ROBERT G.

WASALASKI

SAFETY OFFLOATING DRYDOCKSIN

ACCORDANCE WITHMIL-STD-1625A
THE AUTHOR
is a Naval Architect for Amphibious Ships and Floating Dry-
docks in the Stability Branch (Code 3214) of the Naval Sea
Systems Command. He graduated from the University of
Michigan in 1971, receiving his B.S.E. in Naval Architecture
and Marine Engineering and Aerospace Engineering. He
served in the US.Naval Reserve (active) as Damage Control
Assistant in the USS Benjamin Stoddart (DDG-22). He was a
Senior Naval Architect for Hull Performance & Stability at
Ingalls Shipbuilding, Pascagoula, Miss., during the construc-
tion of the USS Spruance (DD-963) and USS Tarawa (LHA-1)
Class ships. While with M. Rosenblatt & Sons, Inc., he per-
formed seakeeping assessment studies of the CGN-42 during
the contract design phase. He has been a member of ASNE
since 1976.
CONSIDERATION
OFTHEDESIGN
LIFTING
CAPACITY
A floating dry dock has four basic design limits as to
its ability to drydock a ship. First, the dry dock is lim-
ited by the physical characteristics of the ship that can
be placed in the dock. Second, the dry dock is limited by
the strength of the structure. Third, the dry dock is lim-
ited by the buoyancy that it can develop. Finally, an
operational limit is placed on the stability of the dry
dock based on the metacentric height in the phase of
minimum stability, critical zone.
Limitations

ABSTRACT The maximum size ship (dimensional) that may safely

Recent accidents involving floating dry docks have raised
concern about the rated lifting capacity and stability during
drydocking operations. MIL-STD-1625A called for renewed
attention to the problems of safety in drydocking naval ships
in regard to the stability and buoyancy of floating dry docks.
The U.S. NAVY,as a primary user of floating dry docks in this
country, developed MIL-STD-1625A to certify drydocking fa-
cilities for a rated lifting capacity for drydocking naval ships.
The intent of the MIL-STD is to provide guidance for certify-
ing all new and existing drydocking facilities. This paper ad-
dresses the aspects of the MIL-STD that apply specifically to
floating dry docks. Whereas, the MIL-STD addressed both
the design and material condition of the dry dock and the as-
sociated machinery, this paper addresses only the lifting
capacity and stability of the dock. Specifically, this paper will
discuss safety during the operation of floating dry docks as it
is affected by lifting capacity, stability and structural strength
limits due to keel loading and buoyancy requirements. An ex-
ample of the kind of data required by the MIL-STD-1625A
will be presented.
INTRODUCTION
be docked in the dry dock, is determined by the physical
characteristics of the dry dock. Factors affecting these
limits are adequate length of the centerline keel block-
ing, clear unobstructed width between the wing walls
and adequate depth of water available over the keel
blocks when the dock is ballasted down to the design
freeboard. These limits are shown in the section view of
the floating dry dock in Figure 1. Considering Figure 1
when determining the maximum size ship that can be
docked in a floating dry dock, the ship will have a beam
less than B, (normally allowing at least 2 feet per side), a
draft less than D, allowing for a keel block clearance
(normally 2 feet), and structural strength to withstand
the overhang which exceeds the L,.
Structural Limits
The structural load limits placed on the dry dock fall
in two general categories, localized strength limits and
longitudinal strength limits. Localized strength limits are

I n considering the capability of a facility to drydock a

ship, many factors affect the safety of the drydocking
operation. To determine the lifting capability of a float-
ing dry dock, the following limits shall be considered:
physical characteristics, structural limits, and buoyancy
I nc."
and stability limits of the floating dry dock. References
[l] through [4] discuss docking and undocking proce-
dures and safety items to be considered during a dry-
docking evolution. MIL-STD-1625A was prepared as a
guide for certifying floating dry docks to establish the
maximum size ship each dry dock can safely dock. In
reviewing MIL-STD-l625A, this paper has been divided
into two major parts to explain the design limits and to
review the operation of floating dry docks as related to
the lifting capacity. Figure 1. Dimensional Aspects of a Floating DryDock.
Naval Engineers Journal, October 1982 75
SAFETY OF FLOATING DRYDOCKS
placed on the floating dry dock by the ship’s longi-
tudinal load distribution along the keel block row and
by differential heads on watertight bulkheads separating
adjacent ballast tanks or pontoon sections. Longitu-
dinal strength limits are expressed by the section modu-
lus of the structure and by the deflection limit. In the de-
sign of a floating dry dock, the analysis of the lifting
capacity is limited to the condition of zero stress, mean-
ing that proper ballasting of the floating dry dock is as-
sumed. In this way, the lifting capacity is limited by
local strength limits with the longitudinal strength limit
acting as a factor of safety during docking evolutions.
The dry dock’s structural design limits and the max-
imum allowable keel block loads determine the allow-
able longitudinal load limit that may be placed on the
keel blocks. Floating dry docks are normally designed
for a specified longitudinal load in tons per linear foot
based on the maximum size (weight) ship the dry dock is
expected to lift. That is, the maximum weight ship as-
sumes a rectangular loading as shown in Figure 2A. In
analyzing the loads that a dry dock will see during a
docking evolution, the dock has to lift the weight of the
docked ship which is normally defined by a weight dis-
tribution. A floating drydock consists of groups of large
ballast tanks which allow the drydock to ballast down to
receive a ship and then to pump the ballast water out to
lift the ship. To lift the ship without imposing stress on
the dry dock, or inducing trim or list, the buoyancy pro-
duced in the dry dock by the removal of ballast water
must counteract the weight distribution and center of
gravity of the ship. That is, the buoyancy must be pro-
duced as shown in Figure 2B such that the amount and
center of buoyancy are equal to the weight distribution
and under the center of gravity of the ship.
This theoretical approach of the ship’s weight distri-
bution over the dock is further complicated because the
length of keel blocking (Lk) on the dock is shorter than
the blocking required due to the ship’s length. This im-
plies that the ship’s weight distribution on the dock is
Figure 2A. Traditional Approach to Maximum Ship.
r
Ir-d
--I
rx--
L1
J
‘j:=-- 7,rVll
--
LCB
Figure 2B. Buoyancy Produced in the Dock to Match Weight
Distribution of Ship.
76 Naval Engineers Journal, October 1982
WASALASKI
I
L
Figure 3. Ship Loading On Shorter Blocking Length
modified by the displacement of the weight of the fore
and aft overhangs to the shorter docking support
length, Lk. Understandably, the ship and the dry dock
are two elastic structures acting together. However, un-
less structurally damaged, the ship’s longitudinal girder
will disperse this loading and transfer it to the keel
blocks. It is assumed that through proper differential
pumping each pontoon section will lift that portion of
the ship directly above it, thus subjecting the splice
plates or joints between dock sections to zero stress.
In the past, this problem has been analyzed by the
beam theory method with a trapezoidal load on the keel
blocks such that the longitudinal center of gravity
(LCG) is related to the center of bearing (center of the
keel block row, CB). By a more modern method, the
amount of bouyancy required to lift the ship is deter-
mined by the trapezoidal loading of the keel blocks.
This relationship is stated by Crandall in reference [4]
and depicted in Figure 3.
Attention is called here to the assumption that the
length of keel blocking is uniform and uginterrupted. If
the ship being docked has interrupted keel blocking,
such as a ship with a separate docking skeg or a de-
stroyer with a hull mounted sonar, additional investi-
gation is required. Furthermore, for a ship with a non-
uniform keel bearing such as a tug or fishing trawler
with a bar keel aft, additional investigation is also re-
quired. The reader is referred to Reference [4] for
information on handling these different docking cases.
Keeping these notes in mind, for a normal ship design
that has an uninterrupted uniform length of keel bear-
ing, the aforementioned formulas can be applied.
Assuming this trapezoidal loading on the keel blocks
mentioned above, and the maximum length of keel
blocking on the dock, a limiting curve of lift and LCG
r-7
can be prepared for drydock, see Figure 4. Therefore,
the maximum size ship a dock can lift based on max-
imum load per linear foot is limited to the condition
L( where the ship is centered over the dock with the LCG
over the C, which coincides with the amidship of the
dock.
Another aspect of the structural limit of the dry dock
is the maximum load a tank section of the dock can sup-
port. After the lift versus LCG limiting curve has been
developed, analysis of the tank section that will support
WASALASKI
MAXIMUM
LIFT
WEIGHT
SHIP
Figure 4. Load Limit Curve
the most load must be considered to determine if the
tank has the ballast capacity required to support the
load. In consideration of a typical ship’s docking draw-
ing, normally the dry dock’s second tanks from the fore
or aft end of the keel blocking receive the maximum
load during the docking evolution, unless the dry dock’s
keel blocking extends completely from the forward to
the aft end of the pontoon deck, Figure 5 .
Deflection limits are based on the longitudinal
strength of the dry dock hull girder. The deflection is as-
sumed to be held to a minimum by properly ballasting
the dry dock to produce a zero bending moment, that is
assuming that the dock has sufficient ballasting capacity
to counteract the weight distribution of a docked ship
without stressing the dock. In this way the longitudinal
strength/deflection limit is treated as an additional fac-
tor of safety to account for irregular loading, loading
caused by thermal deflection, improper ballasting and
sea loads introduced during docking operations. Max-
imum deflection limits shall be stated in the design cri-
teria section. The longitudinal strength in waves shall be
presented if the dry dock is designed for ocean transits,
but again in developing limits, longitudinal
strength/deflection are considered as operational limits.
Buoyancy Limit
A floating dry dock is designed with large ballast
tanks which are used to raise or submerge the dock by
pumping or flooding these tanks. The buoyancy pro-
duced by pumping out these tanks to their residual
water levels is considered to be the lifting capacity of the
dry dock. The rated lifting capacity for which a dock is
Figure 5. Differential Pumping, Loading is Trapezoidal With
La = LMax and Lf = Lmin, Tank No. 2 must lift the max-
imum load.
SAFETY OF FLOATING DRYDOCKS
\ LCB
LCB
\ CKB
I . LCB
LIFT
Figure 6. Buoyancy Limit Curve.
designed is equal to the difference in displacement be-
tween the draft at the required (rated) freeboard and the
draft at the light operating condition.
The maximum rated lifting capacity assumes that all
of the ballast tanks are pumped to the residual water.
However, as discussed earlier the buoyancy produced in
the ballast tanks must be such as to counter the weight
distribution of the drydocked ship which has been as-
sumed as a trapezoidal loading. Again using the formu-
las of Reference [4],a limiting curve of buoyancy versus
center of buoyancy produced in the ballast tanks can be
developed as shown in Figure 6.
The stability and GM of the dry dock vary substan-
tially during various stages of a docking operation, as
shown in Figure 8. As the dry dock goes through a dock-
inghndocking evolution, the waterplane area is con-
stantly changing thus changing the GM. By design,
floating dry docks consist of large ballast tanks and
thereby operate with large free surfaces which can sub-
stantially affect the GM during the various stages of
operation. For the above reasons, the stability of the
dock should be investigated to determine the minimum
stability condition. A graph of the required GM vs lift-
ing capacity as required by the MIL-STD-l625A, Ref-
erence [ 5 ] , for the phase of minimum stability is in-
cluded in Figure 8. The phases of operation are:
1 . Dock ballasted down to receive the ship.
2. Partial lift off - Just after keel contact, when the ship
begins to bear on the keel blocks, when side blocks are
hauled prior to draft of instability of the ship, (less than
2 feet, 6 inches for an unstable tug, 1 to 3 feet for stable
ship).
3. Top of keel blocks at water level - Ship is raised out of
the water.
4. Top of pontoon deck at water level - Normally this is
the critical stability period when the pontoon deck is just
awash.
5 . Normal operating condition - When dry dock has lifted
ship clear of the water and dock is at a draft of at least
minimum required freeboard.
Stability Limits of a Floating Dry Dock
In considering the stability of a floating dry dock, the
dock must be examined for intact stability during
Naval Engineers Journal, October 1982 77
SAFETY OF FLOATING DRYDOCKS
zU
a
(3
2
I
I-
I
(3
I
1
IK
Figure 7. Configuration and Righting Arm Curve of a Floating DryDock.
normal operation with the added effects of high beam
winds and for stability after extensive damage. Before
investigating dry dock stability as required by MIL-
STD-l625A, a few basic points on the stability of float-
ing dry docks will be presented.
INTACT STABILITY - Under normal conditions
the stability of a floating object is defined by its meta-
centric height (GM) and its righting arm curve, as shown
in Figure 7. Several important aspects of the configura-
tion and operation of a floating dry dock limits its sta-
bility analysis. First, considering the size of a floating
dry dock in its normal operating condition, the GM is
substantial due to the dock’s large beam. Second, due to
its shape, as the dock is inclined, the edge of the pon-
toon deck will go under water at a small angle (point A),
greatly reducing its waterplane area and corresponding-
ly causing a large reduction in GM. Third, considering
the function of a floating dry dock and its docking
blocks, the angle (point B) at which an overturning mo-
ment could cause the ship to rotate on or fall off the
blocks is of prime importance and limiting in nature. Fi-
nally, the mooring system which holds the dock in posi-
tion may impose a heel limit on the dock. In view of the
above, the first portion of the righting arm curve is of
primary interest, in that the GM is normally used to
judge the stability of floating dry docks.
STABILITY IN BEAM WINDS; SAIL AREA LIM-
IT - The effects of beam winds on intact stability is
important because of the heeling moments produced on
the dock and on the ship. Prior to the ship landing on
the keel blocks, a large beam wind could cause the ship
to heel away from the wind and thereby cause an unlevel
landing of the ship on the keel blocks which could over-
load or topple the side blocks. After the ship has landed
on the keel blocks and de-ballasting of the dry dock has
commenced, large beam winds on the ship-dock system,
particularly during the critical periods of operation
when the stability is at a minimum, could also cause
excessive loading on the side blocks.
78 Naval Engineers Journal, October 1982
WASALASKI
5 10 15
20 25 30
Adequate stability in beam winds is based on a com-
parison of the righting arm curve of the ship-dock sys-
tem to a wind heeling arm curve. The MIL-STD con-
siders stability in beam winds in phase 5 with high beam
winds defined as 90 knots. This wind heeling arm curve
can be developed from the formula.
Wind Heeling Arm - 0.004V2A1 cos28
2240 XA
Where A = projected sail area in square feet of the
ship-dock system
1 = lever arm from half draft to
centroid of sail area, feet.
V = nominal wind velocity, knots.
e = angle of heel.
A = displacement of the ship-dock system.
STABILITY LIMIT - The stability limit of floating
dry docks is based on the maximum load the dock can
lift at a specified maximum KG above the keel of the
dock. Evaluation of the intact stability of the ship-dock
system over the entire spectrum of the docking-undock-
ing evolution shown in Figure 8 will determine the crit-
ical stability condition.
Of primary concern is the stability during that critical
period of operation which occurs between the times
when the dock floor (or pontoon deck) is at the water
level and when the tops of the keel blocks are at the
water level. Various factors for both the dock and the
ship-dock system make this period critical because of
the small value of the GM. At this point, the system has
a minimum waterplane area. During this phase, the free
surface of the contained water is at a maximum because
the water levels in the ballast tanks are below the dock
floor in the widest part of the tanks. In addition, the
ship-dock system has a maximum KG because the total
weight of the ship is on the dock. Considering all these
factors, a limiting curve of ship displacement versus KG
for the minimum stability phase can be determined for
===
WASALASKI SAFETY OF FLOATING DRYDOCKS

@t I
I
I
I

@t I

GM-FEET

Figure 8. Variational GM During Phases of Operation of a

Floating Dry Dock.

the dry dock. This curve, Figure 9 shall be included in

the initial certification report.
In addition, the MIL-STD requests analysis of stabil-
ity in beam winds at the phase of minimum stability.
D IS P LAC E M ENT
Considering the diagram of the righting arm (RA) curve Figure 9 .Limiting Curve of Ship Displacement VS Vertical
and wind heeling arm (WH) curve, the ship-dock system Center of Gravity (KG).
will heel 15 degrees due to the wind when

RA,," = WH,," - + C,,,

1 = d,
2
And the righting arm is equal to
Where d, = Draft at required freeboard, and
GZ = GMsin 8
C,,, = Centroidof
sail area of ship-dock system
Therefore, if Therefore:
RA = HA
GMsinl5" = 0.004 V2Al cos215 A,= GM A -A,
2240 A A0258 (dF +
- C,,,)
0.2588GM = 0.004 V2Al (0.933) 2 .
2240 A
GM = (0.004)(0.933) VZAl and the unknowns A, and CSlD can be plotted
(.2588) 2240 A
DAMAGE STABILITY - The damage stability re-
Taking V = 20 knots, for the condition above which handling quirements of MIL-STD-1625A are relatively new and
of the ship becomes dangerous highlight the importance of damage stability during de-
sign and operation of floating dry docks. To date, only
GM = (.004)(0.993)(2@)Al the NAVY'Snew ARDM-4 has been designed to meet
these requirements. The requirements on the dry dock in
(.2588) 2240 A
the normal operating (unballasted) condition are in-
GM = .00258AL
- tended to insure that the dock will not heel to an angle
A large enough to cause a docked ship to fall off its dock-
ing blocks. The combined effects of heel and trim shall
Now GM is taken from figure 5 for the minimum stability con- be taken into account in meeting this criteria. When the
dition dry dock is ballasted down, the requirements are to in-
sure that the wing walls will not submerge in case they
are not watertight. Furthermore, the damage stability
requirements will also insure isolation of vital machin-
Where Adock= Sail area of dock floating at draft at re- ery so that the loss of one compartment will not result in
quired freeboard, and A, = Sail area of ship projected total loss of the dock due to loss of power or progressive
outside of sail area of dock, flooding.
Naval EngineersJournal, October 1982 79
SAFETY OF FLOATING DRYDOCKS
OFFLOATING
OPERATION DRYDOCKS
The design section of the MIL-STD recommended de-
veloping envelopes for use in operating a floating dry
dock facility. It is pointed out, however, that these en-
velopes apply only to the maximum capacity of the dock
when using its maximum keel block length. Similar lim-
iting curves may be developed for docking ships with
shorter docking lengths. However, the importance of
the envelopes is to point out the dock’s maximum dock-
ing capacity and to classify the dock accordingly. In
preparation for an actual docking of a naval ship, these
envelopes may be used to select a list of dry dock facil-
ities but only specific calculations by the facility can
make the final determination on whether a ship can be
safely docked at the chosen dry dock facility.
Actual Maximum Lifting Capacity
With the aforementioned in mind, attention is fo-
cused on how the actual lifting capacity of the dock may
vary from the design capacity. The actual lifting capac-
ity of the dry dock may be decreased substantially from
its designed maximum lift due to a number of contrib-
uting factors, such as, changes in design during con-
struction, modifications after construction, silt build up
in the tanks, debris on the dock, and the specific gravity
of the water at the dry dock’s berthing site. A dry dock
designed to operate at a stated lifting capacity in salt
water will set deeper in fresh water and will have a cor-
responding decrease in lifting capacities. For these rea-
sons, an operational check and survey of the dry dock to
determine its actual maximum lifting capacity is neces-
sary. This deadweight survey (or inclining experiment)
should be conducted in accordance with Reference [6],
and included as part of the certification. Periodically
during the certification period, the dock should be
pumped to the residual water level in the tanks to evalu-
ate any change in the light dock draft and thereby any
reduction in maximum lifting capacity.
The lifting capacity of a dry dock may be further de-
creased by constraints on the physical characteristics of
the ship and the required work to be performed on the
ship while in dock. A ship may be able to enter a dock
with one foot of clearance on each side, however the
ship work required may be sand blasting and painting or
replacing of shell plating which would require consider-
ably more clearance. Likewise, it the ship work required
is the changing of a propeller or rudder, greater clear-
ances would be required.
Finally, during an actual drydocking operation, ther-
mal deflection that develops in the dock and ship, and
small unaccountable differences in the ship’s loading
condition (considering both draft and trim) are compen-
sated for by the longitudinal strength of the dock, which
provides an additional factor of safety on the pumping
plan.
Ballasting/Pumping Plan
As discussed earlier, the design envelopes express the
limits for the maximum lifting capacity of the dock. The
80 Naval Engineers Journal, October 1982
WASALASKI
light operating condition draft, or deadweight survey,
substantiates a maximum lifting capacity, but it is again
based on the assumption that the total dock will partici-
pate in lifting the ship. However, in some cases, due to a
shorter keel block length, only a portion of the tanks
may be required to lift the total ship. For this reason a
pumping plan shall be prepared for every docking-
undocking operation. Furthermore, the condition of the
ship may change while in the dock due to removed, relo-
cated or added items. It is common practice in drydock-
ing a ship with bow or keel mounted sonar domes to de-
ballast the sonar dome during the docking and reballast
it during undocking. This weight loss or addition has to
be accounted for in the docking-undocking plan. One
need only look at our failures to see the effects of not
tracking weight changes while in drydock.
A properly prepared pumping plan shows the amount
of water required in each of the ballast tanks at various
stages during the docking evolution. Considering that
the condition of a ship may vary in displacement and
LCG, a pumping plan shall be prepared for every opera-
tion based on the ship’s displacement and LCG prior to
the docking evolution. As a minimum the pumping plan
shall address the five phases of operation defined in
MIL-STD-1625A as discussed earlier under “Intact Sta-
bility”. An additional condition referred to as “Keel
contact” between phases 1 and 2 is useful in matching
the trim of the dock to the trim of the ship to avoid
overloading the knuckle blocks.
The pumping plan can be prepared using the form-
ulae stated earlier under “Structural Load Limit” from
Reference [4] remembering the note on continuous keel
blocking. Considering the actual weight and LCG of a
ship as it sets on the blocks in a drydock, it is assumed
for calculative purposes that the total load is taken by
the keel blocks. By assuming a trapezoidal loading,
Crandall [4], a distribution can be computed such that
the centroid of the keel blocking is in line with the center
of gravity of the load. By this method, one calculation
will give the loading in tons per linear foot at the knuck-
le blocks, a load distribution for each tank, and the cen-
troid of removed water in line with the center of gravity
of the load. By knowing the amount of water in each
tank required to submerge the dry dock to a chosen
draft, subtracting out the amount of water equivalent to
the load over each tank will give the water levels re-
quired in the ballast tanks for the dock-ship system at
the chosen draft. A sample pumping plan format for the
ARDM-4 is included in APPENDIX A.
Longitudinal Strength and
Deflection Limits
As stated under “Structural Load Limits, ” the analy-
sis used here to develop the pumping plan assumes that
each tank has adequate capacity to lift the load over it.
In actual practice, however, variation in loading or loca-
tion of the ship on the dock may exceed the lifting
capacity of a particular tank due to the tank’s capacity
or differential heads between adjacent bulkheads or
pontoon sections. Many of these instances can be ac-
WASALASKI SAFETY OF FLOATING DRYDOCKS

commodated by allowing adjacent tanks to help lift this [4] Crandall, Paul S., Problems of Drydocking Unusual
load. If the deficiency in a tank’s capacity is large or if Ships, Presented at the October 1965 meeting of the New
the moment created is substantial, the pumping plan England Section of the Society of Naval Architects and
shall be prepared to account for the sharing of lifting Marine Engineers.
load. [5] MIL-STD-1625A
This would have to be checked on a case by case basis. [6] Naval Ship’s Technical Manual Chapter 096, Weight and
Stability, NAVSEA 0901-LP-096-0000, 15 Feb. 1976.
Small stresses deflection and trim levels imposed on the
dock are assumed by the longitudinal strength of the
dock, as the longitudinal strength provides an addi-
tional factor of safety to the pumping plans and is cap- APPENDIX A
able of accepting small variations of loads. The deflec- SAMPLE PUMPING PLAN FOR CONTINUOUS
tions that are developed in the dock act as a warning de- UNIFORM KEEL BLOCKING
vice to advise the operator that stresses are being devel-
oped in the dock.
This point calls attention to the responsibility of the ARDM-4 Pumping Plan for Docking of
docking officer or master and the use of the pumping
plan. The pumping plan is a tool for the docking officer Date:
or master to assist in proper pumping and ballasting to Ship Information: NAME:
avoid overloading the dock. The pumping plan does not DRAFTS: FWD
alleviate the docking officer or master of controlling de- AFT
flection, list and trim. However a properly prepared and DISPLACEMENT:
LCG:
followed pumping plan will significantly reduce the Blocking: Ship Docking Block Number is located
amount of corrective action required and greatly en- on Dock Block Number
hance the safety of the operation. Number of Keel Blocks used
Length Of Blocking (Lk) = Lk
CONCLUSION Center of Blocking (CB) = -
2
B=- LK
In summary, MIL-STD-1625A was written to insure 6
the safety of naval ships in floating dry docks by certi-
fying the facilities for a maximum rated lifting capacity. A = Distance from center of gravity of ship (LCG)
Review of the design characteristics of a floating dry to CB
= CB - (Lpp- LCG-OHA)
dock shows that a series of limiting curves can be devel-
oped to define envelopes for the maximum lifting capac- Where L,, = Length between perpendiculars of ship
ity of the dry dock. These envelopes address the struc- LCG =
tural strength of the dock, its buoyancy capacity, and OHA = Length of overhang from after perpendicu-
stability during the drydocking evaluations. Sample lar to first keel block
curves are presented with supporting calculations in
IF A<B
APPENDIX B.
This review also pointed to the more important fea-
ture of the actual lifting capacity of the dock when dry-
docking a particular ship. To be specific, the pumping A
plan for a particular ship docking is the ultimate safety
criteria to insure a safe docking.
The pumping plan which gives the docking officer or LA - LF
AND Slope = ~

operator a guide to the proper ballasting of the dock for Lk

the particular ship is a real insurance to a safe docking. IF A >B: Load Distribution to Triangular
This, in consideration with the longitudinal strength, WE = w
deflection and stability limits of the dock, is the aid the
LE = Length of Effective Keel Bearing
docking master or officer needs to assure a safe and un- = 1.5Lk-3A
eventful docking.

REFERENCES
WA
SL = -
111 Naval Ships’ Technical Manual Chapter 997, Docking LE
Instructions and Routine Work in Drydock, NAVSEA
59086-7G-STM000, 15 Dec. 77. NOTE: For the condition just after keel contact, the keel
121 Floating Drydock Training Manual, Bureau of Ships, loading is regularly triangular and the above can be
June 1953. used to calculate the loading by
[31 Operating Procedures for Floating Drydocks, Frederick
R. Harris, Inc., Consulting Engineers, New York 5 , WE = W (displacement at trimmed waterline 2 feet
N.Y., Third Edition, July 1945. below LWL)
Naval Engineers Journal, October 1982 81
SAFETY OF FLOATING DRYDOCKS WASALASKI

APPENDIX B
SAMPLE CALCULATIONS
ARDM-4 DRYDOCK ANALYSIS
Based on equations: La =
W
Lk
- (1 + 3
W A
Lkjn = -(1
Lk
- -)B
1. Particulars of the Drydock, ARDM-4

Particulars: If LK = LBP= 432

L B ~= 432‘ FD = 5.0 DAO = 61’ La = LA
LOA = 492’ FN = 1.5’ Dd = 44.5’
Lf = LA- ds d = distance from end of blocking
Lm* = 357.5’ DN = 14.75 DB = 40.5’
to end of tank
BOA = %’ DL = 6.2 D, = 16.5
BI = 70’ D, = 60.0’ Hb = 5’ LA- LF
s = slope = -
Be = 64’ D,D = 12.0’ Lk
*length of installed blocking
Therefore,
2. Capacity based on local load limit

Local load limit = 25 tons/ft

W
Load maximum = 25 tons/ft = - (1
LK
+ A-)B
where W = lift capacity
LA- LF
B = -Lk 36’ (- ) = 2 LA - 45.6
6 LK
A = distance between center of blocking (CB)and LK
LA- LF = (2 LA- 45.6) -
LCG of load (ship) 36
Lk = length of keel blocking
W A W A W A LK
= (1) LBP= 432 -
LK
(1 + -)
B LK
- - (1 - -) = [2 - (1
B LK B
+
-) - 45.61 -
36
= (2) L m = 357.5 (length of installed blocking)
Assuming the ship is positioned on the dock such that the
center of gravity is positioned over the amidship of the LK
A
[(l +-) - (1
B
-3 2w
= [-(1
LK
3
+ - 45.61 LK
dock (CB). A A 2W
1 + - - 1 + - = [-(1
B B LK
+ -AB ) - 45.61-36W
LK’
A LK = LBP LK = L m
0
5
10800
10098
8937
8245 B
= [-
2w
LK
(1 + $)
-45.61 -
LK’
36W
10 9483 7653
15 8938 7140
2w
A = [- (1
LK B
+1- 45.6 1-
LK’ (B)
36W 2
-
20 8452 6691

3. Buoyancy limit: LK
(Dp - FN - DL) X LBPX BOA But B = -
Buoyancy = 6
specific volume
- (16.25 - 1.5 - 6.2) X 432 X 96
2w
specific volume A = [--(1
LK
+ 46LK
-45.61 -
LK3
12(36)W
- 354585.6 - 2W LK + 6A LK3
specific volume - ) - 45.61 -
LK 12(36)W
= 10131 for salt water
2 w (LK + 6A) - 45.6 L$LK3
= 9850 for fresh water = [ 1-
LK’ 12(36)W
Buoyancy per tank group: Assuming LK = LBP
LK
Specific Volume = 36 ft3/ton = (2wLK + 2W6A -45.6 LK’) -
(fresh water) 432W
9850 432AW = 2WL2 +
12AwL~- 45.6L~’
Buoyancy = - = 22.8 t o d f t . = tanks length 432AW = 2WL2 - 12AwL~’= - 4 5 . 6 L ~ ~
432 36’ end tanks;
48’ center tanks

Load = (La Lf) 1 = (22.8) (36’)

La + Lf = 45.6 ton
82 Naval Engineers Journal, October 1982
WASALASKI SAFETY OF FLOATING DRYDOCKS
~~

As A moves off CB I - Cit - (GB X A)

GM =
W A
A F.W. S.W. where I = moment of inertia of the outside waterplane of
0 9850 10131 flotation in feet4, taken about the fore and aft
5 9260 9525 centerline.
10 8737 8987
15 8270 8506 A = displacement.
20 7850 8075 Eit = summation of moments of inertia of all con-
I F L K = LKN= 357.5 tained waterplanes of the tanks in feet4, each
taken about its own fore and aft center line (this
La = LA- dS d = 1.75’ is free surface of the tanks).
Lf = LA- (d + 1)s = 36’ GB = distance between center of gravity and center of
45.6 = [LA- ds] +
[LA- (d + I)s] buoyancy in feet.
LA - LF - LF = K G -K B
= [LA- 1.75 -(
LK
)] + [LA- 37.75 -(LALK 11 KB = vertical center of buoyancy
KG = vertical center of gravity of ship/dock system
above keel.
LK V = volume.
(LA- LF) = (2LA - 45.6) -
39.5 - WDKGD+ WCWKG, + WBGS
-
W 2W A LK vS/D

LK
(1 + %--(I-%
B LK B
= [-(1
LK
+ -)-45.61-
B 39.5 KMT = transverse metacentric above keel.
A 2W A LK’ = BM + KB
(1 + %-(1--)
B B
= [-(1
LK
+ -)-45.61-
B 35.5w I
BM = -
V
2A-
- Therefore:
-
B I - CCt - (GB X V)
2w A LK’ (B) GM =
A = [-(1
LK
+ -)-45.6]--
B 39.5w 2
vS/D

LK - I - Cit - (KG -KB) A

But B = - vS/D
6
z t
2W (LK + 6 4 LK3 = MT--
A = - 45.61 ASID
LK 12(39.5)W
WDKGD+ WWKGC, + WBGS
- [( 1- KBI
- AS/D
-
WDKGD+ WcwKGcw + WSKGs - Gt
- KMT ---GM
ASID vS/D

WDKGD+ WcwKGcw
474AW =
4 5 . 6 L ~=~ + WBG, = (MSIDKMT- Clt - GM VS/D) AS/D
vS/D
-
-
- (VWDKMT - Cit - GM VS/D) VS/D
- -
W = vS/D 36

As A moves off CB

W
The stability on a floating drydock is critical between the
A F.W. S.W.
drafts of when the pontoon deck is just awash and before the
0 8151 8384
keel of the ship is in the water. This is the area defined by the
5 7585 7785
keel block height. It is critical because the moment of inertia of
10 7092 7266
the waterplane of flotation consists of only the two wingwalls
15 6660 6812 while the summation of the moments of inertia of the con-
20 6277 6411
tained water consists of the widest parts of the tanks.

4. Stability limit: When the pontoon deck is awash, phase (4).

D = 16.5’
The following formula can be used in calculating the
metacentric height, GM, of a floating drydock. AS/D = 17000
Naval Engineers Journal, October 1982 83
SAFETY OF FLOATING DRYDOCKS WASALASKI

VS/D = 17000 X 36 = 612,000 ft3 (VS/DKMT- zit - GMVSID)- WpKGD- WcwKGcw

WBG, =
KMT = 42.0’ 36
(612000)(42.0) - 6604000 - 5(612000)
KB = 9.05’ -
36
W, = 4695.3 tons
- 4695.3(28.12) - (2313.03)(30)
KGD = 28.12’
vS/D Wlevel WC KGCW W C J L Ws KG, Dp VCGS/D*
w,, = --
36
Wp - W, = 17000 - 4695.3 - Ws
4.5 2313.06 3.0 6939 9991.67 34.0 16.5 17.5
5.5 3377.5 3.2 10488 9027.20 37.2 20.7
6.5 4241.97 4.1 17392 8062.73 40.8 24.3
Note: Residual water level: 2.0’ 7.5 4936.44 4.6 22708 7368.26 44.0 27.5
Water level at widest point of tanks: 8.5 5900.91 5.2 30685 6403.79 49.5 33.0
_low
_ 4.5‘ 9.5 6865.38 5.6 38446 5439.32 56.9 40.4
high 16.25‘ = it = 6604000ft4 10.5 7829.85 6.2 48545 4474.85 67.1 50.6

JACKSONVILLE, FL HAMPTON, VA CHARLESTON, SC

NAVAL ARCH I TECTS (904) 724-9700 (804) 627-4384 (803) 554.5580
WASHINGTON, DC BOSTON, MA SAN DIEGO, CA
(703) 521.2452 (617) 878-8340 (714) 474-3317
MAR I ME ENG I NEERS PHILADELPHIA, PA
GROTON, CT CHESAPEAKE, VA
(609) 772-0800 (203) 446.1721 (804) 543-4211

ERRATA
TO FOSTER INNOVATION IN NAVAL SHIPS, Dr. Alan Powell
Naval Engineers Journal, April 1982

P. 253, The Author, 2nd line from bottom, should read:

received his Honorary Degree

P. 254, The Environment, left column, line 5 from top, add paragraph after ‘ I . . . after World War 11.”
The two industries have different structures. The aircraft industry has many famous names - Douglas and Curtis, A.V.
Roe and de Havilland, Heinkel and Messerschmidt, and many more. These individuals were personally involved in all the
phases of their enterprises, the total management of innovation: ideas, experiments, construction, test, and finally, if a
customer appeared, production. With a closely knit organization under their one roof, often literally so, they took risks -
business as well as technical. They achieved almost incredible progress, interspersed with many disappointments. While to-
day the individual entrepreneurship has been superseded, aircraft companies generally still engage in the total innovation
process.

P. 256, left column, next to last paragraph, line 7, should read:

declared that no, there was no requirement for such a

P. 256, right column, The Hamilton Episode, line 4 up from bottom of first paragraph, correct reference
demonstration on the Hamilton [111.

P. 257, left column, The Peregrine Experiment, line 13, sentence left out, should read:
to 1950 [13]. Frank Vane was in charge of that part of the work executed by the DTMB [13]; his only ...
P. 258, left column, Mismatch with Some Management Criteria an Inhibitor, line preceding quote:
As Quchi [19] points out:

P. 265, left column, second paragraph, line 3, should read:

or engineering development is difficult, as pointed out in the earlier quote ...
P. 265, right column, add acknowledgement
The author is grateful to Mr. Tom Boyd for researching the data to produce Figures 2 and 3.

P. 266, Ref. 19 misspelled - Quchi.

84 Naval Engineers Journal, October 1982