You are on page 1of 55

Analysis and Design of Floating

Drydocks
BY ARSHAM AMIRIKIAN,' MEMBER

d, = d r a f t of vessel .to be docked


E - m o d u l u s of elasticity
With the objective of furnishing helpful F = freeboard of dock a t m a x i m u m - s u b -
data and guides on the design of .floating mergence
drydocks, a comprehensive treatment of the f = m i n i m u m docking freeboard of p o n t o o n
subject is presented in this paper. In the G = m o d u l u s of elasticity in shear
development of the design, use is made first g = acceleration due to g r a v i t y
of the conventional approach, then a de- H = height of wingwalls a b o v e dock floor
tailed discussion is given of the most ad- h = d e p t h of p o n t o o n
vanced concepts of analysis. Arrangements I = m o m e n t of i n e r t i a
and framing are given in considerable de- Is = m o m e n t of i n e r t i a of ship in dock
tail not only for steel-flamed docks but K = keel of dock
also for those of concrete and timber. In K G = vertical distance from K to c e n t e r of
order to simplify the analytical work, gen- gravity
eral expressions are derived for computing M = vertical distance from K to t r a n s v e r s e
dock stresses under various conditions of metacenter
loading at sea and in docking of ships. 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
Further design aids are provided in the of g y r a t i o n
form of supplementary design tables and L = l e n g t h of dock
charts, including a set for coefficients o f L~ = over-all l e n g t h of s u p p o r t i n g blocks
moments and shears in the dock pontoon, Lw = l e n g t h of wave
which is considered as an elastic cellular l = l e n g t h of plate in cell
slab supporting the ship loading. 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
NOMENCLATURE My = b e n d i n g m o m e n t in Y-direction of elastic
slab
T h e following n o m e n c l a t u r e is used in the M.v = twisting m o m e n t of elastic slab
paper: m = ratio of dock l e n g t h L to dock Width B
A = area of cell in shear c o m p u t a t i o n s P = block load per linear foot of dock
B -- width of p o n t o o n -Q = m o m e n t of cross-sectional a r e a a b o u t
BM = t r a n s v e r s e m e t a c e n t r i c radius n e u t r a l axis
B1 - w i d t h of dock c h a n n e l q = flexural shearing force in shell p l a t e
B, = b e a m of vessel to be docked q' = torsional shearing force in shell plate
b -- w i d t h of wingwall r = one half height of wave, also radial dis-
D = t o t a l d e p t h of dock tance in rolling
d - draft of dock s = s p a n of p o n t o o n , c e n t e r to center of
wingwalls
t Special Structures Consultant, B u r e a u of Yards and Docks, t = thickness of shell p l a t i n g
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., V = shear, also v o l u m e of d i s p l a c e m e n t
November 14-15, 1957, of THE SOCIETY OF NAVAL ARCHITE(~TS AND
MARINE ENGINEERS. 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 tieability in construction which could be best


We = weight of dock per linear foot coped with by the construction of floating docks.
Ws = weight of ship per linear foot Consequently, a great number of these structures
0 = angle of roll or of twist, also a parameter were built during the war and the emergency
= Poisson's ratio period preceding it.
From design point of view, the framing of a
INTRODUCTION floating dock presents problems mainly in the
Because of their limited field of application, field of structural engineering. Lacking in self-
floating drydocks have received only scanty at- propulsion, and being towed at relatively low
tention in technical literature. For the same speeds, shape and arrangement are predicated pri-
reason, there is but little information generally marily on considerations of structural efficiency
available regarding the m a n y aspects and prob- rather than those normally prevalent in naval
lems associated with their analysis and design. architecture. For the same reason, some of the
Prior to World W a r II, there were probably less concepts of framing and the methods and ap-
than a score of floating drydocks in the active. proaches used in the analysis of the dock are some-
service of commercial and military establishments what slanted toward reflecting the best thinking of
in all the maritime countries of the world. Nor- current structural design practices.
mally, repair operations to commercial vessels and The t r e a t m e n t of the subject is given in three
naval fleets are accomplished in waterfront facili- p a r t s . . T h e first part is devoted to a preliminary
ties fixed to the shore. These consist mainly of design, with the objective of establishing the main
graving docks and wet slips, in some cases sup- dimensional outline, framing and c o m p a r t m e n t a -
plemented b y marine railways. With the advent tion arrangement. The second part-is concerned
of modern warfare, the factor of mobility became with a general analysis of flexure of the dock
an important consideration in the provision of re- under docking and sea conditions. The third part
pair facilities. Coupled with this requirement, the is a detailed analysis of stresses and design of the
critical time element brought about b y the tre- framing of the dock. As an aid in the application
mendous and rapid expansions of naval fleet and of certain phases of the presented analytical proce-
marine-transport systems rendered the creation of dures, some supplementary data, in the form of
the needed additional facilities a problem of prac- charts and tables, also are given in the Appendix

1--DEVELOPMENT OF F R A M I N G

DIMENSIONAL OUTLINE segments as shown in Fig. l(b). This is the com-


posite or Rennie type. In others, the dock channel
Functional Concept. A floating dock is a chan- is subdivided into three segments, but the con-
nel-shaped floating structure, devised b y its con- tinuity of the sidewalls is still maintained b y pro-
trolled buoyancy to lift marine craft out of water viding an overlapping splice between the walls of
for inspection, maintenance and repair work. the center and end segments as indicated in Fig.
T h e channel is formed by three pontoon-like ele- l(d). This arrangement makes possible docking
ments, one constituting the floor of the dock and of the end segments within the center segment, and
the other two its wingwalls. By controlling the also enables lifting of the center segment out of
amount of water ballast contained in the hollow water b y raising it on top of the wingwalls and
confines 'of the cellular framing, the dock is sub- pontoon of the end segments. This is the three-
merged or floated to various drafts as required }~y piece self-docking type Harris dock. Still in some
the operational procedure. others, the dock m a y have a closed bow and a
Basic Types. The dock m a y be of either con- hinged stern gate to form a ship-shaped floating
tinuous or segmental arrangement. The continuity basin, such as the one shown in Fig. l(f). This is
m a y be complete or partial. In the former ease, the A R D - t y p e steel dock developed b y the
the entire framing is assembled together to form Bureau of Vards and Docks.
a single rigid body an example of which is sketched The truly sectional dock m a y conform to one of
in Fig. l(a). This type is generally designated as the two shapes sketched in Figs. 1(c) and l(e).
a rigid or unit dock. Those with partial con- The former typifies the commonly known U-
tinuity m a y conform to several variations. Some shaped, non-seagoing y a r d dock, usually built of
m a y have two continuous sidewalls and a detach- timber framing. The latter is a modification of
able pontoon composed of single or multiple the basic U-shape for service u s e at advanced
ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF FLOATING DRYDOCKS 509

(o) (hi (c)

(d) (e) (f)


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. the vessel to be docked; a, docking block height;
Here, in order to facilitate towing of the segment, c, clearance between dock wall and ship; cb
the pontoon is extended beyond the wingwalls to clearance between docking blocks and b o t t o m of
form a shaped bow and stern. As a further aid in ship; F, freeboard of d o c k at m a x i m u m sub-
towing, the wingwalls have a hinged arrangement mergence; and f, minimum docking, freeboard of
to enable their being lowered onto the top of the pontoon. With these notations, the main cross-
pontoon during the sea voyage. sectional dimensions m a y be restated as follows
Dimensional Outline. Dimensional characteris-
tics of a floating dock are established b y a number B = B1 + 2b
of considerations which m a y be grouped under two B1 = B, + 2c
main headings : (a) Requirements imposed b y the
D =H+h
craft to be docked; and (b) those concerning the
dock itself. T h e first group defines the require- H =d~+a+cl+F
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 Clearance and freeboard figures are governed
of the vessels to be contained in the dock, as well b y practical considerations and operational ex-
as their blocking or supported length, their weight perience. T h e following are the m i n i m u m values
and KG. The second group covers the require- normally used in design : c = 5 ft; cl = 2 ft; F =
ments of strength, safety, and stability of the 3.5 ft for docks up to 300 ft in length, with an
dock. Except f o r ship-shaped docks, the cross- additional 6 in. for each 100 ft of added length.
sectional outline remains nearly the same through The block height a m a y v a r y from 4 ft to 6 ft.
the length of the dock.. For design purposes, it Again based on operational requirements, the
will accordingly be satisfactory to consider a sec- width of the wingwalls b is made a m i n i m u m of
tion of unit width. Such a typical section is 10 ft, although stability computations m a y dictate
shown in Fig. 2. Here the characteristic dimen- a greater width.
sions are indicated b y the following.notations: B T h e depth of the dock pontoon h is determined
and h, the width and depth of the pontoon; b and mainly b y lifting requirements. For this purpose,
H, the width and height of wingwalls above the it is necessary to have the weight of the heaviest
dock floor; B1, the width of the dock channel; D, ship to be docked, and also the assumed or esti-
depth of dock; Bs and d~, the beam and draft of m a t e d weight of the dock. Let Ws indicate the
310 ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF FLOATING DRYDOCKS

B)

E~s _-Ib
r_CI r .I
I I
I
I
,.t MAX
DRAFT

/\
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 Fig. l(f), since pontoon freeboard is no longer an
the weight of the dock per linear foot, both ex- applicable limitation, the depth of pontoon is
pressed in long tons. Then the required draft d, governed by structural strength requirements.
given in feet, is For this reason, for the same lifting capacity,
floating docks with gates generally will have a
d - 35(Ws + W~)
B .......... [11 shallower pontoon than those with open ends.
The length of segments in sectional docks is
Adding to this draft the pontoon freeboard, the governed by requirements of self-docking. This
total depth of the pontoon is accordingly would limit it to the dimension B1, distance be-
tween wingwalls, less a reasonable'clearance mar-
h=d+f gin.
There remains one more dimension yet to be
FRAMING ARRANGEMENT
determined; that is, the length of the dock L.
Normally thisis obtained from the over-all length Materials of Framing
of the longest ship to be docked, also making al- Floating docks are built normally of steel fram-
lowance for some additional length beyond the ing. Because of critical shortage of steel, as a
ship, both at bow and stern, to provide working consei-vation measure during World War II, the
space. Usually this is accomplished b y extending framings of a number of the docks constructed
the pontoon a short distance beyond the ends of during that period were made of timber and some
the wingwalls in the form of an apron or working others of reinforced concrete. While the use of
platform. these two materials did not truly constitute a new
In sectional docks the lifting capacity is specified application, since they had been also utilized pre-
for the entire section rather than per linear foot of viously in a few docks, their large-scale substitu-
dock. Since the section must lift that part of ship tion for steel at that time created certain design
load directly over it, the design load of the section problems which had to be resolved without the
will be greater than that obtained from average or benefit of actual service experience. However, the
distributed weight of the ship; that is, the maxi- generally satisfactory service performance of these
mum local ship load. Accordingly, in,determining docks observed to date makes it mandatory that
the pontoon depth, the average ship weight W,, in in future designs proper consideration be given to
Equation [1] must be replaced by an average both concrete and timber as competitive materials
weight obtained from the maximum ship. load with steel. With this thought, an a t t e m p t will be
covering a length equal to the length of the dock made here to cover certain design aspects, which
section. In docks with gates, such as shown in may differ in accordance with the type of framing
ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF FLOATING DRYDOCKS 311

DETAILED "

i//
~ RANSVERSE
WALL

ERsE

SHELL PLATING / CENTER BULKHEAD


/

FIG. 3 TYPICAL SEGMI~NT OF A CONTINUOUS STEEL DOCK

material, under a separate heading for each of the Details of Framing


three types. In addition, it may be helpful to in- The framing of a dock is arranged to provide
clude a fourth category under the designation of maximum strength with a minimum amount of
composite framing, obtainable b y using differing materials of framing. In continuous docks,
materials in the framing of the wingwalls and pon- strength is required both in the longitudinal as well
toon in a number of possible combinations, such as as in the transverse direction of the dock. Longi-
(i) concrete pontoon and steel wingwalls, (ii) tim- tudinal strength is obtained primarily through the
ber pontoon and steel wingwalls, and (iii) concrete wingwalls, and transverse strength is developed
pontoon with timber wingwaUs.. The composite mainly through the pontoon. The basic element
type of framing is generally more advantageous of framing in either direction is furnished b y the
for use in docks with continuous wingwalls; hence o u t e r skin or shell. This, in turn, is supplemented
the prevalence of steel wingwalls in the various with a stiffening system consisting of frames and
combinations, since that medium readily provides bulkheads and, in t h e case of steel docks, by a
the-needed flexural strength with a minimum of series of stringers. While all the docks conform
framing weight. 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 DESIGN OF FLOATING DRYDOCKS 313

2424

.,,d ~1
3" r-oR :2" ANO :5" c~,/-t -1- . . . . . . . . . ------ ............... I
2" FOR OTHERS'**" TYPICAL CHANNEL ,SERRATE

PLATE

FIG. 5 TYPICAL SHELL-PANEL SHOWING SERRATED STRINGERS

which is the simpler of the two methods of connec- Safety Deck. Location of the safety deck is
tion, is illustrated b y the details shown in Figs. governed by the weight and b y the height of free-
6(e), (f), and (g) and the latter is typified b y the board at maximum submergence. In steel docks
detail sketched in. Fig. 6(d). When a lap-type it is placed in the upper part of the wingwalls, at a
jointing is used, it will be necessary to use built-up distance below the top deck sufficient for the de-
angle sections for chords and T-shape sections for sired operational clearance. For this reason, its
the web members. However, in the wall frames, elevational location may vary in different parts of
where the chord stresses are relatively small, T- the dock.
sections m a y be used also for the chord, in which (b) Concrete Docks. A typical cross section,
case the web members m a y be connected by gus- taken from a poured-in-place concrete dock of
set plates welded to the backs of the T's, as shown 6000 tons lifting capacity, is shown in ]Fig. 7.
in Fig. 6(h). When a butt-type connection detail Here the transverse frames are located 6 ft on
is adopted, the web members m a y consist of either centers. In order to simplify its construction, no
H or T-sections, and the chords of T-sections, diagonals are used in the frames, thus resulting in
either cut from I or H-sections or built up from a Vierendeel bent both in the walls and in the
two plates. pontoon. For the same reason, beams or stringers
Obviously, b u t t - t y p e connections are more dif- are omitted from shell and deck slabs which are
ficult for fit-up and welding than those of the lap supported directly on the frames.
type. On the other hand, lapped connections in- Because of the relatively heavy weight of the
troduce some secondary stresses owing to the framing, the light draft and pontoon depth are con-
joint eccentricity in a direction normal to the plane siderably greater than the corresponding values
of the frame. in a steel dock of the same lifting capacity.
Bulkheads. The bulkheads consist of stiffened There are three longitudinal bulkheads in the
plating. Longitudinally there are three bulk- pontoon, one along the centerline and one at each
heads; one main watertight bulkhead located on wingwall. T h e y are of watertight construction
the longitudinal centerline of the pontoon, and one and extend continuously from end to end of the
at each wingwall, either watertight or nonwater- dock. The transverse bulkheads in the pontoon
tight, depending on stability condition. Trans- and wingwalls consist of rib-stiffened slabs, span-
versely, watertight bulkheads extend from within ning between the shell slabs.
the pontoon into the wingwalls. Their spacing The safety deck in the wingwalls is usually lo-
will vary in accordance with the adopted com- cated at dock-floor level. In some instances, this
partmentation f o r pumping. 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 2--ANALYSIS
Compartmentation o f a dock is predicated on
three considerations: (a) stability, (b) pumping, CONDITIONS OF LOADING
and (c) damage control. General Considerations. A floating dock being
In order to assure transverse stability, the pon- a device for lifting vessels out of water, the main
toon is subdivided longitudinally into two or more source of stress is derived from conditions inciden-
compartments. For this purpose, there is pro- tal to docking operations. These are designated as
vided a watertight bulkhead along the Idiagi- docking loads or docking conditions. There is
tudinal centerline of the pontoon, supplemented by also a supplementary source of stress which is ob-
a longitudinal bulkhead under the inner shell of 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 l l ( c ) the dock is emerging out of water, partially
from these conditions are called sea loads. supporting the vessel on its blocking. This is the
Docking Conditions. The upper part of Fig. 11 period of critical stability which prevails until the
shows four conditions of loading in a docking dock floor is out of water. In Fig. 11 (e) the dock
operation. I n Fig. 11 (a) the dock is shown afloat is pumped dry, with the vessel on its blocks. This
at light draft. This may be considered as the is the condition for maximum docking load.
minimum water load condition, consisting of the Sea Conditions. In the lower part of Fig. 11 are
light-draft net buoyancy forces acting" on the pon- shown three conditions of loading while the dock
toon. In Fig. l l(b) the dock is submerged at is being towed at sea. In Fig. ll(f.) .the dock is in
maximum draft. This is the condition for the a hogging wave, with the wave crest at the trans-
maximum water loading on the safety deck and verse centerline. This is the hogging condition.
the wingwall framing located above it. In Fig. 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

J
,, ,, -it 1
i_
. ~ OI L TANKS
(c)
FIG. 9 TYPICALARRANGEMENTS OF COMPARTMENTATIONS SEGT. I - I
IN UNIT DOCKS: (a) 6000-TON STEEL; (b) 3000-TON
CONCRETE; (C) 1 0 0 0 - T O N T I M B E R (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 -
wave crest a t b o w and stern and the wave through TIONS OF S E C T I O N A L D O C K S
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 in which W~ is the weight of the dock (including
dock at an angle of 45 deg. This is the condition contained water), and B and L the width and
of maximum torque, accompanied b y antisym- length of the dock, respectively. In this expres-
metrical bending of the wingwalls and pontoon, sion W , and Ws are in tons, and B, L and da,.g are
dynamic stresses due to rolling, and by some sag- in ft. Then, the loading on a typical transverse
ging flexure. strip of dock 1 ft wide will consist of a concentrated
load P applied at the centerline of the section and
DOCKING MOMENTS a uniformly distributed load Wd, representing the
Conventional Approach
net buoyancy force; that is, the buoyancy force
reduced by the dead weight and the contained
The important stresses under docking conditions water per foot of the strip.
occur in the pontoon. The governing condition is Here the concentrated block loading from the
that of a heavy ship on blocks and the dock ship is balanced by the net buoyancy force of the
pumped dry, as shown in Fig. 12(a), where P is dock, essentially b y transverse bending of the
the load.per linear foot of dock. An average value dock. In conventional design approach certain
of P is obtained by dividing the total ship load simplifying assumptions are made regarding both
Ws by the over-all length LB of supporting blocks. the load distribution and the mode of flexure of
Also, the average or design draft the pontoon. For this purpose, it is first assumed
35(Ws + WD) . . . . . . . . . . [2] that the total ship load is uniformly distributed
d ..... = 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 P - L. ............. [31
increased b y a factor of 1.25. I t is also assumed
corresponding to the average draft, and a balanc-
t h a t the weight of the dock is uniformly dis- ing reaction R, applied at the center of each wing-
tributed through its length, and t h a t the draft is wall. The system, shown in Fig. 12(a), will pro-
the same everywhere. With these assumptions, duce simple truss stresses in the frame, accom-
the design block load becomes panied b y local bending of the b o t t o m plating,
ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF FLOATING DRYDOCKS 321

[ 1

[ i_._
I O,ST,isu rEo
SH,P LOAD --.--

,..._._.... - ,....,..-.-""
~ 1 GURVE 1
F--- SHIP
L
LOADING ON BLOCKS

~0!
A
BLOC~~
SPAGI NG

I ~ ,_ LOADED BLOCK LENGTH 02


CENTER OF END
BLOCK
FIG. 13 SHIP LOAD CURVE AND DOCK BLOCK LOADING

stringers and chord members. In some cases it tire design. This is due to two basic considera-
also may be necessary to investigate the stresses tions: (a) The method used to determine the de-
resulting from the condition of loading indicated in sign block load; and (b) the assumed unidirec-
Fig. 12(b). Here, due to the water on the dock tional bending of the pontoon under block loading.
floor, there will be local bending in both top and Neither of these two assumptions has a realistic
bottom chords of the truss frame. As a further basis.
variation, a part of the ship load may be trans- (a) Block Loading. The determination of the
mitted to the dock through the bilge blocks. The imposed ship load at each and every block is a
load P will then be divided into three com- highly complex problem. I t is a function of the
ponents. Two such conditions generally investi- bending of the ship and the dock and the unequal
gated in design are shown in Figs. 12(c) and (d). compression or yielding of the interposed blocking
In unit docks, the load P is used for the design system. If we should neglect the deflections of the
of frames in the longitudinal middle half of the dock with reference to the ship, and this is a
dock. For the frames in the end quarters of the reasonable assumption--since ordinarily the dock
dock, it is taken as the average ship blOck load, is much stiffer than the ship, then the problem will
that is, 4/5 P, since that load was increased b y a reduce to the relatively simpler case of bending of
factor of 5/6. a steel beam on an elastic foundation, the former
In addition to the transverse bending of the representing the ship's structure and the latter the
dock pontoon, there is some flexure in the longi- timber blocking.
tudinal direction of the dock due to nonuniform A treatment of the elastic foundation problem
weight distribution of the ship. This is obtained is given b y Timoshenko (2). In this concept it is
by simple beam bending of the dock as a unit. assumed that the distribution of reaction forces on
For this purpose, after balancing gravity and an elastic foundation, which supports a loading
buoyancy forces, a net load curve is drawn or transmitted through an elastic m e m b e r , is pro-
computed, from which the shears and moments portional to the deflections of the foundation.
are determined by the usual method of successive The deflections are given b y the expression
summations. p -a=
y = 803E I e (Cos 13x + Sin Bx) . . . . [4]
Elastic Slab Method
The flexural maalysis of the pontoon b y the con- in which y is the deflection, so a concentrated load
ventional approach will result in a very conserva- 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- action, they also transmit the load from plating to
tute. the transverse frames in longitudinal bending. By
2 Grade of Concrete: providing a moment-resisting connection at the
(a) Poured-in-place concrete frames, such as s h o w n in Fig. 4, the efficiency of
Class G--4000 psi (air entrained cement) the member is further increased since the con-
Ec = 3,750,000 psi (short time load- tinuity produces a more favorable moment dis-
ing) tribution in local bending, ar/d also makes the
E, = 30,000,000 psi section an effective part in the 0ver-all bending of
n-8 the dock. Neglectingthe effect of the end-connec-
(b) Precast concrete tion brackets, the maximum moment of the
Class H - - 5 0 0 0 psi (air entrained cement) stringer, for a uniform load of w and a span of l, is
Ec = 5,000,000 psi then given b y the continuity relation
E , = 30,000,000 psi wl 2
n=6 M = -12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [36]
3 Design Stresses: see Table 2.
4 Design Loads: Same as for steel docks. Effective Flange Width. In computing the sec-
tion moduli of the stringers and the chord mem-
T i m b e r Docks bers of the transverse frames, assumptions must be
1 Specifications: General requirements and made regarding the extent of plating which acts
design data in accordance with the Design Stand- as effective flange material. In conventional prac-
ards a n d Specifications of National Lumber tice, it has been customary to express effective
Manufacturers Association. flange width in terms of plate thickness. Various
2 Working Stresses (timber untreated and values have been suggested and used. For
occasionally wet) : stringers in steel-dock framing, the Bureau of
Maximum fiber stress in bending, psi . . . . 1200 Yards and Docks' current practice is to assume
Compression normal to grain, psi . . . . . . 165 an effective flange width equal to 48 plate thick-
Compression parallel to grain, psi . . . . . . 1065 nesses, with a limiting value of three quarters the
Maximum horizontal shear, psi . . . . . . . . 103 spacing of the stringers. For slabs in concrete
.Stresses for bolts and split rings : same as docks, an effective width of 16 thicknesses is used,
those specified b y NLMA. in accordance with the Building Code require-
3 Design Loads: Wing deck, 300 psf live load; ments of the American Concrete Institute.
hull planking and bulkheads, applicable pressure A more rational treatment Of this problem is
differential due to docking load and !mpr0per given b y M u r r a y (6) and also by Boyd (7). Using
pumping. an approach b y Timoshenko (8), Boyd has
derived the following relation for effective flange
LOCAL FRAMING STRESSES width of stiffened plating
Plating. T h e stress pattern of the shell plating
in steel docks, and that of the skin slab in Con- b _ - _e- ~
crete docks, is biaxial. In a steel dock, a typical
-

C 2c "
. . . . . . . . . [37]
shell panel is bound longitudinally b y two +e l
stringers and transversely b y two frames. Under
local hydrostatic loading the plate bends in two in which b is the effective flangewidth, k is a con-
directions and, owing to its continuity over the stant and equals 0.181 for a continuous plate
supports, important stresses are developed at the under uniform loading, and c: and l are, respec-
boundaries. These stresses for panels of various tively, the spacing and span of the stringers.: The
ratios of width-to-length are given in Fig. 17. values of b/c, corresponding 't6 various ratios of
In addition to local panel bending, shell plating l/c, are indicated by the curve in Fig: 18.
provides flange material for the stringers and In the case of the transverse f~ames, where the
frames, and also furnishes the principal part of the flange plating is stiffened b y the stringers, ex-
hull section in the longitudinal bending of the periments (9) conducted on models of docks and
dock as a whole. Thus, under sea-loading condi- measurements of strains on dock pontoons disclose
tion, bottom plating of the pontoon will have no significant stress differential in the plating be-
three stress components in the longitudinal direc- tween the frames, thus indicating that the entire
tion, and two transversely. width of the plating is effective in resisting flexure
Stringers. In steel docks stringers serve pri- of the flange. However, in order to compensate
marily as stiffeners to the shell plating. In this 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. Elements of Dock Strength. The cross-sectional
With the same thought, if effective flange Width a r e a needed for the longitudinal flexure of the
for the stringers is determined by Equation [37 ], dock is furnished mainly by the shell plating, sup-
a similar factor of reduction must be applied to plemented by the continuous deck plating, longi-
provide for corrosion. 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- However, in view of the presence of large local
tions of loading, the section moduli are computed stresses in the bottom plating of the pontoon,
along the length of the dock for a review of the critical stresses also may develop at that location
stresses resulting from longitudinal bending of the in a hogging condition.
dock. Longitudinal dock stresses under ship loading
Flexural Stresses. Maximum bending stresses are relatively small. For this purpose, to com-
occur at midship when dock is on a hogging or pute the docking moments, it will be satisfactory
sagging wave. The maximum moment, as to use the actual ship loading--without the benefit
derived before, is given by Equation [21]. Since of redistributions through the blocking and the
the neutral axis is located near the top of the pon- bending of the pontoon.
toon, maximum tension and compression generally Flexural Shear. Maximum shearing stresses, re-
will develop at the top deck. Indicating the sulting from longitudinal symmetrical bending in
moment of inertia of the dock by ID, the distance hogging Or sagging, occur in the quarter-point
of the outermost fiber of the top deck by et, then zones of the dock length. The maximum total
the maximum flexural stress f,, is given by the re- shear expression for these two conditions is given
lation by Equation [19]. The corresponding shearing-
B p L 8 et force distribution on the dock cross section is ob-
ft = M=,x =
[38]
D 80~r 2 Iv ....... 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 339

these curves for a 1000-ton steel dock. As dis- 0.44B


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


(London), April, 1946, p. 304.
1 "Some Problems of Welding Design and 7 "Effective Flange Width of Stiffened Plat-
Fabrication of Steel Floating Drydocks," by A. ing in Longitudinal Bending," by G. M. Boyd,
Amirikian, The Welding Journal, October, 1946, p. Engineering, (London), December, 1946, p. 603.
929. 8 "Theory of Elasticity," by S. Timoshenko,
2 "Strength of Materials," by S. Timoshenko, McGraw-Hill Publishing Company, New York,
D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc., New York, N. Y., 1934.
N. Y., vol. 2, 1930. 9 "Floating Drydock ARD 3--Model Analy-
3 "Die Elastischen Platten," by A. Nadai, sis," unpublished report, Bureau of Yards and
Julius Springer, Berlin, Germany, 1925. Docks, Navy Department, Washington, D. C.,
4 "Computation of Stresses in Bridge Slabs 1937.
Due to Wheel Loads," by H. M. Westergaard, 10 Reference (8), p. 270.
Public Roads , vol. 2, no. 1, March, 1930. 11 "Analysis of Rigid Frames," by A. Amiri-
klan, U. S. Government Printing Office, Washing-
5 "Theory of Plates and Shells," by S. Timo- ton, D. C., 1942, p. 124.
shenko, McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., New 12 "Elastic Stability of Cellular Girders," by
York, N. Y., 1940. A. Amirikian, Bulletin No. 4, Public Works of the
6 "Pietzker's Effective Breadth of Flange Navy, June, 1939.

Appendix
Figs. 25 to 30 show values of the coefficients For these cases, Equations [7] and [8] will give
C,, Cu, Cx~, C',~, C0x and Cvu of Equations [7] infinite values for the coefficients Cx and Cu.
to [12] inclusive for a series of loads placed on the The proper values for moment coefficients at these
centerline of the pontoon and assuming u = 0.3; points, obtained by Equation [146] of reference
that is, for a pontoon of steel framing. It is to (5), are listed in Table 3.
be noted that the moments Mx and Mu produced Additional curves showing values of the coef-
at point 1 by a load P at point 2 are the same as ficients for loads placed at various other locations
those produced at point 2 by a load P at point 1. on the pontoon can be obtained from the Society.
The twisting moments, on the other hand, do not Table 4 gives values of the twisting moments
follow this law of reciprocity: lll~ u' differs from at the centerline and quarter point, and shears a t
Mzlg the quarter point for various ratios of LIB.
It also should be noted that the curves in Figs. These values were computed from Equations
25 and 26 do not show values of the coefficients [26],.[25], [35] and [34], respectively.
for points directly under the concentrated load.
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 351

Discussion
,/
M R . PAUL S. CRANDALL, 3 Visitor: The writer overlooked is the question of improper pumping
wishes to supplement this very excellent paper or flooding. I t is possible without a ship even
with a few additional words of caution and general being in dock to damage a f o a t i n g drydock b y
remarks to emphasize the indeterminate nature improper control of interior water. This is
of floating docks and loads they must carry. particularly i m p o r t a n t when the control of water
Since the a d v e n t of steel vessels, floating dry- flow is done b y means of m a n y valves with only a
docks have been in use in considerable number. few large p u m p s to dewater. For this reason,
The firm of Clark and Standfield in England de- water-level indicators are important so the opera-
signed as m a n y as 93 between 1877 and 1926, tor will know the general situation at all times.
with more t h a n 75 per cent of these since 1900. In a concrete floating dock it is possible sud-
In the United States prior to 1920, W. T. Don- denly to have a high static pressure between
nelly designed scores of floating docks which compartments, which is not the case in steel or
were built with timber pontoons and either steel timber docks. The behavior of a floating dock is
or wooden wings, and m a n y are still in operation. greatly affected b y the material of construction
None of these were military type docks, since and the resulting specific gravity of the hull and
there was inadequate space in the wings for equip- its total deadweight. A concrete dock is subjected
m e n t other than pumps and motors. The actual to m a x i m u m hydrostatic pressure at full sub-
design of floating docks is not as straightforward mergence, wheras a steel or timber dock has
as one might think. There are special problems m a x i m u m pressure at partial load when the inter-
to be solved which require a thorough understand- ior water is level with the pontoo n deck while
ing of materials, future requirements, dock be- lifting a capacity vessel.
havior, pumping systems, methods of operation Wooden floating docks will not sink to full
b y the docking crews and considerations of cost. draft unless fully filled with water or ballasted.
The designer of a floating drydock must be able The late Mr. J. Stuart Crandall developed a
to design his dock to be capable of docking safely method of p u m p reversal for propellor pumps,
a vessel which m a y not yet be designed. He which was patented in 1943, t o enable the dock
must, therefore, exa.mine carefully the charac- operator to force sea water into the dock wings
teristics of existing vessels and incorporate added and thus sink the dock without requiring any
stability, strength, and even displacement per fixed ballast. B y so doing, the dock deadweight
foot of length, as his judgment m a y indicate. is kept at a minimum. For steel, concrete or
In our present situation, we have in the United composite docks this feature is not required.
States m a n y floating drydocks with adequate The choice of materials of construction depends
total capacity b u t which are too narrow or with to a certain extent on the location of the dock.
insufficient draft to accommodate the newer ships. In Hamburg, New Orleans, or Buenos Aires, steel
Very often the displacement of a vessel and loca- construction is best because the fresh water will
tion of center of gravity are very hard to obtain not corrode mild steel appreciably; electrolysis is
since these are affected b y the amount of fuel, almost nil and domestic timber would rot very
water, and ballast at the time of docking. The readily. In Boston, New York, San Francisco or
distribution of weight between keel blocks and Manila, the salt water makes timber construction
bilge blocks is quite indeterminate and depends on preferred so long as marine-borer attack is con-
the amount the ship was lifted b y the keel blocks trolled. In the tropics, steel suffers terribly from
before the bilge blocks were pulled in place. The salt-water corrosion and marine borer attack can
height of the relatively elastic bilge blocks and be severe.
the slope against the hull of the ship also affect Cost is an important factor in floating-drydock
the amount of load the blocks will carry. Because design which should be mentioned briefly. Gen-
of the complex loadings and the wide variety of erally speaking, military type floating drydocks
structural framing of the ships themselves, the will cost from 50 to 100 per cent more than com-
drydock designer must be conservative and m u s t mercial docks of equal capacity because of the
assume the worst possible conditions in making expensive supplementary equipment they require.
his analysis. For this reason, military-type floating drydocks
An additional problem which should not be 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
3 Crandall Dry Dock Engineers, 238 M a i n S t r e e t , "C a m b r i d g e ,
Mass. 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 353

considers the paper a very valuable contribution davg = 35(Ws + WD)


to the technical literature of the Society. It may BL ........ [2a]
well become the future standard reference on this
subject. or for general application
2240(Ws + WD)
REAR ADMIRAL W. H. SMITH (CEC) USN d~vg = wBL - ....... [2b]
(RET), A filiate: This paper is an extremely
valuable contribution to American technical The author notes that W , includes contained
literature. I t fills a long-felt void in published water. This is an important item; it refers not
information on the unique problems of structural only to residual water, i.e., the water in the bot-
analysis of floating drydocks. There have been tom of. each tank that cannot be pumped out
numerous prior attempts to compile treatises on readily by the main pumps, but also to ballast
this subject, including several b y the writer, but water that m a y be retained intentionally to
for one reason or another, none has reached the counterbalance concentrated loadings in order to
stage of completion and publication. The author reduce transverse or longitudinal stresses.
is to be commended for formulating a systematic, 4 Conventional Approach. The writer feels
logical solution of a complex problem and present- that the presentation under "Docking Moments,
ing both the theoretical and practical aspects in Conventional Approach" is not fully representa-
such understandable form. tive of past practice. With respect to load distri-
The comments that follow are made in the bution on the blocks, considerable thought has
sincere hope that they will add constructively to been given to design loadings, particularly in the
the value of the paper as a standard reference, by case of battleships having heavy load concentra-
amplifying the author's coverage of certain phases tions under the gun turrets. Docking plans for
of the problem, noting additional factors to be battleships normally provided for center keel sup-
considered, questioning some of the assumptions port only near the bow and stern, three-point sup-
and mathematics, and correcting obvious typo- port for most of the body, a n d five-point support
graphical errors. under the turrets. On the ARD-3, which was
1 Basic Types. Referring to "Basic Types" designed under the writer's supervision in 1935,
of floating drydocks, it is believed that the com- the late Dr. William Hovgaard, who was retained
posite dock shown in Fig. l(b) is the Clark and by the Bureau of Yards and Docks as consultant,
Stanfield type. In the Rennie type the pontoons made a special investigation and report on design
extend under the sidewalls and are bolted to them loadings, which was used as a basis for the struc-
at pontoon deck level. Other types are shown in tural design. No simplifying assumptions were
American Civil Engineers' Handbook (pp. 1858-- made as to weight distribution on the dock, except
9). in the preliminary stages. Final calculations were
2 Dimensional Outline. Equation [1 ] appears based on comprehensive calculations of the magni-
to be incorrect; it should be tude and centers of gravity of all weights.
Detailed consideration also was given to the
d = 35(W~ + Wd) [la] longitudinal distribution of concentrated load-
B ..........
ings, and the two-way action of the pontoon in
This equation applies only to sea water. For redistributing stresses.
general application, it may be rewritten Table 3 of this discussion may be of interest as
showing the approach to this problem on the
d = 2240(Ws + Wa) [lb] ARD-3. This table is taken from an incomplete
wB ......... and unpublished r6sum6 of the design of the ARD-
where w = weight of water, in pounds per cubic 3 prepared by the writer about 20 years ago, and
foot. needs some explanation.
This docking condition corresponds to either The column "Original Design" shows the bend-
Fig. 11 (d) or Fig. 11(e). ing moments at the centerline on the various
The equation foUowing Equation [1 ] preferably frames, assuming t h e f t to act as simple trusses of
should be rewritten as 135-ft span and subjected to the heaviest loading
possible per frame. The width of the dock was
h =d+f
125 ft to the inside of the sidewalls and 165 ft to
to correspond with the nomenclature and with the outside of the sidewalls.
Fig. 2. D1 is not consistent with e i t h e r . T h e column "Grid," shows the bending mo-
3 Docking Moments. Equation [2] also ap- ments obtained by balancing approximately the
pears to be incorrect; it should be 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 355

excess and deficiency of buoyancy are not strictly used for buildings, and even higher than those
correct, because of the "Smith effect." Hydro- used for railroad and highway bridges. T h e y are
static pressures at a given distance belov the considerably higher than those used in the design
crest of a wave are less than they would be at the of the ARD-1, as follows:
same distance below a level sea, while pressures at Docking conditions ................ ".. . . . . . . . ' . . 16000 p s i
a given distance below the trough are greater. Sea conditions .............................. 18000 psi
I t also should be noted that hogging and sagging Docking (unscientific pumping) ............... 2 0 0 0 0 psi
shears and moments increase with increasing The allowable stresses given for concrete are on
draft, and that the formulas are inaccurate if the a comparable basis. In view of the severe condi-
trough of the wave drops below the bottom of the tions to which floating drydocks may be subjected,
dock. such as impact, reversal of stress, fatigue, and
The substitution of a cosine curve for the stress raisers, due to discontinuities; and the m a n y
standard trochoidal wave, to facilitate a mathe- indeterminate factors and approximations affect-
matical solution, m a y be subject to question. ing the design assumptions, the writer questions
For a drydock of rectangular or substantially whether the high allowable stresses given are
rectangular section, the writer is inclined to agree fully justified, and would prefer to use a basic
with the author that this is a satisfactory practical steel stress of 18,000 psi and equivalent stresses
approximation, particularly in view of the for other items as a balanced compromise between
empirical character of the standard wave. For safety and economy.
ship-shaped docks, the writer favors adherence to Since steel floating drydocks are now of welded
the trochoidal wave and final determination of construction, consideration should: be given to the
sea moments and shears by the usual procedures use of A S T M A-373-56T steel rather than ASTM
of naval architecture. 372. 6 The latter steel is not intended by ASTM
7 Torsion. In dealing with torsion, the author Committee A-1 on steel for use in welded struc-
deals only with the case of a quartering wave tures.
where the line of advance is at 4 5 d e g to the axis With respect to design stresses for concrete
of the dock. In the studies for the ARD-3, calcu- docks, the author's allowable stresses are based
lations by the Bureau staff indicated maximum on A C I Committee 318, Building Code Require-
torsion at an angle of 55 deg. Dr. Hovgaard ments for Reinforced Concrete, of 1947. This
made an independent analysis and obtained was superseded b y . a revised version of April 30,
maximum torsion at an angle of 52.5 deg. I t 1956, raising allowable unit stresses in bond be-
Would be interesting to know whether the author cause of the superior grip of ASTM A-305 de-
has re-evaluated the maximum conditions or has formed bars, "and modifying design stresses in
adopted 45 deg.as giving a reasonable approxima- shear.
tion while facilitating a mathematical solution. The writer believes the shear and bond stresses
In developing Equation [27], the author should be given as in Table 4, based on the ulti-
assumes that the average draft at a dock cross mate strengths given in the author's Table 2.
section can be expressed as
1 TABLE 4 SHEAR AND BOND STRESSES
davg = ~ (y + Yl)
Shear
No web reinf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
120 150 150 187
This is open to question, "as the wave is convex Web reinf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
480 600 600 750
near the crest and concave near the trough. The Bond
Plain bars (as defined in See. 104,
approximation is significantly on the unsafe side. ACI 318-56)
Knowing the longitudinal profile of the wave, Top bars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
120 150 150 187
its direction of advance with respect to the dock All others . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
180 225 225 270
Deformed bars (as defined in See.
axis, and the hull form of t h e d o c k , the draft at 104, ACI 318-56)
any point m a y be determined either mathemati- Top bars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
280 350 350 437
cally using x-y-z space co-ordinates or graphically All others . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
400 500 500 625
by descriptive geometry. The author's method is
advantageous in preliminary calculations for The author has omitted all reference to pre-
torque, sagging o r hogging moments, or shears on stressed concrete, which has an obvious applica-
the dock as a unit, but is particularly inaccurate tion to concrete floating docks. I t is to be hoped
with respect to the loading for transverse bending that such designs will be developed and design
of the pontoon. data therefore eventually made available.
8 Design Data. The basic allowable stresses 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
given for steel are comparable with those generally Li, in Railway Track.and Structures, November 1957.
356 ANALYSIS A N D DESIGN OF FLOATING DRYDOCKS

9 Plating. The author's coefficients for maxi- M a n y members of the Society undoubtedly will
m u m stress for restrained plates under uniform be impressed at the scope of the theoretical re-
loading, in his Fig. 17, appear to be based on search and analysis t h a t has been undertaken in
diagrams b y Bleich and Ramsey. 7 Additional connection with floating drydocks, in comparison
data are given in this manual for conditions of with the practices of design b y ABS rules fre-
edges other than fixed. quently applied to commercial vessels. I t should
10 Effective Flange Width. The author states, be borne in mind t h a t little precedent existed to
"for slabs in concrete docks, an effective width of govern the design of military floating drydocks,
16 thicknesses is required, in accordance with the and the varied conditions of loading to which
Building Code requirements of the American they are subjected have no counterpart in normal
Concrete Institute." This code actually reads vessels. The Bureau of Yards and Docks de-
"its overhanging width on either side of the web serves commendation for its pioneering achieve-
shall not exceed eight times the thickness of the ments in this field.
slab, nor one half the clear distance to the next The writer must acknowledge with gratitude the
b e a m " and also limits the effective width to one assistance rendered by Dr. Shu-t'ien Li, PhD, of
fourth the span length. his staff in the review of this paper and its com-
11 Draft and Stability. The final determina- plex mathematics.
tion of the proper safety-deck level is a difficult
problem. Usually it can be determined only by MR. EDWARD J. QUIRIN, Affiliate: The author
successive approximations as final weights and has a t t e m p t e d to condense the subject of floating-
their centers of gravity become fixed. In the drydock analysis and design, a subject which
A R D docks it is usually necessary to step up the could fill a voluminous textbook, into 44 short
safety deck at the bow to compensate for its pages. At best, such an a t t e m p t can result only
excess buoyancy, and to control flooding and in a survey of this subject. At worst, it results in
pumping to maintain level trim. In some docks, an oversimplification which m a y be dangerous if
vents have been extended downward below the it leads to the conclusion t h a t any engineer in-
safety decks to pocket air so as to assure adequate experienced in floating-drydock design can under-
freeboard and balanced trim and list at m a x i m u m take such design. The remarks in the following
submergence. paragraphs should therefore not be viewed as a
12 Stability. Equation [43] should read: criticism of the paper but rather as an embellish-
m e n t and amplification of the author's task of
G M = K B + B M -- KG . . . . . . [43a] condevsxtion.
Of necessity, the scope of the paper is much less
13 Elastic Stability of Dock "Walls. Equation ambitious than the title suggests. Floating dry-
[49] should have the p l u s sign in the last term docks in general are covered only in the section of
changed to t and a final bracket added, making it the paper entitled " D e v e l o p m e n t of Framing."
read The remaining two sections, covering analysis and
design, concern themselves principally with the
one-piece dock. The portions of this paper deal-
P = 4E a3-~-b~ D Ia + a ~ Ib + 2~r2h3]
ing with sea moments and torsional analysis are
. [49a]
. . . . .
also applicable to a single section of a sectional
dock. However, difficulties will arise if a designer
14 General Remarks. I t must be appreciated should a t t e m p t to analyze a sectional dock by the
t h a t this paper deals solely with the structural elastic-slab method.
analysis and design of floating drydocks. In According to the author, the elastic-slab method
military-type docks, there are m a n y other phases is applicable if the deflections of the dock are
of design which are outside the scope of this paper. negligible with respect to deflections of the ship.
I t is to be hoped t h a t these other phases, such as This m a y be true for certain one-piece docks. I t
pumping plant, mechanical equipment, and con- is generally not true for the sectional dock whose
trols, can be described in some future paper b y stiffness can be controlled to a n y desired amount
the Bureau's staff. Such published articles would by the design of the wing walls and their connec-
be a valuable reference source, even for the suc- tions. Only in docking a badly damaged ship
cessors of the current technical staff of the Bureau could the stiffness of a sectional dock exceed t h a t
itself. of a ship sufficiently to make the dock's deflection
negligible with respect to t h a t of the ship.
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 Assuming for the time being t h a t the premise of
Bulletin No. 2-2, published b y TIlE SOCIETY OF NAVAL ARCHITECTS
AND MARINE ENGINEERS, 1951, pp. 69 a n d 71. a very stiff dock is correct, certain questions still
ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF FLOATING DRYDOCKS 357

remain unanswered. For instance, what is the designed for a head of water corresponding to
magnitude of the errors in a p p l y i n g Wester- m a x i m u m submergence of the dock. However,
gaard's equations to a thick cellular slab? the buoyancy chamber being small relative to tile
How are stresses in the components of the remainder of the dock, the additional material re-
elastic cellular slab computed from t h e moments quired in its design is more t h a n offset b y the
and shears? M a y the effect of varying stiffness savings in shell plating in the remainder of the
between transverse trussed frames and bulkheads dock.
be neglected safely? The paper contains an excellent deseription of
W h a t is the state of stress in the shell plating loading conditions on drydocks. The formulas,
which functions first in bending between stiff- graphs and tables, particularly those for sea
eners, second I s a flange for the longitudinal moments and torsional stresses, are derived in a
stiffeners, and finally as a flange for the transverse lucid manner and will prove to be of great value
frames? to the designer of floating drydocks.
How serious are secondary stresses in the trans-
verse trussed frames? MR. BOYD G. ANDERSON, 8 Visitor: T h e authors
I t appears to us t h a t the elastic-slab method (Messrs. Cook and Amirikian) are to be con-
makes answers to the foregoing questions un- gratulated for the excellent information presented
necessarily difficult. For this reason it has been in the papers describing the N a v y floating-dry-
our practice to neglect the effect of keel-block dock program. These papers are of special inter-
deformations and to design floating drydoeks for est in view of the lack of recorded information on
a ship load based on the known weight distribu- the subject.
tion curve of the m a x i m u m ship to be docked. In T h e portion of Mr. Amirikian's paper devoted
sectional docks this load is distributed across the to the design manual requires careful study to
width of each section b y considering the stiffness appreciate-the scope of material involved in the
of the transverse trusses', grouped as one system, contained information. The basic criteria reflect-
and t h a t of the transverse bulkheads, grouped as ing the Bureau's broad experience in the different
another system. The assumption is made t h a t the design problems is invaluable to offices engaged in
longitudinal bulkhead under the wing wall de- the design of floating drydoeks. The information
fleets and rotates evenly along its entire length. also is of interest to other offices as the analysis
These assumptions enable us to apportion the ship involving two-dimensional flexure, stability and
load between the systems of trusses and bulkheads torsional effects covers a g a m u t o f general engineer-
and make possible the computation of stresses in ing problems. T h e effort involved in developing
the component parts of the pontoons. This and presenting this information in such a lucid
method of analysis is not wasteful of structural manner will be appreciated b y all engineers.
material and presents a pattern of stress distribu- The distribution of the ship load considering
tion across the width of the pontoon which is as the average rigidity of the ship, the elastic-founda-
likely to be correct as t h a t developed b y the elas- tion support of the blocks and the elastic plate
tic-slab method. action of the pontoon deck between wing walls is
In view of the uncertainties of ship loading, it certainly a sound yet workable design approach
does not appear to us t h a t a very.exact structural leading to design strength neither overly conserva-
transverse analysis is warranted, nor t h a t much tive nor resulting in local overstress such as might
material can be saved thereby. We are of the occur under the earlier arbitrary design loadings.
opinion t h a t material savings will result if the At first the writer regretted the omission of the
skin plating is kept to a minimum. Since the charts furnishing m o m e n t values for noneenterline
design of this plating is generally governed b y loads which could be used directly in considering
differential heads, t h a t is, the difference between the _upward buoyancy forces in the m o m e n t sum-
water levels outside and inside the dock, it is mation calculations. However, on further thought
important that floodable c o m p a r t m e n t s be so it is evident t h a t the average load as expressed by
arranged as to result in the highest possible level the buoyancy forces will transmit laterally in the
of contained water for a given draft of the dock. critical areas and it is only the unbalanced load
Since the amount of contained water for a given t h a t will transmit stress longitudinally along the
draft can be determined, this can be accomplished length of the dock.
b y making certain c o m p a r t m e n t s in the pontoon While not specifically pointed out in the paper
watertight. I t therefore becomes advantageous to the same cellular elastic-slab t r e a t m e n t is equally
place buoyancy chambers in the pontoon rather applicable to the wingwall design. The side plat-
than in the wing walls, as had been customary.
True, a buoyancy chamber so placed must be 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 characteristics of a floating dock during both the
paths resisting sidesway due to water heads and docking and the undocking operations. I t is, of
wave impact forces. Accordingly if the vertical course, quite possible t h a t a ship m a y be docked
watertight bulkheads are spaced reasonably close safely on a floating drydock, and then, when she
together, all transverse wall frames can be elimi- is out of the water, b y shifting liquids from tanks
nated and the scantlings can be designed solely to to other tanks thereby providing large free liquid
span locally between plate supports and the wing- surfaces in the ship, she m a y make the ship and
wall space can be left open for working areas and dock unstable during the critical phases of an
storage. undocking operation.
A study and research program now being con- I believe the timber pontoon sheathed with
ducted under the direction of the Bureau might be creosoted lumber or preferably 'with creosoted
worth describing to amplify the dock types listed plywood m a y be a very satisfactory device in cold
in the papers. In the papers the operating water; water, let's say, of the temperature we
advantages of the unit type dock are pointed out find along both the mid to northern Atlantic and
along with the difficulties or impracticability of Pacific coasts. I am somewhat skeptical as to the
accomplishing this unit design for larger docks durability of pontoons of this type in the tropics.
subject to seagoing wave forces. In this new Experience t h a t m a n y of us have had in the Philip-
study, intersection connecting units have been pines, in Hawaii, and in the tropics makes us very
devised t h a t will develop unit action for the dock- skeptical of the effectiveness of creosote as a pro-
ing operation. These devices utilizing modern tective device where timber is submerged for long
prestressed-concrete techniques appear extremely periods of time.
useful for furnishing quick-disconnect connections
capable of fully developing docking m o m e n t s ),{R. ROBERT STEELE, Life Member: I find no
which are much lower than seagoing moments. mention of wrought iron in either of the drydock
Such connections ;ould combine the operating papers. I suppose as a drydock material it is no
advantages and the use of shallower basins inher- longer used. However, during the war we raised
ent with unit-type docks with the economy, main- a small wrought-iron drydock in the Red Sea
tenance characteristics, canal transit and simpler which had been down a year and a half. I t was
towing characteristics of the sectional-type docks. probably 30 years old before we raised it. About
the same time we raised a .steel drydock which
VICE ADMIRAL W . MACK ANGAS ( C E C ) USN had been under water for the same period but
(RET), 9 Visitor: The author has made a great which had had a much shorter life before being
contribution to the technical literature of the de- sunk. This latter' dock was completely useless,
sign of floating drydocks, and I wish to compli- but we pumped out the wrought-iron dock which
ment him on his t r e a t m e n t of the structural was in excellent condition and proceeded to use it.
problems and to congratulate the profession upon Another incident involved docking a ship in a
having made available to those of us who are drydock into which it did not fit. This concerns
faced with the problems of the structural design the docking of some British light cruisers at the
of floating drydocks the data which he has incor- time Rommel was making it impossible for them
porated in his paper. to dock at Alexandria. We had available a 6000-
I wish to comment on the secional dock, having ton drydock. Actually its c a p a c i t y was limited
had some experience with the deep sectional to about 3500 tons. T h e light cruisers weighed
dock when I was C o m m a n d e r of the construction about 7200 tons. We solved the problem by
forces of the Seventh Fleet in the S o u t h w e s t lifting one end at a time, in spite of the fear ex-
Pacific. The welded connections t h a t were used pressed b y the British Officers t h a t we would lose
between the sections of the wing walls on the big their ships. But we didn't!
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 AUTHOR'S CLOSURE
methods of connecting the sections. These will
m a k e the sectional dock one t h a t can b e much MR. ARSHAM AMIRIKIAN: T h e author is grate-
more readily and quickly put together. ful for the m a n y fine discussions of his paper and
I would also like to emphasize something which the generous comments on its treatment. T h e
has been mentioned b y the authors of both papers expressed interest is particularly encouraging in
and t h a t is the great importance of the stability view of the rather specialized and unglamourous
nature of the subject matter.
9 Chairman, Department of Civil Engineering, Princeton Univer-
Mr. Crandall has made a n u m b e r of interesting
N. J.
sity,.Princeton,
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- ing weight. Certainly such savings cannot be
sible utilization is still under investigation. The considered as unimportant.
results of those studies have not, as yet, indicated In this connection, it is interesting to note t h a t
t h a t the application of the technique would be when the author first proposed this approach in
economical or competitive with precast and con- the Bureau some 20 years ago, similar skepticism
ventionally poured-in-place concrete construc- was expressed regarding its applicability. In or-
tion. There also remain some difficult problems der to test the validity of the concept, an elaborate
of anchorage and three-dimensional continuity model test was devised. The arrangement con-
yet to be resolved satisfactorily. sisted of a one-fiftieth scale 20-ft model of the
Mr. Quirin has taken a dim view of the objec- ARD-3, referred to previously. The model, built
tives of the paper. In his estimation, a "volu- of stainless steel, was subjected to four systems of
minous textbook" will be needed for the treat- loading. These simulated the four principal
m e n t of the subject. However, bulk in itself is a conditions of dock loading; namely, hogging, sag-
poor criterion of merit. He does not clarify what ging, torsion, and ship docking. The tests, con-
the contents of such a volume would have been. ducted b y the late Professor Beggs at. Princeton
T h e author firmly believes t h a t the quality of University, furnished strain and deflection meas-
design normally obtained in conventional practice urement at over 100 locations. A complete anal-
can be improved b y the adoption of certain ysis of stresses, strains and deformations of the
analytical procedures which, in turn, are predi- model under the various conditions of loading was
cated on more realistic expectations of structural made in the Bureau, utilizing the elastic-slab
behavior. One of these pertains to the over-all method and other procedures described by the
bending of the dock. For this purpose, the author author in his paper. The comparison of the re-
in his paper has proposed the use of the elastic-slab sults obtained by the tests and the analysis indi-
method. Mr. Quirin doubts the applicability of cated very satisfactory agreement. As a m a t t e r
this approach and poses a number of questions. of fact, in the few cases of divergence, the com-
I t is hoped t h a t the following elaboration will fur- puted values were, in general, larger than those
nish him the needed assurance. given b y the test measurements. In view of the
(a) T h e elastic-slab flexure is neither applicable complexity of the analytic work, the obtained
to nor is needed in the analysis of sectional docks. confirmation was considered highly gratifying.
There, because of longitudinal discontinuity, the Mr. Anderson has expressed regret t h a t no de-
pontoon load is transmitted to the sidewalls by sign charts are given for loads other than those
simple transverse bending only. Even in the placed along the longitudinal centerline of the pon-
case of rigid docks, the region "of slab action is as toon. He will be pleased to know t h a t the author
indicated in Fig. 14. has prepared charts for a complete coverage of
(b) Distinction m u s t be made between a rigid other load positions. Unfortunately, because of
cellular slab and a thick solid slab. There are no space limitations, he was prevailed upon by the
" b o d y " forces in the former, and the cellular Editor to omit them from the paper. However,
rigidity is not incompatible with perfect elastic they Will be made available to those interested in
behavior. their use.
(c) T o p and b o t t o m plates of a cellular as- Mr. Anderson has suggested t h a t the elastic-
sembly, such as the pontoon, carry biaxial slab method be also applied to the analysis of the
stresses and twisting shear in bending. Web plat- sidewalls of the dock. While lateral flexure of
ing carries the bending shear. Nonuniform place- the sidewalls is not as i m p o r t a n t as t h a t of the
m e n t of web bulkheads or frames does not alter pontoon, the author believes t h a t the suggestion
the basic cellular-slab behavior. merits future consideration.
(d) Stresses in shell plating resulting, from Admiral Angas' comments on sectional docks,
local, girder and over-aU bending are directly ad- based on his intimate knowledge of operations of
ditive in the respective directions of flexure. these structures, are most interesting. His ap-
F r o m these totals the m a x i m u m stresses are then praisal of the author's proposed new connection
computed b y the relations of principal stresses. scheme, also discussed by Mr. Anderson, is very
(e) Except for possible joint eccentricities, encouraging. The basic idea of the scheme is to
there is no source for secondary stresses in the join dock sections together b y means of prestressed
transverse trussed frames. connections. The development work, in the form
(f) The use of the elastic-slab method, in lieu of a N a v y research project at Princeton Univer-
of the procedure advocated b y Mr. ~uirin, could sity, and with the collaboration of Mr. Anderson,
result in reductions of up to 50 per cent in fram- has now come to a successful conclusion. T h e de-
ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF FLOATING DRYDOCKS 361

vice will provide not only an economical and rapid there are no wrought-iron structural shapes avail-
method of assembly and diassembly, but also will able which could be utilized--even at a higher
make it possible to incorporate a considerable cost--as a substitute for steel.
amount of longitudinal continuity strength in the With reference to the query of Mr. Hischier,
walls. the author belie'ces t h a t for plating of thicknesses
The author has no knowledge of the use of up to z/~ in. a double-fillet connection in a T-joint
wrought iron as framing material in floating docks. detail is adequate. No penalty is imposed on the
However, he is in complete agreement with Mr. efficiency on such details in the framings of float-
Steele's views regarding the seriousness of the ing docks. Full joint efficiency is assumed also
corrosion problem of steel docks. Unfortunately, for groove welds of b u t t joints in shell plating.