You are on page 1of 55

Analysis and Design of Floating Drydocks

BY ARSHAMAMIRIKIAN,' MEMBER

With the objective of furnishing helpful data and guides on the design of .floating drydocks, a comprehensive treatment of the subject is presented in this paper. In the development of the design, use is made first of the conventional approach, then a de- tailed discussion is given of the most ad- vanced concepts of analysis. Arrangements and framing are given in considerable de- tail not only for steel-flamed docks but also for those of concrete and timber. In order to simplify the analytical work, gen- eral expressions are derived for computing dock stresses under various conditions of loading at sea and in docking of ships. Further design aids are provided in the form of supplementary design tables and charts, including a set for coefficients of moments and shears in the dock pontoon, which is considered as an elastic cellular slab supporting the ship loading.

NOMENCLATURE

 The following nomenclature is used in the paper: A = area of cell in shear computations B -- width of pontoon BM = transverse metacentric radius B1 - width of dock channel B, = beam of vessel to be docked b -- width of wingwall D = total depth of dock d - draft of dock t Special Structures Consultant, Bureau of Yards and Docks,

Department of the Navy, Washington, D. C.

Presented

at

the

Annual

Meeting,

New

York,

N.

Y.,

November

14-15,

1957, of THE SOCIETY OF NAVAL ARCHITE(~TS AND

MARINE ENGINEERS.

507

 d, = draft of vessel .to be docked E - modulus of elasticity F = freeboard of dock at maximum-sub- mergence f = minimum docking freeboard of pontoon G = modulus of elasticity in shear g = acceleration due to gravity H = height of wingwalls above dock floor h = depth of pontoon I = moment of inertia Is = moment of inertia of ship in dock K = keel of dock KG = vertical distance from K to center of gravity M = vertical distance from K to transverse metacenter k = modulus of foundation, also mass radius of gyration L = length of dock L~ = over-all length of supporting blocks Lw = length of wave l = length of plate in cell M = bending moment Mt = torque M. = bending moment in X-direction of elastic My = slab bending moment in Y-direction of elastic slab M.v = twisting moment of elastic slab •m = ratio of dock length L to dock Width B P = block load per linear foot of dock -Q = moment of cross-sectional area about neutral axis

q = flexural shearing force in shell plate

 q' = torsional shearing force in shell plate r = one half height of wave, also radial dis- tance in rolling s = span of pontoon, center to center of wingwalls t = thickness of shell plating V = shear, also volume of displacement Vz -- shear in X-direction of elastic slab

508 ANALYSIS

AND

DESIGN

 Vu = shear in Y-direction of elastic slab We = weight of dock per linear foot Ws = weight of ship per linear foot 0 = angle of roll or of twist, also a parameter = Poisson's ratio

Because

INTRODUCTION

of

their

limited

field

of

application,

floating drydocks have received only scanty at- tention in technical literature. For the same reason, there is but little information generally available regarding the many aspects and prob- lems associated with their analysis and design. Prior to World War II, there were probably less than a score of floating drydocks in the active.

service of commercial and military establishments

in all the maritime countries of the world. Nor-

mally, repair operations to commercial vessels and

naval fleets are accomplished in waterfront facili- ties fixed to the shore. These consist mainly of graving docks and wet slips, in some cases sup- plemented by marine railways. With the advent

of modern warfare, the factor of mobility became

an important consideration in the provision of re- pair facilities. Coupled with this requirement, the critical time element brought about by the tre- mendous and rapid expansions of naval fleet and marine-transport systems rendered the creation of the needed additional facilities a problem of prac-

OF

FLOATING

DRYDOCKS

tieability in construction which could be best coped with by the construction of floating docks. Consequently, a great number of these structures were built during the war and the emergency period preceding it. From design point of view, the framing of a floating dock presents problems mainly in the field of structural engineering. Lacking in self- propulsion, and being towed at relatively low speeds, shape and arrangement are predicated pri- marily on considerations of structural efficiency rather than those normally prevalent in naval architecture. For the same reason, some of the

concepts of framing and the methods and ap- proaches used in the analysis of the dock are some- what slanted toward reflecting the best thinking of current structural design practices. The treatment of the subject is given in three

parts

design, with the objective of establishing the main dimensional outline, framing and compartmenta- tion arrangement. The second part-is concerned with a general analysis of flexure of the dock under docking and sea conditions. The third part is a detailed analysis of stresses and design of the framing of the dock. As an aid in the application of certain phases of the presented analytical proce- dures, some supplementary data, in the form of charts and tables, also are given in the Appendix

The

first part is devoted to a preliminary

1--DEVELOPMENT

OF

FRAMING

DIMENSIONAL OUTLINE

Functional Concept. A floating dock is a chan- nel-shaped floating structure, devised by its con- trolled buoyancy to lift marine craft out of water for inspection, maintenance and repair work. The channel is formed by three pontoon-like ele- ments, one constituting the floor of the dock and the other two its wingwalls. By controlling the

amount of water ballast contained in the hollow confines 'of the cellular framing, the dock is sub- merged or floated to various drafts as required }~y the operational procedure. Basic Types. The dock may be of either con- tinuous or segmental arrangement. The continuity may be complete or partial. In the former ease, the entire framing is assembled together to form a single rigid body an example of which is sketched

in Fig. l(a). This type is generally designated as

a rigid or unit dock. Those with partial con-

tinuity may conform to several variations. Some may have two continuous sidewalls and a detach- able pontoon composed of single or multiple

segments as shown in Fig. l(b). This is the com- posite or Rennie type. In others, the dock channel is subdivided into three segments, but the con- tinuity of the sidewalls is still maintained by pro- viding an overlapping splice between the walls of the center and end segments as indicated in Fig. l(d). This arrangement makes possible docking of the end segments within the center segment, and also enables lifting of the center segment out of water by raising it on top of the wingwalls and pontoon of the end segments. This is the three- piece self-docking type Harris dock. Still in some others, the dock may have a closed bow and a hinged stern gate to form a ship-shaped floating basin, such as the one shown in Fig. l(f). This is the ARD-type steel dock developed by the Bureau of Vards and Docks. The truly sectional dock may conform to one of the two shapes sketched in Figs. 1(c) and l(e). The former typifies the commonly known U- shaped, non-seagoing yard dock, usually built of timber framing. The latter is a modification of the basic U-shape for service use 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. Here, in order to facilitate towing of the segment, the pontoon is extended beyond the wingwalls to form a shaped bow and stern. As a further aid in towing, the wingwalls have a hinged arrangement to enable their being lowered onto the top of the pontoon during the sea voyage. Dimensional Outline. Dimensional characteris- tics of a floating dock are established by a number of considerations which may be grouped under two main headings : (a) Requirements imposed by the craft to be docked; and (b) those concerning the dock itself. The first group defines the require- ments of clearance and lift, governed by such fac- tors as maximum beam, draft and over-all length of the vessels to be contained in the dock, as well

as their blocking or supported length, their weight and KG. The second group covers the require- ments of strength, safety, and stability of the dock. Except for ship-shaped docks, the cross- sectional outline remains nearly the same through

the length of the dock

For design purposes, it

will accordingly be satisfactory to consider a sec- tion of unit width. Such a typical section is shown in Fig. 2. Here the characteristic dimen- sions are indicated by the following.notations: B and h, the width and depth of the pontoon; b and H, the width and height of wingwalls above the

dock floor; B1, the width of the dock channel; D, depth of dock; Bs and d~, the beam and draft of

the vessel to be docked; a, docking block height; c, clearance between dock wall and ship; cb clearance between docking blocks and bottom of ship; F, freeboard of dock at maximum sub- mergence; and f, minimum docking, freeboard of pontoon. With these notations, the main cross- sectional dimensions may be restated as follows

 B = B1 + 2b B1 = B, + 2c D =H+h H =d~+a+cl+F

Clearance and freeboard figures are governed by practical considerations and operational ex- perience. The following are the minimum values normally used in design : c = 5 ft; cl = 2 ft; F = 3.5 ft for docks up to 300 ft in length, with an additional 6 in. for each 100 ft of added length. The block height a may vary from 4 ft to 6 ft. Again based on operational requirements, the width of the wingwalls b is made a minimum of 10 ft, although stability computations may dictate a greater width. The depth of the dock pontoon h is determined mainly by lifting requirements. For this purpose, it is necessary to have the weight of the heaviest ship to be docked, and also the assumed or esti- mated weight of the dock. Let Ws indicate the

t"

310 ANALYSIS

r_CI r

:IX

/\ b

I

J

\

AND

q

u-

DESIGN

m

B)

E~s

OF

FLOATING

//

.I

I

I

I

I

DRYDOCKS

_-Ib

,.t

MAX

DRAFT

FIG. 2

CROSS

SECTION

AND CLEARANCE

DIAGRAM OF FLOATING

DOCK

weight of the ship per foot of dock length, and We the weight of the dock per linear foot, both ex- pressed in long tons. Then the required draft d, given in feet, is

d

-

35(Ws +

B

W~)

[11

Adding to this draft the pontoon freeboard, the total depth of the pontoon is accordingly

h=d+f

There remains one more dimension yet to be determined; that is, the length of the dock L. Normally thisis obtained from the over-all length of the longest ship to be docked, also making al- lowance for some additional length beyond the ship, both at bow and stern, to provide working space. Usually this is accomplished by extending the pontoon a short distance beyond the ends of the wingwalls in the form of an apron or working platform. In sectional docks the lifting capacity is specified for the entire section rather than per linear foot of dock. Since the section must lift that part of ship load directly over it, the design load of the section will be greater than that obtained from average or distributed weight of the ship; that is, the maxi- mum local ship load. Accordingly, in,determining the pontoon depth, the average ship weight W,, in Equation [1] must be replaced by an average weight obtained from the maximum ship. load covering a length equal to the length of the dock section. In docks with gates, such as shown in

Fig. l(f), since pontoon freeboard is no longer an applicable limitation, the depth of pontoon is governed by structural strength requirements. For this reason, for the same lifting capacity, floating docks with gates generally will have a shallower pontoon than those with open ends. The length of segments in sectional docks is governed by requirements of self-docking. This would limit it to the dimension B1, distance be- tween wingwalls, less a reasonable'clearance mar- gin.

FRAMING ARRANGEMENT

Materials of Framing

Floating docks are built normally of steel fram- ing. Because of critical shortage of steel, as a consei-vation measure during World War II, the framings of a number of the docks constructed during that period were made of timber and some others of reinforced concrete. While the use of these two materials did not truly constitute a new application, since they had been also utilized pre- viously in a few docks, their large-scale substitu- tion for steel at that time created certain design problems which had to be resolved without the benefit of actual service experience. However, the generally satisfactory service performance of these docks observed to date makes it mandatory that in future designs proper consideration be given to both concrete and timber as competitive materials with steel. With this thought, an attempt will be made here to cover certain design aspects, which may differ in accordance with the type of framing

ANALYSIS

AND

~

RANSVERSE

WALL

DESIGN

i//

OF

FLOATING

DETAILED

DRYDOCKS

"

311

ERsE

SHELL PLATING

/

/

CENTER BULKHEAD

FIG. 3

TYPICAL SEGMI~NT OF A CONTINUOUS STEEL DOCK

material, under a separate heading for each of the three types. In addition, it may be helpful to in- clude a fourth category under the designation of composite framing, obtainable by using differing materials in the framing of the wingwalls and pon- toon in a number of possible combinations, such as

(i) concrete pontoon and steel wingwalls, (ii) tim- ber pontoon and steel wingwalls, and (iii) concrete

The composite

pontoon with timber wingwaUs

type of framing is generally more advantageous for use in docks with continuous wingwalls; hence the prevalence of steel wingwalls in the various combinations, since that medium readily provides

the-needed flexural strength with a minimum of framing weight.

Details of Framing

The framing of a dock is arranged to provide maximum strength with a minimum amount of materials of framing. In continuous docks, strength is required both in the longitudinal as well as in the transverse direction of the dock. Longi- tudinal strength is obtained primarily through the wingwalls, and transverse strength is developed mainly through the pontoon. The basic element of framing in either direction is furnished by the outer skin or shell. This, in turn, is supplemented with a stiffening system consisting of frames and bulkheads and, in the case of steel docks, by a series of stringers. While all the docks conform to the same basic concept of framing, certain de-

312 ANALYSIS

AND

DESIGN

OF

./~=

=

-

=

-

I

REINFORCEDPLATE

HOLEIN TRANSVERSI:FRAME

I

II

I

SECTION

A-A

FLOATING

L

DRYDOCKS

ij

II

,,,,

SECTION

B-B

J

 ,A ' j~l~j B FILLER PLATES(AS REQUIRED) , ~) ~ 1 ~ SHE[t e~TING-~ J 1-/- ~_" . I

"/

~1"

~

11

li~l

,ill,

lilt

ill,

H,, 111[111.,

STIFFENERS~

TRANSVERSEFRAME

FIG. 4

TRANSVERSEFRAME.---.

CONTINUOUS STRINGER AND CONNECTION DETAILS

tails and arrangement differ for each type in ac-

cordance with the kind of framing material. The following is a brief description of the characteris- tics of each type.

Docks. A typical segment Of a con-

tinuous dock, schematically illustrating the gen- eral framing arrangement, is shown in Fig. 3. The segment is taken from a 6000-ton dock whose characteristic dimensions are given in the figure. The interior framing is composed of stringers, transverse frames, and longitudinal and trans- verse bulkheads. The details are designed for all- welded construction (1). 2 Stringers. The stringers span longitudinally and provide direct support to the shell plating in transmitting the load to the transverse frames. In addition, they serve as stiffeners to the flange plating of the frames and also furnish a part of the cross-s.ectional area of the dock in longitudinal bending. The continuity required for longitudinal strength is equally beneficial for local flexure be- tween frames. The details of connection for the desired continuity are shown in Fig. 4. For fur-

(a) Steel

Numbers in parentheses the paper.

refer to the Bibliography at the end of

ther economy, stringers are made of serrated sec- tions cut from channel shapes. As shown in Fig. 5, through the serrated cut the depth of the resulting two elements is increased by an amount equal to half the depth of the serration. The spacing of stringers may vary from 18 to 30 in. depending on location and loading. Transverse Frames. The transverse frames ex- tend from pontoon'into the wingwalls in the form of open-web trusses. They are spaced at 6 or 8- ft intervals, the use of the latter spacing gen- erally resulting in more economical framing. In the wingwalls a K-type arrangement of truss web- bing is used. However, the webbing is omitted above the safety deck to provide operational clear- ance, and thus the framing becomes a composite truss-Vierendeel bent. In the pontoon, a truss of either Pratt or Warren type is utilized. The two arrangements,, together with typical joint details, are shown in Fig. 6. The sections to be used for truss chords and web mem- bers of the frames depend on the adopted type of joint detail. In general, the various methods of interconnection can be grouped under two head- ings: (a) lap type, and (b) butt type. The former,

ANALYSIS

.,,d

3" r-oR :2" ANO :5" c~,/-t

2" FOR OTHERS'**"

~1

-1-

AND

DESIGN

OF

2424

------

FLOATING

TYPICAL CHANNEL ,SERRATE

DRYDOCKS

I

313

PLATE

FIG. 5

TYPICAL SHELL-PANEL SHOWING SERRATED STRINGERS

which is the simpler of the two methods of connec- tion, is illustrated by the details shown in Figs.

6(e), (f), and (g) and the latter is typified by the detail sketched in. Fig. 6(d). When a lap-type jointing is used, it will be necessary to use built-up angle sections for chords and T-shape sections for the web members. However, in the wall frames, where the chord stresses are relatively small, T- sections may be used also for the chord, in which case the web members may be connected by gus-

set plates welded to the backs of the T's, as shown

in Fig. 6(h). When a butt-type connection detail

is adopted, the web members may consist of either

H or T-sections, and the chords of T-sections,

either cut from I or H-sections or built up from two plates. Obviously, butt-type connections are more dif- ficult for fit-up and welding than those of the lap type. On the other hand, lapped connections in- troduce some secondary stresses owing to the

joint eccentricity in a direction normal to the plane of the frame. Bulkheads. The bulkheads consist of stiffened plating. Longitudinally there are three bulk- heads; one main watertight bulkhead located on the longitudinal centerline of the pontoon, and one

at each wingwall, either watertight or nonwater-

tight, depending on stability condition. Trans- versely, watertight bulkheads extend from within the pontoon into the wingwalls. Their spacing will vary in accordance with the adopted com- partmentation for pumping.

Safety Deck. Location of the safety deck is

governed by the weight and by the height of free- board at maximum submergence. In steel docks

it is placed in the upper part of the wingwalls, at a

distance below the top deck sufficient for the de- sired operational clearance. For this reason, its elevational location may vary in different parts of the dock.

(b) Concrete Docks. A typical cross section, taken from a poured-in-place concrete dock of

tons lifting capacity, is shown in ]Fig. 7.

Here the transverse frames are located 6 ft on centers. In order to simplify its construction, no

diagonals are used in the frames, thus resulting in

a Vierendeel bent both in the walls and in the

pontoon. For the same reason, beams or stringers are omitted from shell and deck slabs which are

supported directly on the frames. Because of the relatively heavy weight of the framing, the light draft and pontoon depth are con- siderably greater than the corresponding values

in a steel dock of the same lifting capacity.

There are three longitudinal bulkheads in the pontoon, one along the centerline and one at each wingwall. They are of watertight construction and extend continuously from end to end of the dock. The transverse bulkheads in the pontoon and wingwalls consist of rib-stiffened slabs, span- ning between the shell slabs. The safety deck in the wingwalls is usually lo- cated at dock-floor level. In some instances, this may necessitate a controlled height of ballast

6000

~

/

/\

'1

\

DETAILC

~'-'.

D~TA,LD--~,'"

TYPICAL TRANSVERSE FRAME

TYPE1

(a)

.,,.

:

i

~,

~

(<l)

FIAt~[H~E Ew~L

DETAIL A METHOD 3

J.

i

41

TEES ~'~

~

-

BEVELSTEMIfJ/~JI

+o, ALITEESr I

III

/ F

//

~6_L

SECTION

DETAIL A METHOD2

(f)

SECTION

,

7~

7~

7~

/

\

Z',.

TYPICAL TRANSVERSE FRAME

TYPE2

(b)

CRAN~

/•RAIL

BEARINGPLATES24"OC

WELDEDTODECKPLATE

CLIPSWELDEDTOBEARINGPLATES

I/2"EXTRA-HEAVPI~Y

STRUCTURATLEE~ H

1;

]r

/'E'LL~

WEL~ AS SHOWN

SHELLPLATING~

H I~----STR~T~'AL TEE

L

(c)

.

DETAIL C

oq

>

>

>

FILLsETSHO~S ""

1

/~ Lf-

~1

~

"~~lt~l ~

DETAIL B

STRUCTURATLEES

DETAIL A

(g)

METHOD1

i

e'

-

7I

SECTION

1

l

I

OF BEVESL"T~EM~L ALLtEESI

SHELLPLATING~ ~t"

~

c~

2~

0

0

>

~H

:Z

 C~ ,~"i' ~4 ~ STRUCTURATLEE 0 ~-~-GdSSETp~:AT~~ -# r~

STRUCTURATLEE

(h)

FIG. 6 TYPICAL JOINT DETAILS OF TRANSVERSE FRAMES FOR STEEL FLOATING DOCK

ANALYSIS

AND

DESIGN

water in the pontoon during maximum sub- mergence. This is accomplished by means of draft piping arranged to entrap air under the pontoon deck. In construction, the contractor is generally given the option to precast part or all of the transverse frames and some of the bulkheads. (c) Timber Docks. Because of difficulties in- herent in jointing, it is not practicable to develop full continuity and the corresponding strength in unit docks of timber framing. For this reason, timber-framed docks are usually of the sectional type. In the fewer applications of the continuity concept to timber docks, both the over-all length and the capacity oI the dock are limited to rela- tively smaller values. A typical cross section of such a dock is shown in Fig. 8. The dock is 240 ft long, and has a lifting capacity of 1000 tons. Frames. In timber docks the transverse frames are spaced 4 ft on centers. Here the arrangement consists of a tapering-depth pontoon truss and a cross-braced Wingwall frame. Chord splices and web-to-chord jointing are made by means of bolts and split-ring connectors. Shell. The skin consists of a main layer of 4-in. planking, spanning longitudinally between the frames. In the wingwalls, in order to provide added shear strength, the horizontal planking is supplemented by an underlying layer of 2-in. diagonal sheathing. Planking of greater thick- nesses are utilized at the keel, bilges and near top of wingwaUs to furnish added longitudinal strength. Bulkheads. There are three watertight longi- tudinal bulkheads, located at the pontoon center- line and at each wingwall, composed of 6-in. plank- ing and assembled together with tongue-and- groove jointing. The transverse bulkheads are similarly arranged. There is no interior safety deck in timber docks, since the water level inside the wingwalls remains below that of the outside water. As a matter of fact, in order to submerge the dock to its maxi- mum draft, it is necessary to increase its light framing by some additional weight, generally in the form of concrete ballast placed at the bottom

of the pontoon.

COMPARTMENTATION

Compartmentation of a dock is predicated on three considerations: (a) stability, (b) pumping,

and (c) damage control. In order to assure transverse stability, the pon- toon is subdivided longitudinally into two or more compartments. For this purpose, there is pro- vided a watertight bulkhead along the Idiagi- tudinal centerline of the pontoon, supplemented by

a longitudinal bulkhead under the inner shell of

F

OF

FLOATING

DRYDOCKS

315

each wingwall. While it is common practice to provide a center bulkhead in all docks, additional bulkheads longitudinally may or may not be re- quired for stability alone. In so far as longi- tudinal stab!lity is concerned, this is seldom a problem in unit docks and, for this reason, the arrangement of transverse bulkheads is influenced by the other two considerations. From an operational point of view, compart- mentation is devised to provide an economical pumping system, easily adaptable to trim and listing of the dock, and, in case of accidental dam- age and the resulting flooding, not subject to serious conditions of instability and submergence. For this condition it may be assumed that any two adjacent compartments would be flooded due to accidental damage. Three typical arrangements are shown in Fig. 9. These are unit docks, exemplifying three kinds of framing: Fig. 9(a), a steel dock of 6000 tons lifting capacity, subdivided into 16 compartments; Fig. 9(b), a 3000-ton-capacity concrete dock, sub- divided into 12 compartments; and Fig. 9(c), a 1000-ton timber dock, with 20 compartments. Of the relatively large number of compartments in the timber dock, the peripheral 12-tanks serve to minimize collision flooding, and also facilitate the listing operations. The pumping, however, is accomplished by means of only four pumps--two on each side of the dock. In sectional docks, generally, each segment is subdivided into six compartments through a central longitudinal bulkhead and two interior transverse bulkheads. An arrangement of this type is shown in Fig. 10(a). In some docks, the segment may have only two compartments by the omission of the watertight trmlsverse bulkheads as shown in Fig. 10(b). Still in others, there may be provided a dry compartment, located at the longitudinal eenterline of the pontoon, to serve as

a buoyancy chamber and also to house machinery

and pumping equipment. This is the scheme utilized in Advance-Base-type sectional docks, as illustrated in Fig. 10(c). In this case, the dry chamber itself is subdivided into three tier com-

partments by means of two interior decks.

2--ANALYSIS

CONDITIONS OF LOADING

A floating dock being

a device for lifting vessels out of water, the main

source of stress is derived from conditions inciden- tal to docking operations. These are designated as docking loads or docking conditions. There is also a supplementary source of stress which is ob- tained when the dock is transferred by towing

General

Considerations.

0,1

 "T,, t -",'--'-8"x 14" ~-- 1'2" I ! 8"x12" ~ i 8"x16" ~ ~ - ,-- 1'4" [ 8"x12" c~ ,i ~.

t

4---- 8"xl 0"

MAXIMUM DRAFT

WOOD

FENDERS

INBOARD SHELL

51,~',--~

5" -'*"

13'

"-- 1'4"

ENGINE ROOM

OR

STRUCTURAL SHOP

b

-

o

~

-"

6"--"

--"

--u--x2o--

--

"- 2'2"

~

I

0

°

4

~

::::_-_-_-s---::~8,,x30.~

/t

~'\

-;;

/

8"x30" ~

- ---

~

~

~6"

2'-,.--

-I'

-*

~2'9"

!

'

'

13' --

=

SHELL

"

8"x20" ~

1'

~o

~

I*,

¢

11'3" ~

FIG. 7

~'

\'/

I

!

,

I

~-~

B4-~

"1

!I

~

~'t~

8'x30"

",--1'8"

8"x20" ~

~

8"x30"

DOCK FLOOR

/rE

TAIR

HOLE

\

8"x30"

6" -*

--el.- -

DRAIN HOLES

2'6"

f

~o

\ /

BI-I

4"/,

11'3"

34'

:

94'

TYPICAL TRANSVERSE

:

11'6"

kl~_

J

i

]

,

~ SYMMETRICAL ABOUT ~.

IEXCEPT

AS SHOWN.

FRAME FOR A 6000-TON CONCRETE FLOATING DOCK

BILGE BLOCK RUNNER TO BE FLUSH WITH TOP OF DOCK FLOOR. PROVIDE SCUPPER FOR DRAINAGE

\

BILGE BLOCK SOFT WOOD CAP

L

-~.

JLIHEAD

.

SECTION

A-A

SECTION

B-B

OUTBOARD SHELL

BILGE 3' RADIUS

oh

>

:z

>

:z

© ~=~

0

0 >

C~ 0

Ln

ANALYSIS

AND

DESIGN

OF

FLOATING

DRYDOCKS

317

 6"x12" ~ 3"x8" PLANKING ~ I ¢ BOLT ' 6"xB BLOCK ! ~6"xI0" CLAMP ~ m~~"x3"' STRAP BLOCK •e- 3"x8" PLANKING w Z 2" DIAGONAL z Z ,~ . SHEATHING 0 U :~ " X ALL DIAGONALS TO BEAR ON HORIZONTAL STRUTS

6"xl 4" ~4

~::::~

14

° ¢ CONN

l iJ

~.~"

"

BLOCKS

"cUT TO BEAR ~ BOLTS

~'4"x14 ' DIAGONALS

~1

/

CONNBOLTsBLOCKS

4"x8"÷6i~

SECTION A-A (AS SHOWN)

SECTION

B-B

(SIMILAR)

SYMMETRICAL ABOUT

FIVE

10"x10"

ll

PLANKING

--24'3~"

[-~B

.

4"x8" PLANKING l~h" ¢ AIR HOLES

" TWO 6"x14" .-oq::.~ I .':, '.~' ', ':: ::.

G"xl0" PLANKING~f 6" WT BULKHEADI

I

/

/ ~

6" INT SWASI"1 BULKHEAD

~" ~ DB x 2'6" STAGGERED a ~'B

~v

2' CCTHROUGHOUT 4"x12" BoI"rOM PLANKING BETWEEN THESE LINES

/

I" SHEATHING CREOSOTED AND SHIP FELT

 KEEL BLOCK TRACKS TWO 4"x16" SPUCE 6-xlO" / FIVE8"x10"

KEEL BLOCKS-

x

I-~A

AIR VENT, ONE REQUIREDk FOR EACH TANKI ~'~

NK'NG

/

Two

~A

I" SHEATHING CREOSOTED AND SHIP FELT

PLANKING

WT BULKHEAD

FIG. 8

TYPICAL TRANSVERSE FRAME FOR A TIMBER FLOATING DOCK

from one location to another. The loads resulting from these conditions are called sea loads. Docking Conditions. The upper part of Fig. 11 shows four conditions of loading in a docking operation. In Fig. 11 (a) the dock is shown afloat at light draft. This may be considered as the minimum water load condition, consisting of the light-draft net buoyancy forces acting" on the pon- toon. In Fig. l l(b) the dock is submerged at maximum draft. This is the condition for the maximum water loading on the safety deck and the wingwall framing located above it. In Fig.

ll(c) the dock is emerging out of water, partially

supporting the vessel on its blocking. This is the period of critical stability which prevails until the dock floor is out of water. In Fig. 11 (e) the dock

is pumped dry, with the vessel on its blocks. This

is the condition for maximum docking load. Sea Conditions. In the lower part of Fig. 11 are shown three conditions of loading while the dock

is being towed at sea. In Fig. ll(f.) .the dock is in

a hogging wave, with the wave crest at the trans-

verse centerline. This is the hogging condition. In Fig. ll(g) the dock is in a sagging wave, with a

518 ANALYSIS AND

£,I

.,,

r

q

448,_

o,,

_

DESIGN

i

T~

i

?1

"1

I

I

I

!

a)

389'-0"

i

(b)

240'-0"

i

i

i_

(c)

FIG. 9

TYPICALARRANGEMENTS OF COMPARTMENTATIONS

IN

UNIT

DOCKS:

(a)

CONCRETE;

6000-TON

STEEL;

(b)

(C)

1000-TON

TIMBER

3000-TON

wave crest atbow and stern and the wave through amidships. This is the sagging condition. In Fig. ll(h)the dock is in a quartering wave, with a wave crest at port bow and starboard stern, and the wave trough crossing the centerlines of the dock at an angle of 45 deg. This is the condition of maximum torque, accompanied by antisym- metrical bending of the wingwalls and pontoon, dynamic stresses due to rolling, and by some sag- ging flexure.

DOCKING

MOMENTS

Conventional Approach

The important stresses under docking conditions

occur in the pontoon. The governing condition is that of a heavy ship on blocks and the dock

pumped

the load.per linear foot of dock. An average value of P is obtained by dividing the total ship load Ws by the over-all length LB of supporting blocks. Also, the average or design draft

[2]

dry, as shown in Fig. 12(a), where P is

35(Ws +

WD)

d

=

BL

OF FLOATING DRYDOCKS

::i

CONTINUOUS

(a)

WINGWALLS

(i J

£

240'-0"

,,

TI

(b)

,,

FIG. 10

.~

SEGT. I-I

(c)

TYPICAL

ARRANGEMENTS

TIONS OF SECTIONAL

-it

1

OI L

TANKS

OF

COMPARTMENTA-

DOCKS

in which W~ is the weight of the dock (including contained water), and B and L the width and length of the dock, respectively. In this expres- sion W, and Ws are in tons, and B, L and da,.gare in ft. Then, the loading on a typical transverse strip of dock 1 ft wide will consist of a concentrated load P applied at the centerline of the section and a uniformly distributed load Wd, representing the net buoyancy force; that is, the buoyancy force reduced by the dead weight and the contained water per foot of the strip. Here the concentrated block loading from the ship is balanced by the net buoyancy force of the dock, essentially by transverse bending of the dock. In conventional design approach certain simplifying assumptions are made regarding both the load distribution and the mode of flexure of the pontoon. For this purpose, it is first assumed that the total ship load is uniformly distributed over the supporting blocks; then, in order to pro-

(f)

(cJ)

 D O C L j H 0 G G I N G I S'AGG I N G S E

(b)

K

A

I

N

G

FIG. ii

 (c) (d) . (e) C O N D I T i 0 N S \ r /Jo w, rPORT ~ ~ .~ .-:-- ----,--,- -~ ~. I ELEVATION (h) T O R S I O N C O N D I T I O N S

LOADINGCONDITIONS OF FLOATING DOCK

;>.

U

C~

0

0

0

Oq

320 ANALYSIS

AND

DESIGN

OF

FLOATING

DRYDOCKS

-

'

W3/FT

"~

, imllillimJmuiiHimliliill i~ lalllllllhlllllllllllllllttllillillllil

\

I\

I\

/I

/I

_/

rlilllrlllmliillllillliltllllllliililllliillll

R,I

L

I-"

'~.w=/FT

P

S

_P

P

!lllli~lllllll

Ir

R,

1

-

(b)

(c)

\

FIG. 12

;

-

V//I.

LOAD CONDITIONS DURING DOCKING OF SHIP

(d)

vide a measure of compensation for the nonuni- • formity, the average block load thus obtained is increased by a factor of 1.25. It is also assumed

of the dock is uniformly dis-

tributed through its length, and that the draft is the same everywhere. With these assumptions, the design block load becomes

that the weight

].25 w~

P

-

L.

[31

corresponding to the average draft, and a balanc- ing reaction R, applied at the center of each wing- wall. The system, shown in Fig. 12(a), will pro- duce simple truss stresses in the frame, accom- panied by local bending of the bottom plating,

ANALYSIS

F---

,

-

,

,

-.-""

AND

DESIGN

OF

FLOATING

DRYDOCKS

I

~1

LOADING

 [ 1 [ i O,ST,isu rEo SH,P LOAD --.--

GURVE

ON

BLOCKS

SHIP

1

L

~0!

I

~

BLOC~~

SPAGI NG

BLOCK

,_

CENTER

LOADED

OF END

BLOCK

LENGTH

02

FIG. 13

SHIP LOAD CURVE AND DOCK BLOCK LOADING

A

321

stringers and chord members. In some cases it also may be necessary to investigate the stresses resulting from the condition of loading indicated in Fig. 12(b). Here, due to the water on the dock floor, there will be local bending in both top and bottom chords of the truss frame. As a further variation, a part of the ship load may be trans- mitted to the dock through the bilge blocks. The load P will then be divided into three com- ponents. Two such conditions generally investi- gated in design are shown in Figs. 12(c) and (d). In unit docks, the load P is used for the design of frames in the longitudinal middle half of the dock. For the frames in the end quarters of the dock, it is taken as the average ship blOck load, that is, 4/5 P, since that load was increased by a factor of 5/6. In addition to the transverse bending of the dock pontoon, there is some flexure in the longi- tudinal direction of the dock due to nonuniform weight distribution of the ship. This is obtained by simple beam bending of the dock as a unit. For this purpose, after balancing gravity and buoyancy forces, a net load curve is drawn or computed, from which the shears and moments are determined by the usual method of successive summations.

Elastic Slab Method

The flexural maalysis of the pontoon by the con- ventional approach will result in a very conserva-

tire design. This is due to two basic considera- tions: (a) The method used to determine the de- sign block load; and (b) the assumed unidirec- tional bending of the pontoon under block loading. Neither of these two assumptions has a realistic basis. (a) Block Loading. The determination of the imposed ship load at each and every block is a highly complex problem. It is a function of the bending of the ship and the dock and the unequal

compression or yielding of the interposed blocking system. If we should neglect the deflections of the dock with reference to the ship, and this is a reasonable assumption--since ordinarily the dock

is much stiffer than the ship, then the problem will

reduce to the relatively simpler case of bending of

a steel beam on an elastic foundation, the former

representing the ship's structure and the latter the timber blocking.

A treatment of the elastic foundation problem

is given by Timoshenko (2). In this concept it is

assumed that the distribution of reaction forces on

an elastic foundation, which supports a loading transmitted through an elastic member, is pro- portional to the deflections of the foundation. The deflections are given by the expression p

[4]

-a=

y

=

803EI e

(Cos 13x +

Sin Bx)

in which y is the deflection, so a concentrated load on the supported member, I the moment of inertia

322 ANALYSIS

AND

DESIGN

OF

FLOATING

DRYDOCKS

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

 Functions of ~, ff and 0 ~ = eL~x(Cos Bx -- Sin fix) e-ax = e-Ox(Cos #x+Sin #x) 0 = Cos Bx
 0 1.0000 0.05 0.9976 0.10 0.9907 0.15 0.9797 0.20 0.9651 0.25 0.9473 0.30 0.9267 0.35 0.9036 0.40 0.8784 0.45 0.8515 0.50 0.8231 0.55 0.7934 0.60 0.7628 0.65 0.7315 0.70 0.6997 0.75 0.6676 0.80 0.6354 0.85 0.6032 0.90 0.5712 0.95 0.5395 1.00 0.5083 1.05 O.4777 1.10 0.4476 1.15 0.4184 I: 20 0.3899 1.25 0.3622 1.30 0.3355 1.35 0.3097 1.40 0.2849 1245 0.2611 1.50 0.2384 1.55 0.2166 1.60 0.1959 1.65 0.1762 1.70 0.1576 1.75 0.1400 1.80 0.1234 1.85 0.1078 1.90 0.0932 1.95 0.0795 2.00 0.0667 2.05 0.0549 2.10 0.0439 2.15 0.0337 2.20 0.0244 2.25 0.0241 2.30 0.0080 2.35 0.0008 2.4O --0.0056 2.45 --0.0114 2.50 --0.0166 2.55 --0.0213 2.60 --0.0254 2.65 --0.0289 2.70 --0.0320 2.75 --0.0347 2.80 --0.0369 2.85 --0.0388 2.90 --0.0403 2.95 0.0414 3.00 --0.0423 3.05 --0.0428 3.10 --0.0431 3.15 --0.0432 3.20 --0.0431 3.25 --0.0427 3.30 --0.0422 3.35 --0.0416 3.40 --0.0408 3.45 --0.0399 3.50 --0.0389

o

~x

~

0

 --1.0000 1.0000 3.55 --0.0378 0.0150 -0.0264 --0.9025 0.9500 3.60 --0.0366 0.0124 -0.0245 --0.8100 0.9003 3.65 --0.0354 0.0100 -0.0227 --0.7224 0.8510 3.70 --0.0341 0.0079 -0.0210 --0.6398 0.8024 3.75 --0.0327 0.0058 --0.0193 --0.5619 0.7546 3.80 --0.0314 0.0040 -0.0177 --0.4888 0.7077 3.85 --0.0300 0.0023 -0.0162 --0.4203 0.6620 3.90 --0.0286 0.0008 -0.0147 --0.3564 0.6174 3.95 --0.0272 --0.0006 -0,0133" --0.2968 0.5742 4.00 --0.0258 --0.0019 -0.0120 --0.2415 0.5323 4.05 --0.0244 --0.0030 -0,0107 --0.1903 0.4919 4.10 --0.0231 --0.0040 -0,0095 --0.1431 0.4530 4.15 --0.0217 --0.0049 -0,0084 --0.0997 0.4156 4.20 --0.0204 --0.0057 -- O, 0074 --0.0599 0.3798 4.25 --0.0191 --0.0064 - O, 0064 --0.0236 0.3456 4.30 --0.0179 --0.0070 -0,0054 0.0093 0.3131 4.35 --0.0166 --0.0075 -0,0046 0.0390 0.2821 4.40 --0.0155 --0.0079 -0.0038 0.0657 0.2527 4.45 --0.0141 --0.0081 -0.0030 0.0896 0.2250 4.50 --0.0132 --0.0085 --0.0023 0.1108 0.1988 4.55 --0.0121 --0.0087 --0.0017 0.1294 0.1741 4.60 --0.0111 --0.0089 --0.0011 0.1457 0.1510 4.65 --0.0101 --0.0089 -0.0006 0.1597 0.1293 4.70 --0.0092 --0.0090 --0.0001 0.1716 0.1091 4.75 --0.0083 --0.0090 0.0003 0.1815 0.0903 4.80 --0.0075 --0.0089 0.0007 0.1897 0.0729 4.85 --0.0067 --0.0088 0.0011 0.1962 0.0568 4.90 --0.0059 --0.0087 0.0014 0.2011 0.0419 4.95 --0.0052 --0.0086 0.0017 0.2046 0.0283 5.00 --0.0045 --0.0084 0.0019 0.2068 0.0158 5.05 --0.0039 --0.0082 0.0021 0.2078 0.0044 5.10 --0.0033 --0.0080 0.0023 0.2077 0.0059 5.15 --0.0028 --0.0077 0.0025 0.2066 0.0152 5.20 --0.0023 --0.0075 0.0026 0.2047 --0.0235 5.25 --0.0018 --0.0072 0.0027 0.2020 --0.0310 5.30 --0.0014 --0.0069 0.0028 0.1985 --0.0376 5.35 --0.0010 --0.0066 0.0028 0.1945 --0.0433 5.40 --0.0006 --0.0064 0.0029 0.1899 --0.0484 5.45 --0.0003 --0.0061 0.0029 0.1848 --0.0527 5.50 0.0000 --0.0058 0.0029 0.1794 --0.0563 5.55 0.0003 --0.0055 0.0029 0.1736 --0.0594 5.60 0.0005 --0.0052 0.0029 0.1675 --0.0618 5.65 0.0008 --0.0049 0.0028 0.1612 --0.0638 5.70 0.0010 --0.0046 0.0028 0.1548 --0.0552 5.75 0.0011 --0.0044 0.0027 0.1399 --0.0579 5.80 0.0013 --0.0041 0.0027 0.1416 --0.0668 5.85 0.0014 --0.0038 0.0026 0.1349 --0.0670 5.90 0.0015 --0.0036 0.0025 0.1282 --0.0669 5.95 0.0016 --0.0033 0.0025 0.1215 --0.0665 6.00 0.0017 --0.0031 0.0024 0.1149 --0.0658 6.05 0.0017 --0.0028 0.0023 0.1084 --0.0648 6.10 0.0018 --0.0026 0.0022 0.1019 --0.0636 6.15 0.0018 --0.0024 0.0021 0.0956 --0.0623 6.20 0.0018 --0.0022 0.0020 0.0895 --0.0608 6.25 0.0019 --0.0020 0.0019 0.0835 --0.0591 6.30 0.0019 --0.0018 0.0018 0.0777 --0.0573 6.35 0.0019 --0.0016 0.0017 0.0720 --0.0554 6.40 0.0018 --0.0015 0.0016 0.0660 --0.0534 6.45 0.0018 --0.0013 0.0016 0.0613 --0.0514 ~x ~ 0 0.0563 --0.0493 6.50 0'.0018 --0.0011 0.0015 0.0515 --0.0472 , 6.55 0.0018 --0.0010 0.0014 0.0469 --0.0450 6.60 0.0017 --0.0009 0.0013 0.0425 --0.0428 6.65 0.0017 --0.0007 0.0012 0.0383 --0.0407 6.70 0.0016 --0.0006 0.0011 0.0344 --0.0385 6.75 0.0016 --0.0005 0.0010 0.0306 --0.0364 6.80 0.0015 --0.0004 0.0010 0.0270 .--0.0343 6.85 0.0015 --0.0003 0.0009 0.0237 --0.0323 6.90 0.0014 --0.0002' 0.0008 0.0206 --0.0302 6.95 0.0013 --0.0002 0.0008 0.0177 --0.0283 7.00 0.0013 --0.0001 0.0007

ANALYSIS

CENTER

OF

I

~ WINGWALL

AND

DESIGN

OF

ELASTIC

X

FLOATING

SLAB

DRYDOCKS

I

325

"

,,,

U~loa

¥

'

/

LONGITUDINAL

I

.

PONT OO1~

S

" OF

1 ,

AXIS

J

P

i/ANY

TRANSVERSE

r

• X

AxIS

SLAB

IN ELASTIC

L

I~

FIG. 14

Co-ORDINATE SYSTEM FOR DOCK PONTOON BENDING AS AN ELASTIC SLAB

Y

of the member,, E its modulus of elasticity, and the term/3 indicating the relation

/3

=

(

k

~1/4

\4E?]

'

[5]

where k is a constant, called the modulus of the foundation. In applying this-concept to the block-loading problem, first it will be necessary to define the values of k and I. In this case k will represent the so-called spring constant of the timber-block as- semblies; that is, the required force per unit area to cause a unit elastic deflection of the blocks. This will then be simply the modulus of elasticity of the wood used for blocking, taken in a direction normal to the grain, since the segments are ar- ranged horizontally. This modulus may vary from one tenth to one twentieth of the modulus of elas- ticity of the wood along the axis of the grain. For [, it will be satisfactory to use I,, the average cross-sectional moment of inertia of the ship be- tween the'end blocks. It is also to be noted that, the docking keel blocks being located 6 ft on cen- ters along the longitudinal eenterline of the dock floor, the load P will correspondingly represent 6 ft of ship load, assumed to be concentrated at the center of each block. Also, the term x in {he deflec- tion expression, Equation [4], represents the dis- tance from a load point where the reaction is to be computed to any other load point. The total block load is then obtained by summing up the reactions due to all the loads, that is, by sub- stituting for x in Equation [4] the proper value corresponding to each load. At the end blocks, the expression for deflection

due to the overhanging weight of the ship and the end block load, indicated by P0 and P1 in Fig. 13, is as follows

Yl

-

e-t3z

2~3E I

[P0 +

P1 Cos/3x

+/3P0 a(Cos Bx -

Sin Bx)

[61

In this expression, the x distances for the other loads are measured from center of the end block. As an aid in these Computations, the .expressions

e -~x (Cos/3x +

Sin j3x)

have been computed for various values of/3x, in increments of 0.05, and are given in Table 1. (b) Pontoon Moments. The flexural behavior of the pontoon under block loading is essentially that of a cellular elastic slab, where the floor and plating serve as flanges, and the frames and bulk- heads act as web members in the transverse and longitudinal directions. By neglecting the small rotational restraint exerted by the wingwalls, the pontoon may be considered as an .unrestrained slab, simply supported on the wingwalls, with a span s, extending from center to center of the walls. The general solution of this problem is given by Nadai (3), Westergaard (4) and Timoshenko (5). By using Westergaard's approach, and referring to Fig. 14, the moments and shears per unit width of cross section can be expressed as follows

(1

Sin/3x), e-~* Cos/3x, and

e-a*

(Cos 13x -

~1 4- Ulog

A

-- U)Y

M~ =

k-g;-~

B +

8s

Sin h

try[1

s

\B-

A)I

P

=

C~P

[7]

324 ANALYSIS

AND

DESIGN

M~

=

mzy

M%y =

 ['l+u A (1 -- t~)Y t_--g~ log. B 8s Sinh s\B-- P= CuP • Sin -- (' gs- [ s Sin['(x? v)]) + B P = C, vP (1 ~- u) y(Sin [~(x7A v)]

Sin[~'(x? v)])

[8]

[9]

 -- B P = C'.vP [10] V~ A + ~ s Vu = -- ~Sinh -- = C~v-.s [12]

in which

 A = C°sh~r-ZYs+ C°slY(X-s v) 1 B = Cosh Zrys.- C°s[ ~r(xs+v)] u = Poisson's ratio

To obtain the final values at a given point, a summation must be made of the values due to eaeh and every load on the pontoon. However, the loads located at distances greater than 2s from the point under consideration will have a negligible effect and thus may be omitted from computa- tions. In order to simplify the analytical work, numerical coefficients have been computed for a series of loads, placed at various locations on the pontoon. Certain of these values, covering prac- tical ranges of dock pontoon widths, are given in the .Appendix in chart form. These are for the loads on the centerline. Similar charts giving the values for loads off the centerline can be ob- tained from the Society.

SBA MOMENTS

Nature of Stresses

At sea, unit docks are subject to major stresses

OF

FLOATING

DRYDOCKS

due to wave action. These consist of (a) hogging and sagging moments arid the accompanying shears, and (b) torque combined with flexure, when the dock is at an angle to the waves. In analyzing these stresses, it is satisfactory to assume the dock weight to be uniformly distributed along its length. With this assumption, the required analytical work becomes primarily a problem for determining certain properties of the areas of the wave profile with reference to calm-water level.

Hogging and Sagging

The wave considered in sea-stress computations is a trochoidal wave, the geometric formation of which is shown in Fig. 15(a). The co-ordinates of this curve, with reference to axes X and Y are given by the following relations

x = RO+rSinO}

y

=

Cos 0

[13]

where r, the radius of the small circle, indieates one half the wave height, that is, the height of the 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 0 is a parameter. Assuming the wave erest to be at midship of the dock and the trough at stern, the curve ABC will then represent one half the profile of a hogging

curve is

not symmetrical with reference to the X-axis. Consequently, the wave-profile area AOB lo- cated below that axis does not equal area BCD above it. The former area represents hydrostatic underpressures, or negative buoyaney forees, and the latter, overpressures or positive buoyaney forees. The extent of unbalance, determined by integrating the two areas, is as follows

wave on the dock. As ean be noted, the

 Area AOB = = = = and AreaBCD =

p~/2

.~,

y6x

rjo

Cos0(R60 +rCos060)

[Rr

Sin 0 +

1

r2(~ SinOCosO + ~O)l:/2.

~r

Rr +-~-

2

-Rr

+

~-r2

~-

. [14]

Aceordingly, in order to balanee the two areas, the referenee axis X must be lowered a distanee d', equal to

X m

ANALYSIS

AND

Y

I--F

DESIGN

(Q)

L

(b)

OF

i

FLOATING

'n'R

/

DRYDOCKS

d

'

325

FIG.

15

WAVE FORMS: (a)

L

(c)

\

TROCHOIDAL WAVE;

-v

(b)

/

L

]

COSINB WAVE (HOGGING);

(C)

CosmB WAVB(SAGGING)

27rr 2

L

d'=-

+

4 2-

=

~rr2

L

[15]

With this correction, each area will approximately

equal Rr, which is the area obtainable from a co-

sine curve. Substitution of a cosine curve for a trochoid will greatly simplify the derivations of shear and

526 ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF FLOATING DRYDOCKS

\

\

!~/

,,>,,

-,.~

IA~\

i

,.<,1

~

L

Cos=

e

I

"~./v\

\

STBD SIDE--~/ ""

(L+B)G

2Tr

r Cos(0*~1

i ["-PORT SIDE

M~'-~-TC-)~

[ pB2X(,L÷B)r F^,

L=me(,-cost<i-si.cxcose]o

.--T--

d'=- r(l+m)2mw I+Cos l'~mSin ~-~ -

-f-

Sin ~

I-Cos

M

FIG. 16

LOADS, MOMENTSAND SHEARSUNDERQUARTERINGWAVES

)RAFTS

(a)

TORQUE

(b)

LOA'D

(c)

SHEAR

(d)

MOMENT

/e)

ANALYSIS

AND

DESIGN

OF

FLOATING

DRYDOCKS

527

moment computations.

poses, this is an entirely satisfactory approxima-

tion.

water profile become

For practical design pur-

With a cosine curve, the co-ordinates of the

x

y

=

RO

Cos 0

r

t

and the area of the profile

A,

=

Rr£ Cos 0~0 =

Rr[Sin 0]°0 -

[16]

Area A, when multiplied by Bp, B being the width of the dock and p the weight of unit volume of water, will give the shear-expression for the dock for normal sea waves. Thus

[171

Obviously, the maximum value of

when 0 = rr/2;

V = BpRr(Sin O)

that is

l/ is obtained

latter figure the ordinates y and y,, indicate the draft at port and starboard walls in a transverse cross section. The expressions are.

 y = r Cos 0 yl = r Cos (a + 0) [22] 2~ where a L 1+ 2 The differential draft is given by Y-- yt -= r[(1 -- Cosa) Cos0 + Sin a Sin 0] [23]

and, assuming a linear variation of draft trans- verse to the pontoon, the corresponding torque per

unit length of dock by

m,

=

(y-

Yl)BI~

[18]

or, since R = Lw/2r, and assuming a wave height- to-wave length ratio of 1/20

'Vmax :

BpRr

Vmax

--

BpLw~-

807r

-

BpL2

807r

[19]

--

B2pr

12

[(1

--

Cos a)

Cos 0

+ Sin

a

Sin 0]

[24]

Total torque ~[t, at a distance x from the end of

 the dock is obtained by integrating mr. Noting that
 The moment expression, similarly obtained by in- tegrating the shear areas, is in the following form x - M = f, .V6x = BpR2r f Sin 0~0 I M, = BpR2r(1 -- Cos 0) I [20] Bp~(1 -- CosO)

The maximum moment' at midship is then, under either a hogging or sagging wave

L 3

Mmax = Bp 807r2

[21]

The graphs for wave load on the dock w, bend- ing shear V, and bending moment M, are shown in a composite way in Fig. 15(b). In normal pro- cedures, where dock weight is nonuniform and a trochoidal wave is used, the net load curve is established by trial balancing of dock weights and buoyancy forces. Based on that curve, the shear and moment curves are then obtained in sequence, the needed summations of areas being conven- iently. ~ccomplished by graphic computations.

-

2

[

(1

B+L

f

B

12

pr

2~- 0

mt~x

B+L

2~"

--

Cos

o~) Sin

0 -

Sin

a

Cos 0

o

 B2(B + - 24r L) pr[ (1 -- Cos a) Sin 0 + Sin a(1 - Cos 0)] [25] The expression is shown graphically in Fig. 16(b). The maximum torque, occurs at x = L/2, where 0 = Lrc/(B + L)
 " - B2(B24rc+ L) pr{( 1 Cosa) 3It _ Sin (B~L) + Sin all - Cos (B~L)I or, letting the ratio L/B = m

(1 +

m)L

24rn3r

'rt [1

]

-

2~r

Cos (1-V

)l

}

Torsion

Again assunfing a cosine curve for the wave profile, general expressions can be derived for tor- sional and flexural stresses produced in the dock by quartering waves. This condition of loading is sketched in Fig. 16 and the wave profiles on the two wingwaUs are shown in Fig. 16(a). In the

 m,r 2r Sin (1~) + Sin (~-~)

I1-

-In addition to twist, the loading produces (a) sagging moments and shears in the dock as a unit,

 328 ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF (b) antisymmetrical bending of the wingwalls, and (c) transverse bending of the pontoon.

Again referring to Fig. 16(a), the average draft at a dock cross section can be expressed as follows

FLOATING

DRYDOCKS

Vc-

(1

rn)L2pr~V 1

+

4m~

IL

27r

+ C°s (1-+-m)]

mTr

Sin(1~)

21r

- Sin(~)

 d , = 1 ~ (y + yl) = r ~ [(1

+

Cos a) Cos0 -- Sin aSin0]

and the corresponding load per unit length of dock, shown in Fig. 16(c)

tv

= Bp 2[(1

+

Cos a)

Cos 0 --

Sin a Sin 0]

[27]

The resulting shear expression is, Fig. 16(d)

V = fw~x

= Bp (B2~r+

L)

~

(1

--F Cos a)

Sin 0 -t- Sin

a

Cos 0

o

"[321

From Equation [32] it can be seen that shear is not zero at midship, indicating that the water load shown in Fig. 16(c) is not in balance. To obtain the needed balance, We must adjust the waterline a distance d', determined thus

Vc + d'Bp L ~=0

+ 2~r

 mTr 2~r Sin (1--~) -- Sin (1--~)

B(B

+ L)pr

-- 47r

-- Sin a(1

 [(1 + Cos a) Sin 0 - Cos 0)] [28]

Similarly, the expression for the bending- moment curve, sketched in Fig. 16(e), is obtained by integrating the shear areas

M

=

~

3

[

V6x

= B(B

(Sin aSinO-

+ L)2pr

8~ -2

O) -

(1

_

+

B(B +L)~pr

(1

+

87rI

Cos a)(1

+

Cosa) CosO

0

[Sina (SinO-

-

Cos 0)]

O)

[29]

and the maximum moment at x = L/2

Mm.x =

[sin

(1 +~m--~2m)~L3pr~''~m

(~)2~r

+[ 1+cos

21r

(1--~)]

[1

,

mlr

Cos (1~)]}

[30]

Maximum shear at

L

x----- ~-and0

=

2(B

LTr

+

L)

_

rn~r

2(1 +m)

Vm.x

=

(l

+- m)L2pr~F1

4rn2~

IL

m~r

Sin (~-(1-~-m)-

+ Cos

('21r)1

1~

2~r

Sin (1~)

[i- Cos(2(mm~1))]}

Shear at x

=

L/2 where 0 =

L~r/(B + L)

[31]

t

I%1

The corresponding corrections to the shear and

moment expressions are, respectively

 V~ = V + d'Bp x [34]