o u t h w e s t
Pacific. The welded connections t h a t were used
between the sections of the wing walls on the big
docks were difficult to make and time consuming.
I am glad to say t h a t I happen to know the author
now has under consideration better and improved
methods of connecting the sections. These will
m a k e the sectional dock one t h a t can b e much
more readily and quickly put together.
I would also like to emphasize something which
has been mentioned b y the authors of both papers
and t h a t is the great importance of the stability
9 Chairman, Department of Civil Engineering, Princeton Univer-
N. J.
sity,.Princeton,
characteristics of a floating dock during both the
docking and the undocking operations. I t is, of
course, quite possible t h a t a ship m a y be docked
safely on a floating drydock, and then, when she
is out of the water, b y shifting liquids from tanks
to other tanks thereby providing large free liquid
surfaces in the ship, she m a y make the ship and
dock unstable during the critical phases of an
undocking operation.
I believe the timber pontoon sheathed with
creosoted lumber or preferably 'with creosoted
plywood m a y be a very satisfactory device in cold
water; water, let's say, of the temperature we
find along both the mid to northern Atlantic and
Pacific coasts. I am somewhat skeptical as to the
durability of pontoons of this type in the tropics.
Experience t h a t m a n y of us have had in the Philip-
pines, in Hawaii, and in the tropics makes us very
skeptical of the effectiveness of creosote as a pro-
tective device where timber is submerged for long
periods of time.
),{R. ROBERT STEELE, Life Member: I find no
mention of wrought iron in either of the drydock
papers. I suppose as a drydock material it is no
longer used. However, during the war we raised
a small wrought-iron drydock in the Red Sea
which had been down a year and a half. I t was
probably 30 years old before we raised it. About
the same time we raised a .steel drydock which
had been under water for the same period but
which had had a much shorter life before being
sunk. This latter' dock was completely useless,
but we pumped out the wrought-iron dock which
was in excellent condition and proceeded to use it.
Another incident involved docking a ship in a
drydock into which it did not fit. This concerns
the docking of some British light cruisers at the
time Rommel was making it impossible for them
to dock at Alexandria. We had available a 6000-
ton drydock. Actually its c a p a c i t y was limited
to about 3500 tons. T h e light cruisers weighed
about 7200 tons. We solved the problem by
lifting one end at a time, in spite of the fear ex-
pressed b y the British Officers t h a t we would lose
their ships. But we didn't!
AUTHOR'S CLOSURE
MR. ARSHAM AMIRIKIAN: T h e author is grate-
ful for the m a n y fine discussions of his paper and
the generous comments on its treatment. T h e
expressed interest is particularly encouraging in
view of the rather specialized and unglamourous
nature of the subject matter.
Mr. Crandall has made a n u m b e r of interesting
 ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF FLOATING DRYDOCKS 359

observations regarding certain phases of design T h e dock ARD-3, the design of which is cited,
of floating dry docks. T h e ~arious factors which was never built.
he cites and the unusual conditions which he de- Sea Moments. Admiral Smith appears to have
scribes constitute an integral, part of the p l a n n i n g based all his comments on the design experience
and development criteria of a dock. I t is true, in of one dock, namely, ARD-3. Of course, the
establishing the lifting capacity and dimensional author is equally familar with all phases of design
characteristics of a dock, .the designer also m u s t of t h a t particular craft. However, ARD-3, a
give some thought to the requirements of vessels ship-shaped dock with a closed bow and stern gate,
planned or anticipated for the future. Unfor. is hardly comparable to openTended channel-
tunately, such future contingencies cannot always shaped docks in general use. For this reason,
be determined satisfactorily and, often, initial cost draft and torque conditions described in the com-
limitations m a y rule out too liberal design pro- m e n t a r y are not valid for the latter docks. Under
visions. the assumptions made in the paper, with a pris-
The author is in full s y m p a t h y with Mr. Vasta's matic dock contour and a wave of cosine profile, it
views regarding the relative complexities of de- can be shown t h a t m a x i m u m torsion occurs at an
sign problems of ships and docks. As elaborated angle of 45 deg, and the m a x i m u m moments and
in the paper, a floating dock is merely a lifting shears are as given b y the corresponding expres-
tool; devoid of b e a u t y of shape and of glamour of sions of the author's analysis. Furthermore, even
function, and expressed in bold structural framing the use of trochoidel wave and corrections for
efficiency. With this thought, even Mr. Vasta's such refinements as "Smith effect" would cause no
definition of it being a "special-purpose ship" does appreciable difference; nor would the assumed
not fit as a proper description. I t is readily ad'- neglect of small deviations from concavity or
mitted t h a t the analytical approach suggested in convexity of the transverse water loadline on the
the paper for the solution of some of the problems, pontoon materially affect the bending m o m e n t s
as well as some of the simplifying assumptions, in the pontoon. In addition, it should be noted
m a y not be valid or justifiable in the solution of that transverse pontoon sea m o m e n t s are not
comparable design problems in ships. governed b y this condition of sea loading but t h a t
Admiral Smith has made a careful and detailed of normal hogging.
review of the paper. In this task, he has detected Design Data. The author cannot agree with
several errors; some crept in during typing, some the contention t h a t 20,000 psi is too high a base for
in printing and one, an originally misplaced t e r m stresses in steel docks. In reality, m a n y of the
in Equations [1] and [2], is apparently due to assumptions of loads and structural response
gremlins. The needed corrections have been adopted in a conventional analysis of these float-
made. He is also correct in observing t h a t the ing structures provide much greater margins for
draft expressions given in Equations [1] and [2] safety than those normally used in the design of
are for displacements in salt water, in which case shore structures. Furthermore, the geometry of
35 c u l t of water will weigh I long ton. No correc- framing of a dock is very favorable f o r smooth
tions are, however, required in Equatiofls [13] stress propagation, and the cycles of stress rever-
and [14], since in this paper the sign for y ordi- sal anticipated during the relatively few sea voy-
nates is assumed plus ( + ) downward. This same ages are well outside the critical range of fatigue.
sign covention is also used by others.7 T h e stress data given in the paper for concrete
In his discussion Admiral Smith raises a num- framings are those actually used in the design of
ber of questions. Some of these are self-explana- some fourteen floating docks of reinforced concrete
tory and need no elaboration. In regards to the built during World W a r II. T h e information was
others, the following comments are offered: compiled b y the author, utilizing design data of
Method of Analysis. T o the author's knowl- the American Concrete Institute and some other
edge, based on his familiarity with the designs of research work. Except for higher bond values in
all floating docks built for the N a v y during the connection with the use of new type of deformed
past 30 years, the method of analysis generally bars referred to in the discussion, no changes in
utilized is essentially t h a t described in the paper those data are presently contemplated.
under the heading of "Conventional Approach." Fig. 17 should have been familiar to Admiral
This includes not only the past practice of the Smith, since it is a revised version of a similar
Bureau of Yards and Docks b u t also t h a t of others chart prepared b y the author and published in
who have designed floating docks for the N a v y . the 1938 edition of the Bureau's "Design D a t a "
book. T h e assumed full edge restraint is valid
l 0 See, for example, " P r i n c i p l e s of N a v a l A r c h i t e c t u r e " , Vol. I I , practically in all cases of the anticipated investi-
by H. E. Rossell a n d L. B. C h a p m a n , THE SOCIBT OF NAVAL
ARCHITECTS AND ]V~ARINE ENGINEERS, New York, N. Y., 1942, p. 2. gations.
360 ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF FLOATING DRYDOCKS
With reference to prestressed concrete, its pos-
sible utilization is still under investigation. The
results of those studies have not, as yet, indicated
t h a t the application of the technique would be
economical or competitive with precast and con-
ventionally poured-in-place concrete construc-
tion. There also remain some difficult problems
of anchorage and three-dimensional continuity
yet to be resolved satisfactorily.
Mr. Quirin has taken a dim view of the objec-
tives of the paper. In his estimation, a "volu-
minous textbook" will be needed for the treat-
m e n t of the subject. However, bulk in itself is a
poor criterion of merit. He does not clarify what
the contents of such a volume would have been.
T h e author firmly believes t h a t the quality of
design normally obtained in conventional practice
can be improved b y the adoption of certain
analytical procedures which, in turn, are predi-
cated on more realistic expectations of structural
behavior. One of these pertains to the over-all
bending of the dock. For this purpose, the author
in his paper has proposed the use of the elastic-slab
method. Mr. Quirin doubts the applicability of
this approach and poses a number of questions.
I t is hoped t h a t the following elaboration will fur-
nish him the needed assurance.
(a) T h e elastic-slab flexure is neither applicable
to nor is needed in the analysis of sectional docks.
There, because of longitudinal discontinuity, the
pontoon load is transmitted to the sidewalls by
simple transverse bending only. Even in the
case of rigid docks, the region "of slab action is as
indicated in Fig. 14.
(b) Distinction m u s t be made between a rigid
cellular slab and a thick solid slab. There are no
" b o d y " forces in the former, and the cellular
rigidity is not incompatible with perfect elastic
behavior.
(c) T o p and b o t t o m plates of a cellular as-
sembly, such as the pontoon, carry biaxial
stresses and twisting shear in bending. Web plat-
ing carries the bending shear. Nonuniform place-
m e n t of web bulkheads or frames does not alter
the basic cellular-slab behavior.
(d) Stresses in shell plating resulting, from
local, girder and over-aU bending are directly ad-
ditive in the respective directions of flexure.
F r o m these totals the m a x i m u m stresses are then
computed b y the relations of principal stresses.
(e) Except for possible joint eccentricities,
there is no source for secondary stresses in the
transverse trussed frames.
(f) The use of the elastic-slab method, in lieu
of the procedure advocated b y Mr. ~uirin, could
result in reductions of up to 50 per cent in fram-
ing weight. Certainly such savings cannot be
considered as unimportant.
In this connection, it is interesting to note t h a t
when the author first proposed this approach in
the Bureau some 20 years ago, similar skepticism
was expressed regarding its applicability. In or-
der to test the validity of the concept, an elaborate
model test was devised. The arrangement con-
sisted of a one-fiftieth scale 20-ft model of the
ARD-3, referred to previously. The model, built
of stainless steel, was subjected to four systems of
loading. These simulated the four principal
conditions of dock loading; namely, hogging, sag-
ging, torsion, and ship docking. The tests, con-
ducted b y the late Professor Beggs at. Princeton
University, furnished strain and deflection meas-
urement at over 100 locations. A complete anal-
ysis of stresses, strains and deformations of the
model under the various conditions of loading was
made in the Bureau, utilizing the elastic-slab
method and other procedures described by the
author in his paper. The comparison of the re-
sults obtained by the tests and the analysis indi-
cated very satisfactory agreement. As a m a t t e r
of fact, in the few cases of divergence, the com-
puted values were, in general, larger than those
given b y the test measurements. In view of the
complexity of the analytic work, the obtained
confirmation was considered highly gratifying.
Mr. Anderson has expressed regret t h a t no de-
sign charts are given for loads other than those
placed along the longitudinal centerline of the pon-
toon. He will be pleased to know t h a t the author
has prepared charts for a complete coverage of
other load positions. Unfortunately, because of
space limitations, he was prevailed upon by the
Editor to omit them from the paper. However,
they Will be made available to those interested in
their use.
Mr. Anderson has suggested t h a t the elastic-
slab method be also applied to the analysis of the
sidewalls of the dock. While lateral flexure of
the sidewalls is not as i m p o r t a n t as t h a t of the
pontoon, the author believes t h a t the suggestion
merits future consideration.
Admiral Angas' comments on sectional docks,
based on his intimate knowledge of operations of
these structures, are most interesting. His ap-
praisal of the author's proposed new connection
scheme, also discussed by Mr. Anderson, is very
encouraging. The basic idea of the scheme is to
join dock sections together b y means of prestressed
connections. The development work, in the form
of a N a v y research project at Princeton Univer-
sity, and with the collaboration of Mr. Anderson,
has now come to a successful conclusion. T h e de-
 ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF FLOATING DRYDOCKS
vice will provide not only an economical and rapid
method of assembly and diassembly, but also will
make it possible to incorporate a considerable
amount of longitudinal continuity strength in the
walls.
The author has no knowledge of the use of
wrought iron as framing material in floating docks.
However, he is in complete agreement with Mr.
Steele's views regarding the seriousness of the
corrosion problem of steel docks. Unfortunately,
361
there are no wrought-iron structural shapes avail-
able which could be utilized--even at a higher
cost--as a substitute for steel.
With reference to the query of Mr. Hischier,
the author belie'ces t h a t for plating of thicknesses
up to z/~ in. a double-fillet connection in a T-joint
detail is adequate. No penalty is imposed on the
efficiency on such details in the framings of float-
ing docks. Full joint efficiency is assumed also
for groove welds of b u t t joints in shell plating.