SNAME Transactions, Vol. 95, 1987, pp.

29-44

DRYDOCK: An Interactive Computer Program for

Predicting Dry Dock Block Reactions
Ivan Jiang, 1 Associate Member, Kim Grubbs, 1 Visitor, Ross Haith, 2 Visitor, and
Vincent Santomartino, 1 Member

The DRYDOCK computer program was developed in order to overcome the limitations inherent in
existing dry dock analysis methods. Application of existing methods of analysis can be cumbersome
and extremely time-consuming, and have theoretical limitations created by practical considerations
of time and effort. The DRYDOCK program represents an important advance in the ongoing
evaluation of docking analysis methods. It is extremely user-friendly, and the ease of application,
flexibility, speed, and accuracy of the program makes it an attractive alternative to traditional
methods of analysis.

Introduction
THE DRYDOCK computer program was developed un-
der the auspices of the Naval Sea Systems Command (NAV-
SEA) to overqome the limitations of existing dry dock
analysis methods. DRYDOCK provides a quick, reliable
method of estimating block loads when docking a ship in
either a graving or floating dry dock. Because of the po-
tentially disastrous consequences of docking block failure
and the increasing difficulty in providing reliable docking
analyses for large, modern ships, DRYDOCK was devel-
oped as a tool for the design and optimization of efficient
docking systems. The DRYDOCK program is an important
advance in the ongoing evolution of docking analysis meth-
ods.
Historically, the development of tools for ship docking
analysis has lagged far behind the development of tools
for other phases of ship design. While advanced methods
of analysis are used in ship hull design, the problem of
drydocking a ship is typically addressed only after signif-
icant ship parameters such as hull form, structure, and
weight distribution have been selected. This situation is
primarily due to the extreme complexity and time-con-
suming nature of traditional dry docking analyses. Current
methods of analysis are simply too cumbersome to be re-
peated and checked at each phase of the design spiral;
therefore, the docking analysis is perceived as a secondary
problem to be addressed at the end of the ship design
process. The consequences of a poor drydocking analysis,
however, are potentially catastrophic. Docking block fail-
ure while a ship is drydocked can cause not only loss of
life, but also enormous economic losses. A docking failure
can lead to extensive ship and dock damage, disruption of
Designers & Planners, Inc., Arlington, Virginia.
Surface Ship Structure Integrity Division, Naval Sea Systems
Command, Washington, D.C.
Presented at the Annual Meeting, New York, N.Y., November
11-14, 1987, of THE SOCIETYOF NAVALARCHITECTSAND MA-
RINE ENGINEERS.
docking schedules, and loss of the ship to active duty until
repairs can be made. The problem is exacerbated by the
increasing complexity of hull forms and the proliferation
of tmusually shaped appendages such as sonar domes and
bulbous bows which make the application of traditional
forms of dry dock analysis more difficult and inefficient
than ever before.
The DRYDOCK computer program was developed to
overcome the limitations inherent in existing methods of
analysis and provide a reliable, efficient tool to be used in
both graving and floating docking analyses. Designed so
that user-input data are kept to a minimum, the DRY-
DOCK data files for a particular ship, block arrangement,
and dock are relatively simple to prepare. Once an initial
data base has been prepared for a particular docking prob-
lem, data base changes can be readily accomplished with
a minimum expenditure of time and effort. Thus, a docking
analysis can be quickly and easily performed at an early
stage of the design process, and potential problems can
be identified early in the design.
Previous studies
Early in the evolution of drydocking analysis methods,
the loading of docking blocks was assumed to be uniform
over the range of blocks. The load on a particular block
was determined by multiplying the calculated pressure by
the block/hull contact area. Unfortunately, this method
of analysis is adequate only for relatively stiff, uniformly
loaded hull forms supported over most of the length of
the hull. For drydocked ships with large overhangs fore
or aft, or ships with high local loads, the ship center of
gravity may not be vertically coincidental with the center
of pressure of the blocks, and results may not be reliable.
For this reason, a trapezoidal pressure distribution was
assumed by Elgar [1] ~ in one of the earliest studies of a
ship docked in a graving dock. This study, however, as-
3Numbers in brackets designate References at end of paper.

29 "- J
 sumes that the ship is perfectly rigid and does not bend
as a whole which may lead to unreliable results. Yeh and
Ruby [2] treated the ship as an isotropic, homogenous,
elastic beam supported by rows of elastic blocks resting
on a dock floor assumed to be infinitely rigid. The Ritz
energy method was used in this study to estimate block
loads proportional to the ship deflection at each block
location. Palermo and Brock [3] used the assumptions of
the Yeh-Ruby study to formulate a procedure for calcu-
lating keelblock loads by treating the ship as a beam on
an elastic foundation.
Each of the studies mentioned neglects several factors
which are important when considering docking proce-
dures for modern ships in a graving dock. Chief among
these is the assumption that the effect of ship overhang
(either fore or aft) on the loading of the foremost or aftmost
blocks is negligible. For modern cruisers and destroyers
which have large overhangs when docked, the combina-
tion of ship and block flexibility results in an increase in
the extreme block reaction. The combined effects of ship
and block flexibility, if ignored, can result in an unrealis-
tically low estimate of ship and block stresses. Also ne-
glected in these studies was the local flexibility of the ship
hull between transverse and longitudinal bulkheads, a fac-
tor which can lead to a variation in the load distribution
over the docking blocks. Analysts in the design community
have attempted to use specialized structural computer
programs (NASTRAN, STRUDL) to model the ship as a
flexible beam, but have found that the enormous effort
required to accurately model the ship bottom flexibility
and block stiffnesses makes this approach undesirable.
When a ship is to be docked in a floating dry dock, the
problem is further complicated. The assumption of an in-
finitely rigid dock floor is no longer valid, and additional
steps must be taken to model the flexibility of the dock
itself and account for the forces which act upon it. Matrix
formulation and computer generated solutions in the anal-
ysis of floating dry dock problems were first developed by
Vaughan [4]. In this study, the ship was modeled as an
elastic beam of varying cross section with its weight as-
sumed to act at a number of discrete points. Two rows of
elastic supports arranged symmetrically on either side of
a center row of supports were used to model groups of
docking blocks; the dock bottom was modeled as a grillage
simply supported along its longitudinal edges and free
along its transverse edges. One limitation of this method
is that block removals must be symmetrical and the anal-
ysis is restricted to three rows of blocks; local deflection
of the dock bottom, in the case of the floating dock, was
not considered. Potvin, Hartz, and Nickum [5] eliminated
the lumping of transverse supporting members used by
Vaughan, and addressed important factors such as varia-
tions of block stiffnesses, ballast and buoyancy variations,
random lack-of-fit conditions, and the crushing of docking
blocks. As with many of the previous studies on docking
problems, practical application of the theoretical aspects
of this study is limited by the enormous time and effort
which is required to perform calculations.
The DRYDOCK computer program described in this
paper was developed to overcome many of the limitations
inherent in the studies discussed earlier. The purpose of
the program is to provide a quick, reliable method to be
used to estimate block loads when docking a ship in a
graving or floating dry dock. The program combines many
of the theoretical aspects of earlier studies with the speed
and data reduction capabilities of the m o d e m computer
to produce a useful tool for the estimation of docking block
loads. Many important factors ignored in earlier studies
30 DRYDOCK: An Interactive Computer Program
such as local ship bottom flexibility and the effects of large
ship overhang are accounted for in the program.
DRYDOCK assumptions
The major assumptions made in the development of the
DRYDOCK program are as follows:
1. The ship is modeled as a beam of varying cross section,
and its weight is assumed to act at a number of discrete
points along the length of the ship. The longitudinal lo-
cations of these points, or nodes, are determined by the
block arrangement to be used in the analysis. At least one
docking block is located at each node.
2. The ship is supported by rows of discrete elastic sup-
ports, or nodes, which represent the docking blocks.
3. All materials are assumed to be linearly elastic. Keel-
blocks are assemblies of different types of materials with
different Young's moduli (E) and spring constants (K).
4. The dock floor is assumed to be perfectly rigid in a
graving dry dock analysis. In a floating dry clock analysis,
the dock is modeled as a beam in the longitudinal direction
and the pontoon is modeled as a plate with equivalent
plate thickness.
5. The ship/dock/block system is modeled as a rigid
beam supported by a row of elastic springs, resting on a
rigid base. The flexibility of the ship bottom and the float-
ing dock pontoon are taken into account in an approximate
manner.
As stated above, the ship and dock are assumed to be
beams with nonuniform cross section. They are divided
into a number of short beam elements, with the endpoints
of each element defined by nodes located along the length
of the ship/dock at every point where there is at least
one docking block. The forward and aft ends of the ship /
dock are always the first and last nodal points.
To illustrate the manner in which equivalent blocks are
utilized in the DRYDOCK analysis, consider a typical
transverse section of the ship/dock. At this section, the
ship is supported by one centerline block and two (or more)
side blocks. The three blocks can be considered to be
elastic supports because of the assumption of all linearly
elastic materials. Since the ship's bottom and dock's pon-
toon are assumed to be rigid, the three blocks in the trans-
verse row can be considered to be elastic springs in
parallel, as shown in Fig. l(a).
With these assumptions, the three blocks can be com-
bined into one equivalent block with resultant stiffness of
k~ a, as shown in Fig. l(b). In this manner, a node is located
at each longitudinal point where there is at least one dock-
ing block, and equivalent springs representing the blocks
in the transverse row at that point are assembled. At the
//////////
Keq= KI t-K2 t-K 3
(a) tb)
Fig. 1 Block stiffness representation
ends of the ship / dock, t h e r e m a y or m a y not b e a block. ~ p Sp3 "-~ Sp4
H o w e v e r , the ends can b e considered to b e s u p p o r t e d by
blocks of zero stiffness. I P~I
~sp| Es {p .GsAp Sp2~
Solution procedure
T h e solution process in the DRYDOCK p r o g r a m uses I- lp
the previously stated assumptions and input data con-
Fig. 2(e) Member deformation for a typical ship segment
cerning a particular ship, docking block a r r a n g e m e n t , and
dock to assemble a series of matrices based u p o n a gen-
e r a t e d set of linear, simultaneous equations. D e t a i l e d com-
m e n t s on the calculation of various e l e m e n t s of the
matrices a r e p r e s e n t e d later in this paper.
F o r a ship in the fully d o c k e d condition, the following
p•[ Fp3 "~ Fp 4
I P+!
equations are obtained based on the condition of equilib- ~Fp1 Fp2~
rittm:
[B] Y - - C - - F (1)
Fig. 2(b) Member forces for a typical ship segment
[D]Z= A + F (2)
(Note: Equation (2) is e l i m i n a t e d in the graving dock anal-
A typical b e a m s e g m e n t lying b e t w e e n the p t h and (p +
ysis d u e to the rigid dock assumption.) Notation:
1)th nodes is m o d e l e d as shown in Fig. 2. Notation for Fig.
Y= c o l u m n matrix of displacements at ship nodes 2:
Z = column matrix of displacements at dock nodes
F = c o l u m n matrix of the nodal reaction forces
E, = Young's modulus for ship
Ip = m o m e n t of inertia for s e g m e n t
= [K] (Y -- Z)
K = square matrix whose diagonal e l e m e n t s are equiv- Ap = shear area for s e g m e n t
G, = shear modulus for ship
alent stiffnesses of blocks
B = square matrix whose e l e m e n t s are stiffnesses of ship L, ----length of s e g m e n t
sp = deformations at e n d of s e g m e n t
beam elements
Fp = resultant forces at ends of s e g m e n t
D = square matrix whose e l e m e n t s are stiffnesses of
dock b e a m e l e m e n t s T h e stiffness coefficients matrix for the s e g m e n t is the set
C = c o l u m n matrix of l u m p e d ship weights at each node of relationships b e t w e e n the m e m b e r resultant forces and
A= c o l u m n matrix of resultant floating dock weights the m e m b e r deformations. T h e resultant stiffness matrix
and buoyancy forces. is shown in Table 1, where/3p is a t e r m which arises w h e n
shear deflections are considered, and is d e f i n e d as:
These equations r e p r e s e n t a set of simultaneous equa-
tions with twice the n u m b e r of nodes as unknowns. In EJp
general, t h e n u m b e r of unknowns will b e on the o r d e r of ~p - - Lp~G,Ap
hundreds. Fortunately, the coefficient matrix is a b a n d e d
sparse matrix with a population density of less than 5 per- This set of 16 n u m b e r s is called the m e m b e r stiffness ma-
cent. T h e stiffness and force matrices are assembled using trix k,, and gives the relation b e t w e e n force a n d displace-
the d a t a supplied by the user. m e n t for the p t h section. Its individual e l e m e n t s will b e
T h e t e c h n i q u e used in the p r o g r a m DRYDOCK for the r e f e r r e d to as ku(i,j = 1,2,3,4). W i t h this k matrix so de-
solution of simultaneous equations is called factorization. fined for the p t h m e m b e r , w e m a y now write F , = kpsp.
T h e subroutine p a c k a g e used to solve the equations has T h e resultant relation b e t w e e n the external n o d e force F
b e e n d e v e l o p e d b y Yale University [6]. T h e coefficient a n d the nodal d i s p l a c e m e n t r can be p r e s e n t e d as F = K
matrix is assumed to b e nonsymmetric. O n c e the matrices r, w h e r e K is the global stiffness matrix. F o r a t w o - s e g m e n t
are assembled, the sets of simultaneous equations are b e a m (Fig. 3), this matrix is shown in Table 2, w h e r e su-
solved and t h e displacements of the nodes are d e t e r m i n e d .
O n c e the translations are known, the deflections of the
equivalent elastic springs at each node are known. Mul- Table 1 Member stiffness matrix
tiplying the c o r r e s p o n d i n g stiffnesses and the vertical
translations gives the resultant block reactions at the FORCE CAUSEDBYA UNITOEFOR{WATIOOF:
N
RESULTANT
nodes. The reaction on each block in the transverse row
at a given node is t h e n found by distributing the resultant Sl s2 s3 s4
reaction in p r o p o r t i o n to the stiffness of each block in the 12Es|p -12Eslp 6Eslp 6EsIp
transverse row. FI Lp3(l*lZ~p) Lp3(l*12/~p) LpZ(I+12~) Lp2{1+12/~p)
Finally, a check on the calculations is m a d e b y s u m m i n g
the reactions at each block and c o m p a r i n g the sum with F2 -12Eslp IZEslp -6Eslp -6Eslp
the ship d i s p l a c e m e n t as obtained by integrating the ship Lp3(l+lZpp) Lp3(1+12~p) Lp2(l+tZ~p) Lp2(l+12#p)
weight distribution curve.
F3 6Eslp -6Eslp Eslp(4+12~p) 2Eslp(l-b~p)
Lp2(1+12~p) Lp2(1+12~p) Lp(l+12#~p) Lp(l+12~p)
The ship F4 6Eslp -bEslp ZEsIp(l-b~p) Eslp(4+iZ~p)
In DRYDOCK, the ship is v i e w e d as a nonuniform b e a m Lp2(I+lT-{3p) Lp(1+12~p) Lp(l+12~p)
d i v i d e d into a n u m b e r of discrete sections by nodal points. Lp2(].*lZ/?,p)
DRYDOCK: An Interactive Computer Program 31
 r4 r5 r6
lr1 , r2 l r3
Fig. 3 Degrees of freedom for a two-segment beam
perscripts 1 and 2 represent elements 1 and 2, respec-
tively. It should be noted that r~, r2, and r3 are vertical
deflections and r4, rs, and r6 are rotations.
S h i p b o t t o m flexibility
The block load distribution can vary greatly depending
upon the local flexibility of the ship bottom structure. This
variance suggests that the ship bottom can not be consid-
ered to be completely rigid. Considering the enormous
amount of data needed to adequately describe the ship
bottom structure, the ship bottom flexibility is accounted
for in an approximate manner.
The basic approach to modeling the ship bottom is to
find the stiffness of the bottom and model it as an elastic
spring. This elastic spring may be put in series with the
equivalent elastic spring representing a transverse row of
docking blocks. The resultant spring may be taken as the
modified stiffness of the block at the node.
To determine the spring constant of the ship bottom,
the bottom is assumed to be loaded with a uniformly dis-
tributed load. The maximum deflection is calculated at the
center of the bottom structure by assuming the bottom
structure to be simply supported along the sides and fixed
supported under the transverse bulkheads. A deflection
pattern resembling a half cosine curve longitudinally and
a sine curve transversely is assumed based on these bound-
ary conditions. The deflection at the center of the bottom
structure is then calculated based on the assumed deflec-
tion pattern.
Once the block deflections are known, the load carried
by each block is calculated. This calculation is done by
finding the area of the ship bottom supported by each
block and multiplying the area by the intensity of the
uniformly distributed load.
The total load carried by each block divided by the
deflection at the block is assumed to be the decoupled
stiffness of the bottom. This is assumed to be in series with
the elastic spring representing the docking block, and the
modified stiffness of the docking block is calculated.
For calculating the deflection at the center of bottom
structure, different approaches have been assumed for sin-
gle and double bottom subdivisions. These approaches will
be described separately.
Maximum deflection for a single bottom
The single bottom is modeled as a stiffened plate with
two edges fixed and two edges simply supported. It is
assumed that the center girder is the only supporting
member in the longitudinal direction, and that the plate
is fixed by the transverse bulkheads.
Based on the above assumptions and the input data,
various parameters for the stiffened plate are calculated
and deflection is derived by interpolating the curves given
by Schade [7]. The orthotropic plate theory was extended
and applied to generate these curves.
Maximum deflection for a double bottom
Double bottom structure is modeled as a plate with two
edges fixed and two edges simply supported. The thickness
of the unstiffened plate is calculated by making its flexural
rigidity equal to the moment of inertia of the box beam
formed by the inner and outer bottom plating. Based on
these parameters, the deflection of the double bottom is
calculated using the plate formulas presented by Roarke
and Young [8].
P o n t o o n flexibility
The solution procedures described earlier are based on
the assumptions that the ship and dock are modeled as
beams. Ship bottom flexibility is considered separately and
included in the block stiffness. Pontoon flexibility is esti-
mated in a similar manner.
The pontoon is modeled as a plate with four sides simply
supported. The thickness of the plate is calculated by mak-
ing its flexural rigidity equal to the moment of inertia of
the box beam formed by the dock hull bottom plate, pon-
toon plate, and attached stiffeners. In order to simplify
the required dock input data, the moment of inertia is
calculated from these plates, and then multiplied by 1.3
to account for the inertia due to stiffeners. Formulas for
these calculations are given by Timoshenko and Woi-
nowsley-Krieger [9] and by Pilkey and Chang [10].
The deflection of the simply supported plate with a
single line loading extending from x = a~ to x = a2 at a
distance b from the edge (Fig. 4) is given by
~, ~, n~rx mTrg
v = g,,,, sin sin
n=l m=l --~x Zy
where
Anm
K,,, = D1r4 [(n2 / LxZ ) + (m2 / L 2)]~
4w mlrb f n~'al n~'a~
A,,,- n~rL~Sin~\c°s Lx cos L~ )

Table 2 Reduced structure stiffness matrix for two-segment beam

KII 1 k121 0 k131 k141 0

kEl I k221 + kll 2 klz2 kE31 kZ4 i + k132 k142
0 k~12 k222 O k232 kz42
K = . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
-- k311 K321 0 k331 k341 0
k411 k421 + K312 k3z 2 k431 k441 + k332 k342
0 k412 k422 0 k432 k442

32 DRYDOCK: An Interactive Computer Program


/-L. /,_/
/ these reactions are compared with the specified maximum
/ allowable load (crushing load). If a block reaction exceeds
/ the specified crushing load, then the load on that block is
/ fixed and the block is not allowed to carry any additional
?.,e / load. The DRYDOCK program will then recalculate the
/- a2 ~/
Fig. 4 Loading on the dock plate element
It is usually sufficiently accurate to include only a few
terms in the above equation. Linear superposition is used
in the program to combine longitudinal rows of blocks in
the docking process.
Vertical deflections of the pontoon at a given point are
derived from the combination of block loads, dock weight,
and buoyancy forces. Nonuniform dock weight distribu-
tions and buoyancy loads are combined and assumed uni-
formly distributed between blocks. The graving dock
analysis is first used to calculate the block loads. These
loads are then distributed as line pressures along each row
of the blocks in the floating dry dock analysis. The pontoon
deflections at the block locations are evaluated from the
linear superposition of these surface and line pressures
acting on the equivalent plate. The resultant spring stiff-
nesses (block, ship bottom, and pontoon) are then modified
based on the relative deflection of the pontoon and the
blocks. Theoretically, this procedure should be iterated
because the block load distributions used in the pontoon
deflection calculation are derived from the graving dock.
However, because these deflections are due to the com-
bined loadings, it was found that the change in resultant
stiffness due to iterations is negligible.
Knuckle block reactions
As a ship with trim aft is drydocked, the ship will first
come into contact with the aftmost keelblock as the dock
is pumped down. This block is generally known as the
knuckle block. As more water is pumped from the dock,
the decrease in ship buoyancy must be compensated by
an increase in knuckle reaction, so that at any instant the
sum of the knuckle reaction plus the remaining ship buoy-
ancy forces equals the ship's original floating displacement.
Typically, the maximum knuckle reaction occurs when the
ship has lost approximately 50 percent of its original trim.
The DRYDOCK program calculates the knuckle reac-
tions produced when docking a ship with trim using the
methods outlined in [11]. In the program, the initial ship
trim is successively reduced in ten equal increments, and
the knuckle reaction is calculated at each step of the trim
reduction process. At each iteration, DRYDOCK deter-
mines how many keelblocks are actually in contact with
the ship keel and determines the load, stress, and displace-
ment of each block. Unlike the methods of [11] where the
compression of each block is determined from a curve for
a typical docking block, DRYDOCK calculates the
compression of each loaded block by summing the
DRYDOCK: An Interactive Computer Program
compressions of each layer of material in the block. The
DRYDOCK method of calculation for knuckle reactions
works for either butted or spaced keelblocks.
Crushing loads
When block reactions are calculated in DRYDOCK,
block load distributions until no block reaction exceeds the
crushing load.
Program organization and application
The entire DRYDOCK package is written in FORTRAN
IV. The number of machine dependent subroutines has
been kept to the barest minimum to ensure easy trans-
portability between various computer systems. The pack-
age has been developed and tested in the VAX 11/750
and VAX 11/780 computer systems. Documentation for
the program includes the User's Manual for Program DR Y-
DOCK [12] and the Programmer's Manual for Program
DR YDOCK [ 13]. Both the source code and documentation
for the program are available to the public, subject to the
rules and restrictions of the Naval Sea Systems Command
for the release of such material.
Program DRYDOCK
There are four separate programs which make up the
DRYDOCK package: (1) SHIPDT--Ship Data Preparation
Program, (2) BLOKDT--Block Data Preparation Pro-
gram, (3) D O C K D T - - D o c k Data Preparation Program,
and (4) DRYDOCK--Main Program used for the analysis.
The first three programs are interactive programs used to
prepare data files containing information concerning the
ship, block arrangement, and dock characteristics for the
analysis. The fourth program uses the resulting data files
as input to carry out the DRYDOCK analysis. The sepa-
ration of input data into separate files allows existing files
for different ships, block arrangements, and dry docks to
be combined for a given DRYDOCK analysis.
The three data preparation programs will be discussed
in greater detail in following sections. For the remainder
of this paper, "DRYDOCK" will refer to the fourth pro-
gram, which performs the docking analysis using the input
data files prepared by the user.
The DRYDOCK program is modular in construction,
and consists of some 60 different subroutines, each of
which performs a specific portion of the docking analysis.
Figure 5 is a flow chart detailing the logic used in the
DRYDOCK analysis and giving an indication of the func-
tions of some of the more inportant subroutines. For a
more detailed analysis of the functions of each subroutine
in the DRYDOCK program, refer to [13]. The modular
construction of the program ensures that future modifi-
cations to the program can be accomplished with a min-
i_mum expenditure of time and effort.
When the user begins execution of the DRYDOCK anal-
ysis program, h e / s h e is prompted for the names of the
three previously-created input files (ship, block, and dock).
The DRYDOCK program then creates the following three
additional files:
1. The first file created by DRYDOCK is the output file.
In addition to an echo of all input data, the output file
33
C~

START

HAIN PROGRAR
DRYNAIN v~s Jca11DBONJN . . . . . Calculate BonJean
-t data for shtp
ICall OlNINOJ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I n i t i a l i z e Input/output
devices
ICall DBLKST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Calculate stiffness of each block
iCall DINERRJ. . . . . . . . . . . . . . I n i t i a l i z e variables tn
0-n ERROR Common Block
-< ICa111 ~ SUBROUTINE. . . . . . . Calculate knuckle
DKNBLK I DKNBLK block reactions
8 /~all ORDSHP/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Read Shlp Data Input File
~ ( ~ Call DWEIGT . . . . . . Calc. total weight
/Call ORDBLK/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Read Block Oata Input Ftle
l
/~a11 DRDDOK/. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Read Dock Data Input F11e

~ °
l | n i t t a l t z e variables in BLOCKS Common
JCall D[NBLO I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Block; calc. max. allowable and
crushing loads for blocks
3
JCailOUNITIJ. . . . . . . . . . . . . . l n t t i a l l z e variables in UNIT Common Block
Blol

"u l
/Call DOUSHP//. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
gl
3 / ~ a l l DOUBLy . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
all DOUDOK//. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
JCall OCONVTI . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Prtnt ship tnput data to output f i l e i~ l Call DASCNDl. . . . . . Arrange blocks tn ascending
order w . r . t , ship LCF
Print block Input data to output f t l e i Call D[NTPLJ...... Find shtp LCF and HTI
for midship draft
Print dock tnput data to output f i l e Calculate knuckle block
Jreacttons as shtp settles I
Ionto blocks and trim is j
Convert input data to consistent system
of units for Internal calcs.
I reduced I

Fig. 5 DRYDOCK program flow chart

 ............ Calculate lengths of shtp beam elements
ICa'l -°°'*I -[ SUBROUTINE]. . . . . . . . Calc. stiffness of to be used In calculating shtp stiffness
DMOOST I shtp bottom subdtv|s|o,
stons

1 ............ Interpolate to f|nd wetght, mom. of |nertta,

I call DPTSTB1. . . . . . . . . Otvlde double bottom

tnto long. strips
V~
and shear area values fE::a:;:hshShste: bo;a:i:leae~rent

_ #SUBI OUTINE . . . . . . . . . . simultaneous eqns. for

DEOU grav|ng dock analysts
ICall DFAFT ~-. . . . . . . . talc. half-distances Calc. equivalent stiffness
0 between blocks I1 ............. of each transverse row of
30 blocks

.x.
I Calc. area of double bottom
Supported by each block I
I ............. Assemble stiffness matr|x
for ship beam model
p

ICalc. widths of divisions between I lEnA". . . . . . . . . . . Check block reactions to see t f maxtmum
long. bulkheadSsubdtvlstontn
a transverse allowable block load ts exceeded
N

Celt. max.
0 deflection
of bottom

NO
Calc. max. Check block reactions
"0 Ice11 DDBDEFi . . . . . . . . . . deflection ........ to see | f any exceed
of bottom max. a l l . a b l e load
g
3
ICalculate deflection I
of each block I
B /

ICall OPRINT~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Print block ~actlons, loads,

I Modify block sttffnesses I deflections to output f | l e
to refect stiffness of shtp
bottom
Y E S ~ ....... Create
IOPL~ plot f t l e

Flg. 5 (continued)
CO
U1
 Sets up ltnear simultaneous equations for f l 0 a t i n g

EOU I was assembled in DGDEQUby SUBROUTINESHPSTF, i t

does not have to be redone here.

11-~. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Determine lengths of floating

<E~I drydock beam elements

.............. Determine dock deadweight loads to be loaded SUBROUT[ NE t . . . . . . . . . . Solve the set of simultaneous ltnear eqns.
onto dock beam element nodes DSOLVE using Yele Sparse Matrix Package (YSNP)
0 LL~. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Determine clock ballast loeds to be loaded
-n
-< onto dock beam element nodes
0 _] SUBROUTINE . . . . . . . . . . Part of YSMP. See
0 I--1 .I SUBROUTIN~ . . . . . . . . . . . Calc. bouyancy forces tO "J OORV YSMP documentation
C) 0v_J 7 ODBUOY | be loaded onto dock nodes
.x.
-I
J Call ORDER1 . . . . . . . . . Part of YSNP
g ~ ~
<.. or BonJeansJ
BONJEANS[ ~ N - - ] . . . . . . .
~DDBL~
Calc. buoyency
from BonJeens

......... Part of YSNP

1--~---- caic. beam ~9 1
element HYDROSTATICS J SUBROUTINE . . . . . . . . . Pert of YSI¢
o
3 st! ffness NPUT 7 NORV
"(3
C
g r

"o CO~DC~ ~ SUBROUTIN~ . . . . . Celc. buoyancy ......... Pert of YSMP

a ODHYOR J from hydrostatics
r

3 Call OOCHCK . . . .
Check weight and NN~ ......... Part of YSMP
hydro, data

NN~ ......... Part of YSMP

LISUBROUTINE I. . . . . . . . . . . . Calc. dock deflection due
-,DDKTRN J to transverse bending

.............. Calc. equivalent stiffness

of transvers rows of blocks

Fig. 5 (continued)
contains the results of the docking analysis, showing the
final deflections, loads, and stresses in each of the docking
blocks. In the case of a graving dock analysis, the o u t p u t
file will also contain the knuckle block reactions calculated
as a ship with some initial t r i m first begins to settle onto
the docking blocks.
2. T h e second file c r e a t e d by D R Y D O C K is the error
file. This file contains a listing of any errors d e t e c t e d by
the D R Y D O C K p r o g r a m as the analysis is carried out. T h e
D R Y D O C K p r o g r a m has a n u m b e r of built-in checks used
to d e t e c t inconsistencies in data and i n t e r m e d i a t e results.
Upon d e t e c t i o n of any data or i n t e r m e d i a t e result not
following the e x p e c t e d pattern, an a p p r o p r i a t e error mes-
sage is w r i t t e n to the output file, the error file, and the
screen of the user's terminal. A list of the possible errors
which can b e d e t e c t e d by D R Y D O C K are included in [12].
If the D R Y D O C K analysis is p e r f o r m e d successfully, the
e r r o r file will b e empty.
3. T h e third file c r e a t e d by DRYDOCK is the plot file,
which is c r e a t e d at the discretion of the user. This File
contains information n e e d e d to g e n e r a t e plots of the cal-
culated block loads, deflections, or stresses for any longi-
tudinal row of blocks.
Program SHIPDT
S H I P D T is one of t h r e e data p r e p a r a t i o n p r o g r a m s writ-
ten to aid the user in p r e p a r i n g input data files for use by
the D R Y D O C K analysis program. F e a t u r e s c o m m o n to
these t h r e e p r o g r a m s will b e first briefly discussed in this
section, and specific details r e g a r d i n g each p r o g r a m is t h e n
discussed.
T h e t h r e e d a t a p r e p a r a t i o n programs (ship, block, and
dock) r e m o v e the b u r d e n of p r e p a r i n g the data files in
specific formats, thus eliminating r u n t i m e errors such as
f o r m a t / d a t a mismatch. Each is an interactive p r o g r a m
and is partially c o m m a n d d r i v e n in the sense that, while
executing a c o m m a n d , it m a y p r o m p t the user for addi-
tional data.
In response to p r o m p t s from the programs, the user
types in "'YES" or " N O " or a l p h a n u m e r i c data in any for-
mat. T h e p r o g r a m s t h e n lay the data into data files in the
necessary format. Additionally, each of the data p r e p a r a -
tion p r o g r a m s contains a n u m b e r of checks to ensure that
data t y p e d in by the user are consistent with previously
input data; e r r o r messages to alert the user of possible
p r o b l e m s with d a t a i n p u t are i n c o r p o r a t e d in the code of
each p r o g r a m .
T h e input data n e e d e d for the analysis are readily avail-
able from various drawings, and can b e in either British,
(S.I.) metric, or any o t h e r consistent system of units. T h e
p r o g r a m s take care of all conversions, constants, etc. ff
either the British or m e t r i c systems are adopted.
Each of the t h r e e data p r e p a r a t i o n p r o g r a m s allows the
user to modify an existing d a t a file by r e r u n n i n g the pro-
gram. Additionally, existing data files m a y b e modified by
direct editting of the files. Like DRYDOCK, each of the
t h r e e data p r e p a r a t i o n p r o g r a m s is m o d u l a r in construc-
tion, increasing the ease with which modifications to the
p r o g r a m s can b e i m p l e m e n t e d .
S H I P D T is the data p r e p a r a t i o n p r o g r a m used to aid
the user in p r e p a r i n g the ship data input file. It has b e e n
w r i t t e n in such a m a n n e r that all data t y p e d in by the user
in response to p r o g r a m p r o m p t s will b e layed into the ship
data input file in the correct location and format to b e
r e a d by the D R Y D O C K analysis program.
A n u m b e r of options exist within S H I P D T as to the t y p e
and a m o u n t of data which will b e layed into the ship data
DRYDOCK: An Interactive Computer Program
i n p u t file. These options are chosen by t h e user d u r i n g
execution of the p r o g r a m and include t h e following:
1. Use of default v a l u e s - - S H I P D T provides a n u m b e r
of default values for Young's modulus and the shear mod-
ulus of steel, wood, and concrete in the British and S.I.
systems of units. T h e user m a y use these values or p r o v i d e
his own as needed.
2. Use of shear a r e a s - - S i n c e ships are relatively short
c o m p a r e d to their depths, shear deflections can b e c o m e
important. T h e user has the option of ignoring or including
the effects of shear deflections w h e n S H I P D T is run.
3. Ship b o t t o m f l e x i b i l i t y - - T h e user has the option of
including or ignoring the ship b o t t o m flexibility for single
or double b o t t o m hulls.
4. Calculation of buoyancy f o r c e s - - T h e buoyancy forces
acting on the hull m a y b e calculated e i t h e r from hydro-
static data or from Bonjean values. T h e user has the option
of inputting either hydrostatic data or ship offsets.
T h e d a t a n e e d e d to create a ship data file fall into the
following groups:
1. Identification data
2. G e n e r a l dimensions
3. W e i g h t distribution
4. Ship structural data ( m o m e n t of inertia, shear area,
and ship b o t t o m structure data)
5. Hydrostatic data or ship offsets
6. Unit and material data
A m o r e detailed explanation of the specific types of data
n e e d e d as input for each group is contained in [12].
Program BLOKDT
B L O K D T is the data p r e p a r a t i o n p r o g r a m used to aid
the user in t h e construction of the block data input file to
b e used with DRYDOCK. As with SHIPDT, it is an inter-
active, partially c o m m a n d driven p r o g r a m which allows
the user to either create a n e w file from scratch or to
modify an existing block data file. T h e block data file cre-
a t e d by B L O K D T will contain information on the location,
physical g e o m e t r y , and composition of each of t h e blocks
in a particular docking block a r r a n g e m e n t plan.
B L O K D T is a particularly useful p r o g r a m d u e to the
t r e m e n d o u s a m o u n t of data n e e d e d to adequately describe
all of the blocks in a given docking a r r a n g e m e n t . In o r d e r
to c o m p l e t e l y describe a block for DRYDOCK, the d e p t h ,
cross-sectional area, and material p r o p e r t i e s of each ver-
tical layer of the block must be input. Since a typical block
a r r a n g e m e n t can contain h u n d r e d s of blocks, with each
block c o m p o s e d of several different types of materials of
varying d e p t h s and areas, the a m o u n t of data n e e d e d can
b e c o m e enormous.
F o r t u n a t e l y , B L O K D T has b e e n w r i t t e n in such a man-
n e r that this enormous a m o u n t of data can b e c r e a t e d with
relatively little input by the user. For example, a typical
block a r r a n g e m e n t m a y contain 70 equally spaced cen-
terline blocks of similar composition; each of these blocks
m a y b e c o m p o s e d of 6 layers of material stacked one u p o n
t h e other. Instead of inputting data for each block, the
user n e e d only specify the longitudinal location of t h e first
and last blocks in the row, the block spacing, a n d the
composition of one of the blocks; the B L O K D T p r o g r a m
will t h e n insert each of the 70 blocks along t h e c e n t e r l i n e
at the p r o p e r location. Modifications to the composition
of individual blocks in the row, or the addition of blocks
at locations other than those already input m a y be accom-
plished easily using various c o m m a n d s w r i t t e n into the
B L O K D T program.
37
 If the user does not wish to define the components of t~
I
a block, BLOKDT provides the option of inserting Navy
Standard Blocks at a given location. A Navy Standard Block / 't
in BLOKDT is defined as a block consisting of a four-foot- ,,,/
high layer of concrete sandwiched between six-inch layers
of wood. If the user desires, BLOKDT will insert whole
Navy Standard Blocks, stacked one on top of the other, a
between the dock floor and the ship hull at a particular
o
longitudinal location; any remaining space between the a

ship hull and the top of the stacked blocks will be filled D
o
with wood. If desired, a soft cap can be placed on the top o
[]
of any or all docking blocks. 8
At present, BLOKDT limits the number of docking i-B=
blocks in a given arrangement to 600. Each block may be D
. a =
composed of up to ten layers, and a maximum of five D

different types of materials can be used in the block com- xgr,

0

positions. Sonar pits in the dock floor and soft caps on the D

docking blocks may be input while running BLOKDT. l =

Program DOCKDT g 1

DOCKDT is the data preparation program used to pre- u

o
[] =
a
pare the dock data input ides for DRYDOCK. This pro- D

gram can prepare data files for either graving or floating a

a
a 0 o
dry docks, but the data needed to prepare a graving dock 0

data file are minimal and consist only of the major di-
mensions of the dock. The data needed in preparing a
floating dry dock file are similar to those needed for the
ship and include information on the dock weight distri-
bution, ballasting plan, hydrostatic data, and the like. As
with SHIPDT and BLOKDT, DOCKDT has been written
to minimize the possibility of fatal errors occurring due to
format mistakes or inconsistencies in input data.
The structure and organization of DOCKDT are very
similar to that of SHIPDT, and will not be examined in
detail here. Like SHIPDT, shear deflections may be in-
cluded or ignored, and the buoyancy forces on the dock
are calculated either from hydrostatic data or Bonjean
data.
The major groups of data needed to create a floating
drydock data file are:
1. Identification data
2. General dimensions
3. Dock deadweight distribution
4. Dock ballast data
5. Dock structural data (moment of inertia and shear
area data)
6. Dock hydrostatic data or Bonjean data
7. Unit and material data
Specific data needed for each of the above groups is de-
tailed in [12].
V a l i d a t i o n o f D R Y D O C K results
To increase the level of confidence in the results gen-
erated by the DRYDOCK program, the results of a DRY-
DOCK analysis were compared with test data obtained
~c,An the measurement of actual keelblock loads for a typ-
ical destroyer with large fore and aft overhangs. The re-
suits of this comparison are given in this section and show
that DRYDOCK can be used with confidence.
The test case used for validation of the DRYDOCK pro-
gram involved docking a typical destroyer in a floating
dry dock. The measurement of keelblock loads was per-
formed by Bath Iron Works (BIW) in 1984 at Bath's Port-
land facility. The blocking arrangement used for this test
is detailed in [14] and is shown in Fig. 6. The displacement
D
0
Fig. 6 Docking block arrangementfor typical destroyer
of the ship at the time of docking was taken to be 6969
metric tonnes (t), and the composition of a typical keel-
block used in the test procedure is shown in Fig. 7. The
instrumentation and test procedure used in the measure-
ment of loads in keelblocks nos. 1 and 3 are detailed in
[15].
For comparison with the measured keelblock loads de-
termined in the BIW test, a DRYDOCK analysis for the
destroyer was performed. Ship, Block, and Dock data input
fries were prepared using the programs SHIPDT,
BLOKDT, and DOCKDT, respectively. These input files
were then used to execute the DRYDOCK analysis pro-
gram, and the predicted block loads were compared with
the Bath Iron Works results.
A comparison of the DRYDOCK predicted keelblock
loads with the Bath Iron Works measured keelblock loads
shows that DRYDOCK can be used to accurately predict
block loadings. The BIW test resulted in measured keel-
block loads of 353 t on the aftmost block (Keelblock 1) and
334 t on Keelblock 3; the loads predicted by DRYDOCK
for these two blocks were 361 t and 296 t for Keelblocks
1 and 3, respectively. It is of interest to note that BIW also
performed an analytical study using the structural com-
puter program STRUDL in an attempt to predict the keel-
block loads produced in the docking procedure. The
results of this analysis (314 t for Block 1 and 291 t for Block
3) seem to underpredict the actual block loads as measured
in the test. Table 3 summarizes the results of the DRY-
DOCK analysis, the Bath Iron Works NASTRAN analysis,
and the BIW measured loads for Keelblocks 1 and 3. Figure

38 DRYDOCK: An Interactive Computer Program

 12" SOFT CAP Table 3 Predicted and measured loads
YELLOW PINE

l oL OF SHIP Keel Block Loads (Metric Tonnes)

BIW STRUDL DRYDOCK BIW Measured

Model Analysis Loads

I
OAK
I
OAK
T Keel Block #I 314 361 353
Keel Block #3 291 296 334
CONCRETE! CONCRETE

I [.7.~
L I I IirJ
4"x4"x I / 4 " ANGLE,P&S sition or material properties of blocks, or the effects of
CONCRETE CONCRETE
SPD 13"-0 ° various ballasting schemes in floating dry dock analyses)
and to optimize the docking solution. Additionally, ship,
OAK OAK 1 / 4 " x 4"F B (TYP..L_ block, or dock data Files from different docking analyses
QAK QAK ~ TIE PC can be combined in any manner in order to find the best
ship / block / dock combination.
CONCRETE CONCRETE 3. Speed--As mentioned, input data files for a particular
4" ship, block arrangement, or dock are extremely easy to
OAK OAK create and require a minimum expenditure of time by the
OAK OAK
user. The DRYDOCK program performs internally many
CONCRETE CONCRETE 20" 2'-6"
of the calculations which have made previous methods of
analysis so time-consuming (calculation of block stiffnesses,
OAK OAK t ~ PONTOON insertion of blocks, etc.). The DRYDOCK analysis program
utilizes efficient, fast-running algorithms in the solution
. 2'.0" 6"
process.
4. Program modification--The modular construction
and extensive documentation of the DRYDOCK program
makes it extremely easy for a programmer to make future
Fig. 7 Typical keelblock modifications to the program in order to test varying as-
sumptions and methods of data reduction.

8 is a plot of the keelblock load distribution generated by 37O

the DRYDOCK analysis and the BIW NASTRAN analysis, 36O
..,,1--- KEEL BLOCK # 1
with points representing the BIW measured loads for 35O
Blocks 1 and 3 shown. As shown in Fig. 8, DRYDOCK 34O
33O P,,e--KE EL BLOCK ./¢3
tends to predict higher block loads at the fore and aft ends
320
of the row due to the large ship overhang at the ends. 310
"'- BIW NASTRAN PREDICTED LOADS
The results of this initial comparison of DRYDOCK loads 3OO
-- DRYDOCK PREDICTED LOADS
with measured loads are encouraging; while it is true that 290
28O • BIW TEST RESULTS
DRYDOCK seems to underpredict the load on Block 3 in 270
this case, it is very accurate in the prediction of the load 260' L~
on the aftmost keelblock, which is often the most critical 250'
block in terms of block failure. To increase confidence in 240, L~
DRYDOCK analysis, additional drydocking tests should be
z
230. L,
220,
performed and compared against DRYDOCK analyses. o
p- L,
210.
(.} ILI
200-
]90
i
Conclusions 180 0
170 I
The DRYDOCK program is superior to traditional meth- 160
I
ods of analysis in a number of important areas: 150
I. Data preparation--The DRYDOCK data preparation .
140
programs make it extremely easy to prepare input data g~ 13O
files for a particular ship, block arrangement, and dock for 120
110
use with the DRYDOCK analysis program. These data 1DO
t: ..I •
preparation programs are simple to use and ensure that 9O
L,
the user spends a minimum of time setting up the initial 8O
database for a particular docking problem. 70
2. Flexibility--The DRYDOCK program has been con- 6O

I
5O
structed to allow the user to examine a wide range of 40
solutions for a particular docking problem quickly and 3O
easily. Once the initial database for the ship/block/dock 20
system has been created, changes to this database are easily 10
performed. Thus, the user can perform a large number of 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
analyses to examine the effects of relatively subtle changes
KEEL BLOCK NUMBER
in the overall docking scheme (such as the removal or
relocation of key docking blocks, changes in the compo- Fig. 8 Keelblock load distribution for a typical destroyer

DRYDOCK: An Interactive Computer Program 39

 5. Accuracy of results--DRYDOCK takes into account pated, however, that there may be instances where high
many factors which have been ignored in previous studies local loadings in the ship (such as tank loads, machinery
due to the difficulty and impracticality of applying ana- loads) may produce high localized loads in some docking
lytical tools to these factors. These include the effect of blocks. This problem should be investigated.
large ship overhangs, the modeling of the ship and dock.
flexibility, and the effect of shear deflections on block
loadings. Initial comparison of DRYDOCK results with Acknowledgments
measured block loads and other methods of analysis show
The authors wish to express their appreciation to Naval
that DRYDOCK can be used with a high level of confi-
Sea Systems Command for supporting the development
dence in the results.
of the DRYDOCK program and to Designers & Planners,
Inc. for their interest and encouragement. The authors
also wish to express their thanks to Mr. Yusuf Officiwala
Results and recommendations and Ms. Iris Yamamoto for their contributions in the de-
Initial comparison of DRYDOCK results with available velopment of the DRYDOCK program. Special thanks go
test data is encouraging; the loads predicted by the DRY- to Ms. Lorenna Hess for her help in editing this paper.
DOCK program compare favorably with measured loads
obtained by Bath Iron Works for a drydocking case for a
typical destroyer. Additionally, the loads predicted by
DRYDOCK seem to be more accurate than those obtained
using a NASTRAN model for the same docking case. In
References
order to increase the level of confidence in the DRYDOCK 1 Elgar, F., "The Distribution of Pressure Over the Bottom
program results, it is recommended that additional test of a Ship in Drydock and Over the Dock Blocks," T•ANS. SNAME,
Vol. 16, 1899.
data be obtained for a number of different ships and docks
2 Yeh, G. C. K. and Ruby, W. J., "A New Method for Com-
and compared with DRYDOCK analysis results. The dis- puting Keel Block Loads," TRANS.SNAME, Vol. 60, 1952.
tribution of the DRYDOCK package will be dependent 3 Palermo, P. M. and Brock, J. S., "Investigation of Pressure
upon further verification of the program results and will on Keel Blocks During Drydocking of USS MIDWAY(CVA41),"
be in accordance with NAVSEA's distribution procedures. David Taylor Model Basin Report No. 1003, April 1956.
There are a number of modifications which can be made 4 Vaughan, H., "Elastic Analysis of a Ship in a Floating
Dock," TRANS.SNAME, Vol. 108, 1966.
to the DRYDOCK program to increase its usefulness in 5 Potvin, A. B., Hartz, B. J., and Nickum, G. C., "Analysis of
future docking analyses. It is reeommended that modules Stresses in a Floating Drydock Due to a Docked Ship," TRANS.
be incorporated into the program in order to calculate and SNAME, Vol. 77, 1969.
predict the stability characteristics of a floating dock / ship 6 Eisenstat, S. C., Guisky, M. C., Schultz, M. H., and Sherman,
combination as a ship is docked in a floating dry dock A. H., "The Yale Sparse Matrix Package II. Non-Symmetric Prob-
facility. Similarly, calculations should be incorporated to lems," Yale University, Department of Computer Science, Tech-
nical Report No. 114, 1977.
examine seismic effects produced by earthquake activity 7 Schade, H. A., "Design Curves for Cross-Stiffened Plating
for ships docked in graving docks. Under Uniform Bending Load," TnANS. SNAME, Vol. 48, 1940.
Another area of study which should be investigated and 8 Roark, R. J. and Young, W. C., Formulas for Stress and
applied to the DRYDOCK program involves the accurate Strain, 5th ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, 1975.
determination of material properties for various types of 9 Timoshenko, S. and Woinowsky-Krieger, Theory o f Plates
and Shells, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1959.
wood used in the construction of docking blocks. The elas- 10 Pilkey,W. D. and Chang, P. Y., Modern Formulas for Stat-
tic modulus of various types of timber can vary greatly ics and Dynamics, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1978.
depending on a number of factors such as the age of the 11 Naval Ship's Technical Manual, Docking Instructions and
wood, whether the wood is wet or dry, and the effects of Routine Work in Drydock, NAVSEA89086-79-STN-000, Chapter
previous loadings on the proportional limit of the wood. 997, Dec. 15, 1977.
It is recommended that a series of docking analyses be 12 User's Manual for Program DRYDOCK, Designers and
Planners, Inc., Arlington, Va., 1987.
performed, using a wide range of modulus values, to de- 13 Programmer's Manual for Program DR YDOCK, Designers
termine the effects of varying elastic modulus values on and Planners, Arlington, Va., Inc., 1987.
the load-carrying capabilities of docking blocks. 14 Docking Plan; USS SCOTT DD-995, USS CONOLLY DD-
Another option which should be incorporated into fu- 979; Docking Position #2; Portland Facility; BIW Dwg. No. HE-
ture versions of the DRYDOCK program is the effect of 011184 Revision D, Bath Iron Works Corp., Bath, Me., Jan. ll,
high local loadings in the ship hull on the block loads. At 1984.
15 "Analysisand Evaluation of Instrumented Dry Dock Block
present, DRYDOCK uses the standard weight distribution Loading Test," Project No. 32-261-006, prepared by Giannotti
for a ship when performing the load analysis. It is antici- and Associates, Inc., Annapolis, Md., Oct. 6, 1984.

Discussion
Orhan Gurkan, Member, and George Kapsilis, Member
The authors are to be commended for presenting a sig-
nificant contribution to one facet of drydocking operation.
The phenomenal difference in the docking block loads
experienced by the knuckle points and those elsewhere
along the ship's length, as illustrated by the DD-963 ex-
ample, brings forward several considerations: It indicates
the necessity of departing from the traditionally accepted
40 DRYDOCK: An Interactive Computer Program
and used trapezoidal weight distribution for naval com-
batants with large overhanging ends in drydocking cal-
culations, and it deserves the close attention of those
responsible for the structural design of ships and docks,
and of those engaged in the drydocking operations.
The paper makes it clear that the ship and dock scan-
tlings must also be designed to withstand the high docking
loads at the knuckle points. In regard to structural dry
dock design, the previous approach of basing the scantlings
on a uniform load per foot must be reexamined: Stronger
transverse girders or transverse frames with smaller spac-
ings must be considered in way of the aft and forward
knuckle areas.
The knuckle loads in the case of the DD-963 and other
similar ships impose compressive stresses, perpendicular
to grain, which are well above the proportional limit for
the oak timbers. These blocks, and those adjacent to them,
must be built of either suitable synthetic materials or of
the traditional material of wood in end-grained small
squares bonded with epoxy or other appropriate adhesives
(wood-epoxy composites). Douglas fir or yellow pine would
seem to be the most suitable for this purpose since oak
does not agree with most adhesives. The rigidity of the
end-grained bonded timber can be overcome by the use
of thicker, soft caps. We are of the opinion that experi-
menting with end-grained knuckle block timbers would
produce fruitful results in resolving the problem of ov-
ercoming excessive loads and stresses at the knuckle
points.
Finally, we at Rosenblatt have been involved in the
technical review of floating dry dock safety certification
reports for the past ten years and have recommended the
deletion of the trapezoidal longitudinal weight distribution
method prescribed in MIL-STD-1625B(SH). It is hoped
that this paper will encourage Naval Sea Systems Com-
mand to adopt the new approach for docking load analysis
in their continuing efforts to improve the U.S. Navy Dry-
docking Facilities Safety Certification Program.
David M. Maurer, Member
The degree to which the program simplifies the bottom
structure does not appear suited to configurations such as
docking keelsons, stanchions, longitudinal bulkheads,
skegs, and rounded or " v e e " section shapes. The limita-
tions imposed by the manner in which the program models
the flexibility of the bottom structure should be clearly
stated.
The materials used to build up dry dock blocking systems
have been the subject of some recent study by NAVSEA. 3
Strength testing of" old" and " n e w " timbers, various grain
orientations, configurations of layers, and moisture and
temperature conditions were used to determine the real-
world strength properties of the woods commonly used in
blocking systems. It was found that the properties of in-
terest--fiber stress at proportional limit and modulus of
elasticity--vary considerably with time in service and the
conditions of use, and that the actual average values for
these properties are much less than expected based on
published data. The variability within species is significant.
The findings also indicate that timbers that have been
stressed beyond their proportional limit but not visibly
crushed have a significantly reduced modulus of elasticity
and in the next reuse will not carry their share of the load.
In light of the above, the default value for the elastic
modulus of wood in the program may be worth reconsi-
dering. Also, the assumption that the load on a block may
be frozen when the block reaction exceeds the crushing
load bears scrutiny. It may be more appropriate to consider
such a block as completely unloaded.
It would appear that the results given by the DRYDOCK
program are indicative of the general shape and magni-
3"Preliminary Results--Transverse Compression Studies of
Drydocking Blocks and Components," Naval Sea Systems Com-
mand, Washington, D.C., Aug. 28, 1985.
DRYDOCK: An Interactive Computer Program
tude of the load distribution along the length of a ship
supported by a typical blocking system. As there are a
number of uncertainties in the properties of the block
materials, and the structure of the ship and the dock, the
actual load in a given block may vary greatly from the
predicted value. Still, this program will be of great value
in developing hull structural arrangements and details,
particularly in ships with extreme overhangs. The prep-
aration of docking drawings and the evaluation of unusual
blocking arrangements necessitated by hull structural re-
pair will also benefit from the availability of this tool. The
authors are to be congratulated for their contribution to
our understanding of a difficult problem.
Richard D. Hepburn, Member, and James K. Luchs, 4
Visitor
[The views expressed herein are the opinions of the discussers
and not necessarily those of the Department of Defense or the
Department of the Navy.]
Congratulations to the authors for their outstanding ef-
fort in the creation of this drydocking analysis tool. Older
ships had simpler hull forms, were fully supported along
the keel, had low side blocks, and no large overhangs;
therefore, simple analysis methods were adequate. Now,
with the advent of nuclear ships and surface ships with
large overhangs and high side blocks, there is a require-
ment for high confidence in the dry dock blocking systems.
Even for some the older ships there has been a need
for a more accurate way of calculating loads on specific
dry dock blocks. The aft knuckle blocks on a battleship
had to be removed in order to release the stern tube
bearings. It became critical to know the exact loading on
the next keelblock once the end blocks were removed. At
that time no sufficient way was available to accurately
calculate this. DRYDOCK appears to be the perfect an-
swer to the problem.
There are few potential problems with DRYDOCK
which need to be discussed. A large number of floating
dry docks in use today are extremely old and are largely
made of wood. The timbers used in these dry docks have
been reloaded for years. Modeling the floors of these dry
docks as a single plate may be too simple an approximation
due to the high nonlinearities of wood. For steel floating
dry docks, the assumptions and calculations appear valid.
As the authors mentioned, the material properties of the
wood used in drydocking blocks also vary considerably.
This is currently being examined in the seismic study at
M.I.T. and research ongoing at the University of Wash-
ington.
The stiffness matrix method is an excellent approach in
determining deflection of the ship, block, and dock system.
A similar method is being used to determine the horizontal
block stiffnesses for the seismic loading study. These hor-
izontal stiffness calculations could be incorporated into the
DRYDOCK program.
Conclusions about the accuracy of the DRYDOCK pro-
gram based on only two experimental data points are ten-
uous. Measurements should be taken along the entire keel
line on ships in graving and floating docks. The limitation
of ten layers for blocking configurations is too restrictive.
For high buildups, eleven layers can be present. DRY-
DOCK's input programs are much better than manual data
entry but cannot be characterized as "extremely easy" to
use. A major revision of reference [ 11 ] (NSTM 997) that
4Lieutenant, USN; Department of Ocean Engineering, M.I.T.,
Cambridge, Mass.
41
is currently in progress will significantly change the al-
lowed knuckle loading. These changes need to be incor-
porated into DRYDOCK.
John W. McGruer, Member
The presentation of this paper and the DRYDOCK com-
puter program is a major step in the development of tech-
nology coupling computer aides and the safety and
predictability of docking modern ships. Advances in naval
architectural technology are becoming evident in modern
ship design; however, inherent with that design, little at-
tention has been focused on the ship's capability to be
drydocked or to the concentrated loads imposed during
dry dock operations. The DRYDOCK computer program
can provide a useful method of highlighting, for the ship
designer, indications of high loads to supporting areas
where additional structural emphasis must be applied. The
computer program for the practical end users such as dock-
hag officers, docking engineers and doekmasters falls short
of the mark because of broad assumptions applied which
are not compatible with conditions found during a docking
evolution.
The assumption that modern ships can support a cal-
culation of uniform load distribution to determine the load
at each keelblock is feasible only on paper when loads are
calculated by the trapezoidal rule method. Considering
that this method has been applied for years using slide
rules and hand calculators, it is an inappropriate approach
to apply similar assumptions to a sophisticated computer
program. Simple superimposition of a modern ship (DD-
963 or CG-47) 20 station weight breakdown over the same
ship's trapezoidal diagram will clearly indicate the areas
of high loading and the lack of uniformity of load distri-
bution.
Assumptions regarding the elasticity of the supporting
keel blocking system are unfounded and at best extremely
difficult to predict. Recent studies by Naval Sea Systems
Command conducted at the University of Washington in
Seattle have disclosed that Young's modulus within indi-
vidual timber species cover a wide range. This factor plus
the wide variations in methodology across the continent
in erecting a keelblock buildup deters from the assumed
linearity in the keel elastic assumption.
The docking of ships and load distribution have for a
long time been treated with little concern; as we move
forward, however, there is a realization that in the past
the complexities of docking ships have been underesti-
mated. There is therefore a desperate need for increased
investigations and docking systems development as well
as a need for applied computer technology and instru-
mentation to establish existing conditions. The DRYDOCK
computer program is the breakthrough and will, it is
hoped, serve as the springboard to the future.
My compliments to the authors for their interest in the
subject of drydocking ships and for their contribution in
advancing specialized technology.
Marvin F. Teachey, Jr., Member
I commend the authors and NAVSEA for developing a
technical docking tool that all docking activities have
needed.
Norfolk Naval Shipyard's prime objectives for each dock-
hag are first, safety; second, facilitate the overhaul work
package; and third, minimize cost. Over the past ten years
42 DRYDOCK: An Interactive Computer Program
the Naval Architectural Branch has studied each ship's
docking drawing prior to use to evaluate the possibility of
reducing the number of blocks required. Our simple stud-
ies have found that many of the Navy's largest ships with
fiat bottoms, uniform loading, and more than a single row
of keelblocks can be docked safely with fewer blocks than
the standard docking plan indicates. These ships normally
have six-foot spacing center-to-center for keelblocks. We
have achieved considerable cost saving and reduced dock
preparation time by utilizing eight-foot spacing of keel-
blocks. Also, with the new spacing the underwater hull
can be painted in two dockings versus the normal three.
We have been restrained from considering cost saving
blocking arrangements on some of the more complex hull
forms because we did not have an accurate technique to
evaluate the best block / ship / dry dock combinations. With
DRYDOCK now available, we are looking forward to ana-
lyzing each ship we dock to optimize the docking block
arrangement. We hope that we will be able to eliminate
some of the blocks in overdesigned areas and thus reduce
cost and dry dock preparation time. In some cases DRY-
DOCK analysis may find additional blocks are needed, but
in ten years we have docked only one class of ship that
required additional blocks to be added to an existing dock-
ing drawing. This was due to the ships' having a very large
stern overhang along with a heavy stern gate. Basically,
docking arrangements have been very conservative. This
was due in the past to the lack of an adequate technique
to obtain results with a high level of user confidence. As
a result, many ships probably have overdesigned block
arrangements in some areas. DRYDOCK, we hope, is the
tool to provide more cost-effective docking block arrange-
ments without compromising safety.
For users to gain confidence in DRYDOCK, additional
comparisons of the program's results against actual ships'
block loading data will be needed. I suggest that the au-
thors utilize reference [3], data on the USS Midway's ac-
tual pressure on keelblocks, to compare results. The
benefit of these data is that many blocks throughout the
ship's length were tested.
Norfolk Naval Shipyard is eager to obtain DRYDOCK.
It would be a privilege to assess for NAVSEA and for the
authors the ease and speed of data preparation, and the
flexibility of examining a wide range of solutions for a
particular ship.
Paul S. Crandall, Member
I wish to commend the authors for a very interesting
paper. The field measurements by BIW of block loadings
of a Spruance Class destroyer in their huge AFDB floating
dry dock at Portland, Maine, showing good correlation of
the predicted loads versus tests, do not seem to have been
done for the full length of vessel. I wonder if blocks 20,
35 and 50 had as good results?
I would ask the authors to comment on the effect of
solar heat in their program since we have seen ships lift
clear off their blocks at bow and stern in the cool of night
after a very hot, sunny day. A paper of mine printed in
the August 1985Journal of Ship Production addresses this
problem and shows a very significant load redistribution
taking place due to solar heating.
Also, what can the authors tell us regarding their pro-
gram when the ship in question floats with either a distinct
hog or sag? When docking the Oliver Hazard Perry, we
detected at the time of grounding a sag of about 8 in. in
her straight keel length.
Regardless of the predictions that this DRYDOCK pro-
gram has given us, there still exist such a vast amount of
unknowns for most vessels that shipyards and their dock-
masters--of limited education and training--must dock
under such a variety of conditions of load and floating
dock bouyancy that a conservative approach with ade-
quate safety factors is very necessary.
The severe knuckle loads imposed by surface warships
with pronounced stern undercut can be, and have been,
greatly reduced by extending the keel bearing aft of the
knuckle using high keel track towers. Can the authors'
DRYDOCK program cope with this situation? If so, we
believe it would be of great help to develop blocking plans
which greatly reduce keelblock loads. Then, instead of
requiring a 60 000-ton dock to accommodate a 12 000-ton
warship, a 25 000-ton dock could be used instead, thereby
giving the vessel owner a much greater selection of com-
petitive bidders.
E. K. Moll, Member
I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the authors'
significant contribution to the more precise calculation of
the keelblock reactions for unusual ship configurations
such as occurs with the DD-963 Class destroyers, the CG-
47 AEGIS Class cruisers, and machinery-aft, fine-lined
R O / R O ' s with stern ramps.
In late 1983, the Bath Iron Works designed and analyzed
a blocking arrangement to lift a Kidd Class destroyer, the
USS Scott, at 9515 metric tons (MT). Due to the large stern
overhang and the nonlinear block deflection, we ran sev-
eral iterations of a STRESS model to predict the block
loading more accurately than the results provided by the
traditional trapezoid method. Coincidentally, we made our
work, including full-scale measurements, available to
NAVSEA, its consultant Giannotti Associates (GA), and the
Ingalls Shipbuilding Division (ISD) who were for various
reasons comparing actual with predicted block loadings
by different methodologies. In the interests of pooling our
knowledge, NAVSEA, GA and ISD attended the USS Scott
drydocking and inspected and witnessed the operation of
the No. 3 keelblock load measurement system. This system
utilized hydraulic load cells (four 150-short ton low-profile
hydraulic jacks) integrated with a heavy steel frame top
and bottom below 20 in. of solid wood blocking covered
with a 4-ft-wide, ~-in.-thick continuous steel plate topped
with 4-in.-high by 4-ft-square wood caps on 6-ft centers.
The pre- and post-docking vertical distance between the
frame's upper and lower plates was measured by both a
dial indicator gage and an inside micrometer as a check
on the inflection point established by the load / deflection
plot.
As a point of clarification, we have extracted the follow-
ing data from our records to correct the BIW data provided
in Table 3 and plotted in Fig. 8 of the paper. The only
keelblock load measured by BIW was the No. 3 location
at 306.7 MT compared with our STRESS prediction of 318.5
MT and the DRYDOCK calculated value of 296 MT. The
closeness of the three results is very encouraging to those
of us seeking improved methods to predict block loading.
In summary, we fully endorse the general approach pre-
sented by this paper. We recommend that instrumentation
be used to verify the calculated values of critical block
loads. The BIW instrumentation is simple, rugged and ec-
onomical. No doubt, other measurement systems may be
employed for this purpose.
Also, it should be noted that the floating dock has the
flexibility to reduce excessive loading of the after blocks
DRYDOCK: An Interactive Computer Program
by adjusting the pumping schedule to place the dock in a
hogged condition. I believe this technique is employed in
certain West European facilities. A similar result can be
achieved in a graving dock by adjusting the blocking
height to the desired hogged curve. The authors' com-
ments would be appreciated relative to this approach, and
how to input hogging into the DRYDOCK analysis system.
Robert A. Hohlfelder, Member
This paper presents procedures which represent a sig-
nificant change from traditional methods used by the naval
architect to analyze dry dock block loads. The proposed
method is more dependent, however, on detailed knowl-
edge of ship geometry, blocking materials and dry dock
characteristics.
Our shipyard (General Dynamics/Electric Boat Divi-
sion) currently uses a finite-element structural analysis pro-
gram to model the ship as a beam supported by a number
of elastic springs of varying stiffness, similar to Fig. 1 in
the paper. The computer model takes into account the
relative stiffness of the submarine hull and of the support
blocks. Keelblocks consist of conventional concrete base
blocks and wood caps, whereas the bilge blocks are sup-
ported on steel I-beams and are a composite of steel, rub-
ber and wood.
In contrast to the author's DRYDOCK program for cal-
culating block reactions, our computer program accepts
input for the allowable keel and bilge block compressive
load and, based on relative block stiffness, calculates soft
cap height adjustments. Bottom hull profile data are fac-
tored into the soft cap height adjustment table. This in-
formation is incorporated in the ship's blocking plan and
is used to set the soft caps and to distribute the ship's
docking weight onto the support blocks.
Computations have shown that small deviations in soft
cap height result in significant changes in block reactions,
particularly in way of the high rise blocks. As a result, keel
and bilge blocks were closely monitored by shipyard in-
spectors to ensure that soft caps were installed to plan
requirements. No attempt was made to measure individual
block pressures once the ship was docked; however, the
overall results appeared to be satisfactory based on a visual
inspection.
It is my opinion that the DRYDOCK program could be
adapted to a particular facility and would provide sub-
stantial savings to the shipyard. Conditions leading to im-
plementation of the DRYDOCK program would be:
1. The program should be tailored to smaller, more port-
able, computers. Calculations must be completed in a few
hours rather than in a few days.
2. Ship characteristics and dock characteristics, includ-
ing keel and bilge block data, must be readily available.
3. Blocking plans must be accurate and must reflect the
actual block construction.
4. Thermal and seismic effects should be factored into
the program to minimize the potential for overstressing
the ship's hull, support blocks or dry dock facility.
Assuming that the docking program becomes a reliable
tool for analyzing block reactions, the naval architect
would be in a better position to:
(a) investigate keel and bilge block spacing (along with
soft cap area) to reduce the required number of
docking positions for hull survey and preservation,
and
(b) recommend various blocking materials that could
be used as a substitute for wood (because hardwood
43
 t i m b e r of sound quality is b e c o m i n g increasingly
difficult to procure).
I want to thank the authors for p r o v i d i n g us with a v e r y
interesting and timely paper. It is a p p a r e n t that a great
deal of thought and effort w e n t into d e v e l o p i n g the DRY-
D O C K program.
Authors' Closure
The authors wish to thank the discussers for their in-
terest and r e m a r k s on this paper. The D R Y D O C K pro-
g r a m was d e v e l o p e d to o v e r c o m e the limitations of
existing d r y d o c k analyses and to identify potential prob-
lems at the early design stage. Several assumptions and
design guidelines can be refined in the future. T h e mod-
ular construction of the D R Y D O C K p r o g r a m was i n t e n d e d
for this purpose. H o w e v e r , the basis for these improve-
m e n t s should b e studied in detail before they are incor-
p o r a t e d into the D R Y D O C K program.
Material p r o p e r t i e s of timbers is a major c o n c e r n raised
by several discussers (Mr. G u r k a n and Mr. Kapsilis, Mr.
Maurer, L C D R H e p b u r n and L T Luchs, and Mr. Mc-
Gruer). This area of study, which should be investigated
and a p p l i e d to the D R Y D O C K p r o g r a m , involves the ac-
curate d e t e r m i n a t i o n of m a t e r i a l p r o p e r t i e s for various
types of wood used in the construction of docking blocks.
W e are aware that the strength of timbers has b e e n the
subject of some r e c e n t study by NAVSEA. T h e question
now is how to i m p l e m e n t the findings into the D R Y D O C K
program.
In response to Mr. Maurer's question, simplification of
ship b o t t o m structure is r e l a t e d to the local deformation.
Keelsons, longitudinal bulkheads, etc. are included in the
calculation of sectional modulus. T h e flexibility of the bot-
tom structure is linear s u p e r i m p o s e d on the longitudinal
b e n d i n g effect. Stanchions are not i n c o r p o r a t e d in the
p r o g r a m , but this local structure can b e analyzed ff t h e r e
is a p r o b l e m in the p r e l i m i n a r y study. To Mr. Maurer's
other question, we d o n ' t suggest considering a block as
c o m p l e t e l y u n l o a d e d w h e n the block reaction exceeds the
crushing load. T h e blocks still carry some load, although
the a m o u n t is uncertain. The elastic modulus of wood and
crushing load are presently set to constant in the p r o g r a m
and this can be c h a n g e d at the user's discretion.
W e agree with L C D R H e p b u r n and L T Luchs that the
equivalent plate m o d e l on docks is too simple for the wood
floating dock. As m e n t i o n e d in their discussion, the timbers
used in this d r y dock have b e e n r e l o a d e d for years. W o o d
p r o p e r t i e s are m o r e u n c e r t a i n on the wood dock than the
block timbers. On the other hand, the wood floating d r y
dock is phasing out from U.S. Navy facilities. W o o d floating
44 DRYDOCK: An Interactive Computer Program
docks are r e t a i n e d in about 20 p e r c e n t of the floating docks
c u r r e n t l y used in Navy facilities.
To the o t h e r question of discussers H e p b u r n and Luchs,
the t e n layers of blocking configurations are restricted for
a single block. T h e r e m a y have b e e n m o r e than one block
to stack up at each n o d e point. W e feel the limitation of
t e n l a y e r s ' r e p r e s e n t a t i o n is m o r e than enough. T h e rec-
o m m e n d a t i o n s to include seismic loading, revised NSTM
997, and m o r e validation are quite welcome. Mr. Teachy's
suggestion to c o m p a r e the results with the USS Midway
is considered as additional validation. It is worth mention-
ing that NAVSEA is validating this program; the p r o c e d u r e
will be c o m p l e t e d at the b e g i n n i n g of 1988.
Mr. Crandall raised a question about the correlation at
o t h e r parts of the ship. This study is in progress at NAV-
SEA. W e are anxiously awaiting the results. To his ques-
tions r e g a r d i n g solar heating, distinct hogging or sagging,
these influences n e e d special t r e a t m e n t and a separate
study. Additional e n d m o m e n t s and block tracing at the
d e f o r m e d surface is one of the approaches to attack these
problems. Regarding Mr. Crandall's c o m m e n t on the
safety factor, the p u r p o s e of this p a p e r is to have a tool to
m a k e a good p r e d i c t i o n of block loads. W e leave the safety
factor to the g o v e r n m e n t a g e n c y which relates to this area.
In response to his last question, about using high keel track
towers at the stern, the D R Y D O C K p r o g r a m can handle
this situation. T h e only thing one needs to have is an
e n g i n e e r i n g j u d g m e n t to simulate the tower stiffness.
In response to Mr. McGruer's query about ship weight
distribution, the nonuniformity of the load distribution can
b e r e p r e s e n t e d b e t t e r by increasing the n u m b e r of stations
used in the weight distribution curve. Currently, the max-
i m u m n u m b e r of stations for the weight curve is 50. If
this is not good enough, the user has the option to r e r u n
the S H I P D T p r o g r a m in o r d e r to a d d / r e m o v e concen-
t r a t e d loadings.
Bath Iron Works i n s t r u m e n t e d keelblocks d u r i n g d r y
dock operations in o r d e r to m e a s u r e the load on the blocks.
Two ships w e r e e m p l o y e d in the block load m e a s u r e m e n t s :
First the USS Scott (DD-995), and second the USS Conolly
(DD-979). Measurements w e r e m a d e b y means of a hy-
draulic load cell on No. 3 block and crushing load on No.
1 block. T h e information in this p a p e r is a d o p t e d from
r e f e r e n c e [ 15 ] for USS Conolly. The t e c h n i q u e m e n t i o n e d
by Mr. Moll on docking ballast is equivalent to changing
the stiffness of after blocks. This can be accomplished by
varying e i t h e r the block height or the block composition.
Adjusting the dock ballast is a way to achieve this purpose;
however, we do not r e c o m m e n d the practice since the
safety of the dock is also one of our concerns.
Again, we would like to express our appreciation to all
discussers for their interest in our p a p e r and for their
valuable c o m m e n t s and additions.