The Effective Breadth Concept

lI1

Ship-Structure Desigff

BY COMMODORE H E N R Y A. SCHADE, U . S . N . , ( R E T I R E D ) , ~TV~EMBER2

TOPICAL OUTLINE

entire purpose of the use of effective breadth in

design is to reduce the complex situations exhibited b y elastic analysis to tractable formulations usable directly and simply by the designer.
In a paper presented previously to this Society,
Reference [1 ],3 a series of analytical investigations
of the behavior of plate-stiffener combinations
under bending loads using this concept were presented. The present paper extends and refines
these previous investigations, and emphasizes
some broader applications. The extensions of the
work were stimulated in part by discussions of the
previous paper, and in part by further investigations which indicated a broadening of the field of
application. The extensive program of computation was supported by a University of California
Research Grant.

Introduction
Extension and Refinement of Design Data
Deckhouses "
Longitudinal Bulkheads
Decks and Bottoms
Appendix A. Unsymmetrical Flanges
Appendix B. Computation of Effective Breadth
Ratio
Appendix C. Transverse Bounctaries
References
Any rectangular plate with loads transmitted to
it by means of sheaf in its own plane is subject
to a lagging, or non-uniform, distribution of the
consequent direct stress; and if, as is usually the
case, design is to be based on keeping computed
direct stress below an arbitrary level, the design
process can often be simplified by introducing an
artificial effective breadth, usually somewhat less
than the real breadth, and basing the design on
the assumption of uniform direct stress across this
breadth. Since loading by shear transmission is
characteristic of much of the plate material in a
ship structure, applicability of the effective
breadth design concept in ship structure design is
extremely broad. The fact t h a t this is only a
design concept needs emphasis. Essentially, the
i P a p e r to be presented a t the a n n u a l m e e t i n g of T h e Society of
N a v a l A r c h i t e c t s and M a r i n e E n g i n e e r s in New York, N o v e m b e r
12 and 13, 1953.
2 Profo~sor Sehade was born in St. Paul, M i n n . , on December 3,
1900. G r a d u a t i n g from t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s N a v a l Academy, class of
1923, he served a t sea as an E n s i g n of t h e line a n d l a t e r b e c a m e a
N a v a l C o n s t r u c t o r , a n d still l a t e r a n E n g i n e e r i n g D u t y Officer'. He
progressed t h r o u g h the ranks, r e t i r i n g on F e b r u a r y 1, 1949, from t h e
N a v y with t h e r a n k of Commodore. H e r e c e i v e d his M a s t e r of
S c i e n c e degree from t h e M a s s a c h u s e t t s I n s t i t u t e of T e c h n o l o g y in
June, 1028, a n d t h e degree of D o k t o r - I n g e n i e u r from t h e Teehnisehe
Hoehsehule in C h a r l o t t e n b u r g , G e r m a n y . A t present he is D i r e c t o r
of E n g i n e e r i n g R e s e a r c h a n d P r o f e s s o r of N a v a l A r c h i t e c t u r e a t the
U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a .

EXTENSION AND REFINEMENT OF DESIGN DATA

Two additional unsymmetrical web-flange configurations with new boundary conditions have
been added to the symmetrical cases treated in
Reference [1]. The analytical treatment applicable to these unsymmetrical cases is given in Appendix A. The situation defined as Case IV,
Fig. 4, represents a situation common in ship
structure; the web might, for example, represent
the web of a hatch beam, with the rigid wall
representing the ship's side plating. Various
other applications suggest themselves. The situation indicated as Case V, Fig. 5, might represent
that of an inverted angle bar used as stiffening on
a bulkhead, for example; and the low order of
effectiveness emphasizes the necessity for lateral
support when such arrangements are used. It is

410

s N u m b e r s in b r a c k e t s refer t o references a t the end of t h e paper.

:1

-: . . . . .

EFFECTIVE

BREADTH

i n t e r e s t i n g to n o t e t h a t for l o n g b e a m s , i.e.,
large L I B , t h e effectiveness of t h e I - b e a m flange is
a p p r o x i m a t e l y four t i m e s t h a t of t h e s a m e a m o u n t
of m a t e r i a l d i s p o s e d in t h e f o r m of an angle flange.
T h e l o a d i n g d e s i g n a t e d as t r i a n g u l a r l o a d i n g
i n t e n d e d to r e p r e s e n t t h e s i t u a t i o n of~a b u l k h e a d
w i t h v e r t i c a l stiffeners s u b j e c t to a ~hydrostatic
l o a d to its u p p e r b o u n d a r y , h a s b e e n a d d e d to t h e
loadings previously investigated. This has been
c o m p u t e d using t h e l o a d f u n c t i o n for t r i a n g u l a r
load, free ends, p r e s e n t e d as I t e m 3, Fig. 5, of
R e f e r e n c e [1]. T h e l o a d i n g is u n s y m m e t r i c a l ,
a n d t h e r e f o r e t h e d a t a , which (like all t h e others)
a r e c o m p u t e d for free ends, a r e n o t a p p l i c a b l e to
a fixed-ended b e a m unless t h e l o a d i n g c o m e s to
zero a t t h e u p p e r p o i n t of zero b e n d i n g m o m e n t .
S u b j e c t to this r e s t r i c t i o n for t r i a n g u l a r loadings,
t h e d a t a for all t y p e s of l o a d i n g p r e s e n t e d , which
are c o m p u t e d for a f r e e - e n d e d b e a m of l e n g t h L,
a r e also a p p l i c a b l e to a f i x e d - e n d e d b e a m if L is
t a k e n as t h e d i s t a n c e b e t w e e n p o i n t s of zero b e n d ing m o m e n t .
I n t h e p r e v i o u s p a p e r , t h e d a t a a p p l i c a b l e to
b e h a v i o r u n d e r c o n c e n t r a t e d l o a d i n g s were obt a i n e d b y use of c o n v e r g i n g F o u r i e r series in t h e

CONCEPT

411

analysis, with computations extending through

t h e e l e v e n t h t e r m only. T h i s was d o n e to s a v e
c o m p u t i n g labor, a n d a l t h o u g h i t p r o d u c e d effective breadth ratios slightly higherthan the true
values, it was j u d g e d to be a c c e p t a b l e o n t h e basis
t h a t a t r u e c o n c e n t r a t e d l o a d w o u l d s e l d o m occur
in s h i p - s t r u c t u r e s i t u a t i o n s . H o w e v e r , speculations as to t h e f u n c t i o n s of t h e t r a n s v e r s e b u l k h e a d s in t r a n s m i t t i n g l o a d s to t h e w e b s of t h e ship
girder, t h a t is to t h e s h i p ' s sides, m a d e it seem desirable to e x t e n d t h e a c c u r a c y of t h e d a t a w i t h
r e s p e c t to c o n c e n t r a t e d l o a d s to a h i g h e r degree.
A n a n a l y t i c a l m e t h o d for d o i n g this b y i n c l u d i n g
r e s i d u a l t e r m s was found, w i t h r e s u l t s w h i c h a r e
a n a l y t i c a l l y c o r r e c t w i t h i n a p o s i t i v e or n e g a t i v e
m a r g i n of e r r o r a c c e p t a b l e for engineering c o m p u t a t i o n s . ' T h i s is d e s c r i b e d in A p p e n d i x B.
T h e effective b r e a d t h r a t i o for c o n c e n t r a t e d
l o a d s for v a l u e s of/3 of 0.01, 0.10, a n d 1.00 were
c o m p u t e d b y this m e t h o d for t h r e e s y m m e t r i c a l
a n d t w o u n s y m m e t r i c a l flange c o n f i g u r a t i o n s a n d
these d a t a are p r e s e n t e d in Fig. 1 to Fig. 5, tog e t h e r w i t h t h e r a t i o for h a r m o n i c (sinusoidal),
uniform, a n d t r i a n g u l a r loads. T h e h a r m o n i c a n d
u n i f o r m l o a d d a t a for t h e t h r e e s y m m e t r i c a l

X, _ 4
sinh a .Jr a
b
a ( 3 -- t*)(1 + tL) cosh a +

O'y: O, T: 0

(1 +.#)2 2 + (5 -- 2t* + t*~)

where a = nlr ( B / L ) .
Limits :
--~ 0,

i FLANGE
[

~ , -~

1.0

4
b
a - ~ co ~ - - ~ ( 3 -- it)(1 + # i ~ ' =

~,tw

--

/'1

t"

t,
":/2

1.140 b =0.1814 _L
ot

rt

Harmonic
load (~,,/b)
O. 180
0.350
0.640
0.795
O. 867
O. 907
O. 933
O. 950
O. 966
0.970
0. 978

L/B

O. 5
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
1 htw

EFFECTIVE BREADTH RATIO, ~,/b

Uniform
Triangular
load
'load
fl = 0.01
0.191
O. 170
0.002
O. 362
O. 329
O. 152
O. 665
O. 604
O. 312
O. 821
O. 761
O. 404
O. 885
O. 841
O. 467
O. 920
O. 888
O. 516
O. 943
O. 919
O. 554
O. 960
O. 939
O. 586
0.969
O. 953
O. 611
O. 974
O. 963
O. 633
O. 982
O. 971
O. 653

Where/~ = ~ - ~ for double identical flanges.

bending moment.)

1 htw

= 4 -~ for single flange. (Note:

Concentrated load
/~ = 0.10
fl = 1.00
0.133
.0.150
O. 242
O. 288
0.. 414
0.518
O. 522
O. 648
O. 592
. ; O. 720
O. 646
O. 768
O, 687
O. 802
O. 720
O. 829
0.748
O. 850
O. 768
O. 864
O. 792
O. 878
L is distance between points of zero

FIG. I (CASE I).--SINGLE WEB, SYMMETRICALFLANGEWITH FREE SIDES

412

EFFECTIVE

BREADTH

Cases I, I I , a n d I I I are t a k e n f r o m Reference [1]

a n d a r e r e p e a t e d here for c o m p l e t e n e s s . C u r v e s
c a n b e m a d e u p f r o m t h e s e d a t a for design use,
...............a l t h o u g h experienee~seems to i n d i c a t e t h a t use of
,,.,~:" - : t h e mater-ial in t a b u l a r form, as on t h e s e figures, is
more convenient.
T h e use of effective b r e a d t h d a t a of t h i s k i n d in
c o n n e c t i o n w i t h p l a t e stiffener c o m b i n a t i o n s , p l a t e
girders, rolled shapes, a n d s i m i l a r s t r u c t u r a l
c o m p o n e n t s w a s d e s c r i b e d in R e f e r e n c e [1], a n d
t h e n e w d a t a a r e usable in t h e s a m e w a y , t h e o n l y
differences b e i n g t h e w i d e r r a n g e of t y p e s of l o a d ing, t h e u n . s y m m e t r i c a l shapes, a n d t h e i m p r o v e d
a c c u r a c y of t h e d a t a for c o n c e n t r a t e d loadings.
T h e r e are, however, m a n y o t h e r c i r c u m s t a n c e s
in ship s t r u c t u r e s to w h i c h d a t a of this k i n d , w i t h
s o m e b r o a d e n i n g of c o n c e p t , are a p p l i c a b l e .
I t s h o u l d be r e m e m b e r e d t h a t a l t h o u g h t h e d a t a
were c o m p u t e d p r i m a r i l y for use in e s t i m a t i n g
t h e effective b r e a d t h of a flange w h i c h is stressed
b e c a u s e of b e n d i n g of t h e a t t a c h e d web, n e v e r t h e less, t h e a n a l y s i s r e s t s ' e n t i r e l y u p o n c o n s i d e r a t i 0 n
of t h e effects of s h e a r t r a n s m i s s i o n on a p l a t e (the
f l a n g e ) ' w i t h o u t r e g a r d t o a n y - bending- displacem e n t or deflection. T h u s , these d a t a r e a l l y ex-

CONCEPT

h i b i t t h e effectiveness of a r e c t a n g u l a r p l a t e
l o a d e d b y s h e a r t r a n s m i s s i o n in a w a y w h i c h is
compatible with an assumed bending situation
b u t w h i c h m a y be c o m p a t i b l e : w i t h .other t y p e s of
s i t u a t i o n s as well. T h i s will a p p e a r in t h e cases
discussed in d e t a i l below.
DECKHOUSES
TWO different s i t u a t i o n s need to be d i s t i n g u i s h e d
here. A s t r u c t u r e t h e sides of w h i c h are a cont i n u a t i o n of t h e sides of t h e ship is called a supers t r u c t u r e , while a s t r u c t u r e t h e sides of w h i c h
r e s t u p o n a w e a t h e r d e c k i n b o a r d of t h e sides, is
called a deckhouse. H o v g a a r d , in R e f e r e n c e
[2], offered a t h e o r y , p r e s u m a b l y a p p l i c a b l e t o
e i t h e r s i t u a t i o n , for t h e s h e a r stress d i s t r i b u t i o n a t
t h e b o n d b e t w e e n hull a n d d e c k h o u s e or supers t r u c t u r e , i g n o r i n g b o t h b e n d i n g a n d s h e a r lag.
V a s t a , in R e f e r e n c e [3], p o i n t e d o u t t h e experim e n t a l f a c t t h a t in t h e P r e s i d e n t W i l s o n t h e deckhouse.did, n o t b e n d in a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e Navier.
h y p o t h e s i s , u n d e r w h i c h p l a n e sections of a b e a m
r e m a i n plane. H. H. Bleich, in R e f e r e n c e [4],
g a v e a v e r y c o m p l e t e an/dysis of t h e b e h a v i o r of
a ship d e c k h o u s e b a s e d u p o n t h e a s s u m p t i o n t h a t

/ b'/

X.
1 sinh a + a
-b = ~t cosh a -~- a
w h e r e ot = n~r ( B / L ) .

Aw0

/ LANOE

/'t
Xtw

Limits:
a --* O, ),. - - * i . 0

a - * co' ~ , , : - ~ -

0.1592 L

--

h=

~.OEPTH

EFFECTIV~ BREADTH RATIO, x/b

L/B

0.5
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
"5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0

- " Harmonic
load (X,/b)
0.164
0.370
0.700
0.843
0.905
0.927
0.953
0.963
0. 970
0.975
0. 980

Unifoi-m ...
load
O. 164
O. 386
0.731
O. 868
O. 922
O. 937
O. 963
O. 967
O. 973
O. 978
O. 982

Triangular
load
O. 1"55
O. 344
0.659
O. 810
O. 883
O. 913
O. 942
O. 956
O. 965
O. 971
O. 975

fl = 0.01
0.085
O. 148
0.311
O. 403
O. 471
O. 519
O. 558
O. 592
O. 617
O. 640
O. 660

1 htw
Where fl = ~ ~ - for double identical flanges. fl = ~1 ht,~
~ for single flange. (Note:
bending moment.)

Concentrated.load . - - fl = 0 . 1 0

0.123
0.245
0.426
0.535
0.608
0.657
0.697
0.732
0.757
0.780
0.802

1.00
0.138
0.300
0.556
0.680
0.749
0.787
0.821
0.845
0.862
0.876
0.890

fl =

L is distance between points of zero

FIG. 2 (CASE II).--DOUBLE WEB, FLANGE BOUNDED BY WEBS

X.
4
b- = ~ ( 3
where a

eosh a
-- # ) ( l ' + # ) s i n h a

--

1
-- (1 + #)2 a

I
v=O

"
=

n~" ( B / L ) .

Limits :
b

a - + O, }~"-~' 1
~

co, ~,. ~

#2 = 1.098 b
4
b

--

(3 -

/,,

.y_.

#)(1 + #)

h= DEPTH

1.140 _b-= 0.1814 _L

o:

EFFECTIVE BREADTH RATIO, X/b

Harmonic.
load ( X . / b )
0.187
0.384
0.708
0.876
0.965
1.005
1.030
1.050
1.063
1.070
1.075

L/B
0.5
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10:0

Where B ~

Uniform
load
0.196
0.399
0.737
0.9010.989
1.020
1.045
1:059
1.069
1.075
1.080

Triangular
load
0.173
0.364
0.669
0.839
0.929
0.984
1.014
1.038
1.054
1.062
1.069

C o n c e n t r a t e d load
fl

0.01
0.092
0.156
0.328
0.426
0.501
0.554
0.596
0.631
0.'661
0.686
0.701
=

~ =

0.10

~ =

0.136
0.256
0.438
0.553
0.638
0.701
0.744
0.783
0.814
0.840
0.855

1.0.

0.154
0.313
0.580
0.708
0.795
0.845
0.881
0.911
0.934
0.951
0.960

I ht,~. ~= ~'-~-~6i~in'gle flange..-- (-Note:.' "- is- d i s t a n c e b e t w e e n poin'ts "of zero

fdUdouble idenf[c~I'flanges.

bending moment.)
FIG. 3 (CASE I I I ) . - - M U L T I P L E WEBS

.L

X.
b

1 (3 -- # ) s i n h = a + 2 a s i n h a +
a
4
(1 + # ) a 2
1 + # (cosh a
(3

- -

--

A.,.:,a

#) sinh a cosh a + (1 + # ) a

wtiere a = nTr ( B / L ) .
Limits :
a---*0, X.~

,ff

1)

A/o.,,,o

-/
-I

2+ 3 # b = 1.115b
2+2#

/
[

a --* co, ~, --* _b = 0.1592 _L

Ot

.,'o
WEB

't

b tw

A I
h hi : )'2
>'2DEPTH
DEP1
.

EFFECTIVE BREADTH RATIO, X/b

"

L/B
0.5
1.0
2~0
"3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
'9.0
10.0

Harmonic
load ( M / b ) .
0.161
:
0.359
'= "
0.726
O. 905
O. 990
1. 030
1. 057
1. 069
1. 079
1. 086
1. 089

Uniform
load
0.165
0.369
0.740
O. 9 2 l
1. 004
1. 041
1. 064
1. 079
1. 086
1. 093
1. 097

1 ht,,
W h e r e fl = ~ ~ - for double identical flanges.

Triangular
load
0.152
0.336
0.680
O. 865
O. 960
1. 009
1. 041
1. 062
1. 074
1. 083
1. 089

1 ht~ ..
/3 = ~ ~ / I o r

single flange.

C o n c e n t r a t e d load
=

0:01

0.084
0.147
0.315
0.416
0.495
0.548
0.593
0.631
0.661
0.687
0.710
( Note:

0.i0

0.121
0.240
0.435
0.556
0.640
0.701
0.748
0.787
0.818
0.845
0.869

1.00
0.135
0.294
0.572
0.721
0.806
0.858
0.899
0.926
0.947
0.963
0.978

~ =

L is d i s t a n c e b e t w e e n p o i n t s of zero

bending moment.)
FIG. 4 (CASE I V ) . - - O N E SIDE OF FLANGE AT WEB, ONE SIDE AT RIGID WALL

414

EFFECTIVE

BREADTH

h u l l ~ n d d e c k h o u s e b e h a v e as t w o s e p a r a t e b e a m s ,
each following the Navier hypothesis.
Bleich
explains analytically what was. observed experim e n t a l l y b y V a s t a , n a m e l y , t h a t c u r v a t u r e of
ship and deckhouse may not be identical.
I n f a c t , if v e r t i c a l f o r c e s t r a n s m i t t i n g v e r t i c a l
l o a d s b e t w e e n d e c k h o u s e a n d d e c k c a n n o t exist,
t h e t w o c o m p o n e n t s will a s s u m e o p p o s i t e c u r v a tures.
I f t h e s h i p hogs, t h e d e c k h o u s e sags. O n
t h e o t h e r h a n d , since a s u p e r s t r u c t u r e as d e f i n e d
a b o v e , is c o n t i n u o u s w i t h t h e s h i p side, t h e N a v i e r
hypothesis may be expected to apply over the
h u l l a n d s u p e r s t r u c t u r e as a single e n t i t y , a n d
b o t h c o m p o n d n t s m a y be e x p e c t e d t o a s s u m e t h e
s a m e c u r v a t u r e if local effects a t t h e e n d s a r e
i g n o r e d . T h e t w o cases a r e s h o w n in F i g . 6.
B e t w e e n t h e s e t w o e x t r e m e s is t h e c o m m o n s i t u a t i o n in w h i c h t h e offset d e e k h o u s e sides a r e s u b j e c t t o v e r t i c a l forces t r a n s m i t t e d b y t h e d e c k
s u p p o r t i n g s t r u c t u r e as w e l l as t o t h e s h e a r l o a d ing at the bond.
Bleich treats this situation by
an analytical method which requires a knowledge
of t h e s p r i n g c o n s t a n t e x h i b i t e d b y t h e flexible
deck structure.
As a practical design procedure,
t h i s offers s o m e difficulties.

CONCEPT

a.

Assumed superstructure behavior

b.

Assumed deckhouse behavior,

with no vertical loads

c. Assumed deckhouse behavior,

with no bending, but with shear lag
FIG. 6.--A s s uMED SUPERSTRUCTURE
AND DECKHOUSE.BEHAVIOR

Z.

t.

X,,
1
sinh 2 a -- a ~
b- = "~ sinh a cosh a -where a = nw ( B / L ) .
Limits :
a --* 0, k,, --* 0.5 b
a ~

0, ~,, --* _b = 0.1592 L

n

EFFECTIVE BREADTH RATIO,

LIB

Harmonic
load (X,,/b)

0.5
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0

O. 159
0.301
0.429
O. 466
0.479
0.489
0.493
0.496
0.497
O. 497
O. 498

Where fl = ~

Uniform
load
0. 161
0. 308
O. 433
O. 464
O. 484
O. 492
O. 496
O. 497
O. 497
O. 498
O. 498

for double identical flanges.

" Triangular
load
0. 148
0. 283
O. 412
O. 456
O. 477
O. 485
O. 491
O. 493
O. 496
O. 496
O. 497

x/b
~ = 0.01
0.084
0. 137
O. 246
O. 294
O. 324
O. 344
O. 358
O. 369
O. 378
" O. 386
O. 394

1 hi,,
= ~ ~ - for single flange.

(Note:

Concentrated load
# = 0.10
0. 118
0.212
O. 310
O. 358
O. 382
O. 404
O. 420
O. 430
O. 438
, O. 444
O. 450

# = 1.0~0
0. 132
0.249
O. 361
O. 404
O. 428
O. 442
O. 452
O. 458
O. 464
O. 468
O. 570

L is distance between points of zero

bending moment.)
FIG. 5 (CASE V ) - - O N E SIDE OF FLANGE AT WEB, ONE SIDE FRE~

EFFECTIVE

BREADTH

This problem can be hanciled easily b y the effective breadth concept as an approximation for
design purposes if it is assumed t h a t the true
curvature of the deekhouse is zero (i.e., between
the two extremes). See Fig. 6. This is equivalent to assuming t h a t the vertical sides of the
deckhouse are loaded b y shear transmission from
the deck and b y whatever vertical forces exerted
b y the deck are necessary to keep the bond
straight. Shear lag effects are taken into account.
T h e experimental stress and strain distributions in the President Wilson, reported in Reference [3] are not inconsistent with this "nobending" hypothesis, and in fact the distributions
seem to show typical shear-lag effects. Holt, in
Reference [5], which reported, a model exploration of this situation, notes t h a t "the upper deckhouse remained almost straight."
T h e condition defined here as Case I is m o s t
nearly applicable to this situation, if the breadth
B is taken to be the total girth dimension of the
deckhouse from the bond on one side to the bond
on the other. Presumably no concentrated loadings occur except at the ends, so t h a t the harmonic distribution is suitable. Boundary conditions do not conform exactly, since at the p l a t e
side in Case I the transverse stress is zero (i. e.,
~y = 0) whereas at the corresponding location_
"in the deckhouse, which is the house top at center-

CONCEPT

415

line, there m a y be some transverse stress. How~

ever, since there can be no transverse stress
transmission across the corner of the deckhouse
top and side, the Effect of this b o u n d a r y Condition discrepancy cannot be great. In effect, the
assumption here is t h a t one deckhouse side and
half the top are the equivalent of half the flange
shown in Case I, and t h a t the junction of flange
and web in Case I is the bond between house side
and deck in the ship, which remains straight and
unbent.
The assumed stress distribution across a section is shown in Fig. 7'- T h e linear distribution
in the p r i m a r y structure m a y be regarded as m a d e
up of two components: a pure bending distribution a b o u t its own neutral axis, producing a
m o m e n t M1; and a "uniformly distributed component, the resultant of which is the force X acting
at the e.g. of the p r i m a r y section. This force'Xm u s t be equal and opposite to the resultant of the
deekhouse stresses. This, according .to effective
breadth theory (which predicates uniform plate
thicl~ness), is (X/b)cr*A~, where a* is stress at the
bond and A2 is the section area;of the deck_hoUse.
The neutral axis of the combined section is located
b y noting t h a t

e =

elAi
A~ + (X/b)A2

X = -~hAaO-m

c.g.2

T .
d

e2

_ __

e
et

ly

Aa

/
-t - -

cig'n
i

//

FIG. 7.--ASSUMED STRESS DISTRIBUTIONIN SECTIONWITH DECKHOUSE

416

EFFECTIVE

BREADTH

whereas if the combined section behaved as a

unit according to the Navier hypothesis

elA1 -- e2A2
AI + As

Consequently the neutral axis computation is made

b y assuming all deckhouse m a t e r i a l reduced b y
the effective breadth fraction X/b and acting at
the level of the bond (i.e., the deck) instead of at
its own e.g.
The stress in the p r i m a r y structure is the alg e braic sum of its two components, i.e.,

M -- X(el + d)
g =

11

X
(Y + e l -

My
A1A2(el + d)el
I1 + (X/b) A1 + (X/b)A2
Section modulus for deck level is then

-t- (X/b)A2(el -t- d)

The value of d could be computed b y effective

b r e a d t h theory, b u t this refinement is hardly
necessary since S is not sensitive to its value; it
m a y be estimated or even suppressed entirely.
If it is suppressed, S m a y be computed in the conventional fashion, again under the assumption
t h a t deckhouse material is reduced b y X/b and is
operative at the deck level.
T h e section modulus m a y be written in terms of
the limiting section moduli So and $1, meaning
the values with the deckhouse totally ineffective
(absent) and 100% effective, respectively, i.e.,

S = S o + (X/b)(S~ - So)
and the computed stress in terms of the corresponding limiting computed stresses
gO

1 +

(h/b)(~

--

This can be tested against the d a t a measured

in the tests of the President Wilson, as reported
in Reference [3]. The two-level deck_house is
treated for computing purposes as a single unit,
whose length is the average length of the two
levels, and whose girth is twice the distance from
the bond at the promenade deck to the centerline
at the nagivating bridge level. Accordingly

L/B
and from Fig.

e) -- -A1
-

where d is the distance of the resultant of the

stresses in the deckhouse a~)ove the deck. This
reduces to the following, after insertion of the
values of X and e:

S = Ilex 1 + (X/bi -~

CONCEPT

1) .

Here it should be observed t h a t gl is the stress at

the d e c k level computed as if stress were uniform
over the section of the deckhouse instead of as if
the stress increased linearly in accordance with
the Navier hypothesis. However, if gl is computed in the conventional w a y (which implies
the Navier hypothesis) the effect on g will be
small, since g is not sensitive to variations ih the
value of gl.

=-

206 :F 142
2(91)
= 1.91

1,
X/b = 0.61

Since the computed values of gx and g0 reported

in Reference [3] are 4,660 and 7,720, respectively,
g ~-

7,720
1 --}- 0.61 (7,720
\4,660

= 5,500 psi
1~
/

The reported measured value in Reference [3]

is 5,880 psi.
The designer who used this concept would
therefore, in reckoning the section modulus of
the midship section, use 61% of the total deck-'
house section area in conjunction with a lever arm
corresponding to the promenade deck level (to
which the house is attached). M a x i m u m computed longitudinal stress would occur at the
promenade deck level, as it did in fact.
LONGITUDINAL

BULKHEADS

There seems to be evidence t h a t in some types

of vessels, at least, longitudinal bulkheads do not
bend as the ship's sides bend but instead operate
'as shear loaded plates only with consequent shear
lag phenomena. As reported in Reference [6],
the measured stresses an.d strains in the longitudinal bulkheads of the tanker Neverita are quite
characteristic of this kind of loading, in contrast
to the ship sides which behaved in accordance
with Navier. Clearly, in this vessel, these bulkheads should not be counted as participating in
the bending of the hull itself in accordance with
Navier, b u t should instead be counted as shearloaded plates loaded b y the deck and bottom.
In this case, under the simplifying assumption
t h a t the neutral axis of the total section is t h a t determined in accordance with Navier, the effectiveness of such bulkheads is indicated simply b y the
effective section modulus. T h e boundary conditions identified as Case VI, Fig. 8, seem appropriate to a section of 'sucla bulkhead on one side
(i. e., either above or, below) the neutral axis.

EFFECTIVE

BREADTH

The effective section modttlus Se is

S,=

M-M~'=t
if:t,

'

f2 Y~-YY25Y
~r
b[']~y2jy.= 2b

where M, is the effective resisting m o m e n t a b o u t

the neutral axis, and the remaiffder of the nomenclature is taken from the previous paper (Reference [1]). Since the Navier section modulus is
~,~b't, the effectiveness ratio becomes, after expansion and simplification,
S,
3 [sinh a cosh a -- a l
X = 2-[_
~ ~sinh
and this function is tabulated in Fig. 8 and plotted
in Fig. 9, together with the corresponding effective breadth ratios. Only the harmonic values
are of interest here (i.e., with n = 1) since the
inherent assumption is t h a t the distribution of
the shear b y which the b u l k h e a d is loaded is
sinusoidal. In the determination of the lengthbreadth ratio L I B with which to enter the curve
or table, B is the dimension from the neutral axis
to the bond at the deck or bottom, and L is the
actual length of the bulkhead unless the bulkhead
extends beyond the quarter-points (the points of
m a x i m u m shear). If the bulkhead extends beyond this, the distance between quarter points
should be used as L.
I t will be noted from the curves on Fig. 9, t h a t
for long bulkheads (large values of L / B ) the effective breadth ratio and the effective section

CONCEPT

417

modulus ratio are both asymptotic to unity,

whereas for short bulkheads the effective section
modulus ratio (which is the one to be used for
design purposes) is sensibly larger than the effective breadth ratio. This is, of course, a reflection of the physical fact t h a t the shear lag
distribution of stress has a re.sultant further from
the neutral axis than the Navier distribution.
There are no quantitative d a t a available against
which to test this shear lag hypothesis for longitudinal bulkheads, and its reasonableness can only
be assessed b y comparing.the assumptions qualitatively with reported measured stress distributions such as those given for the Neverita in Reference [6].
The designer who uses the shear lag hypothesis
for'longitudinal bulkheads in determining .the
section modulus of a midship section would
simply multiply the bulkhead plating thickness
b y the section modulus ratio as determined from
Case VI, Fig. 8 or Fig. 9, and otherwise proceed
' in the conventional fashion.
DECKS AND BOTTOMS
I t h a s o f t e n been proposed to assess the effectiveness of deck and b o t t o m plating as elements
of the ship girder in accordance with effective
breadth theory. 'If this is done, the effect of the
system of framing upon the distribution of vertical
loadings becomes significant. In the conventional
longitudinal strength computation, it is usual to
assume t h a t the downward forces (weights) and
upward forces (buoyancy) are distributed along the

F
kn

1 sinla a :b a

b
a cosh a + 1
sS' = ~Esinhacosha_-a~~zsi_n_~a

,l

where ol = n~- (B/L).

Limits :
a --+ O, X. -+ 1.0 b, S.--~S

O'y

B=2b

a--* :'M'-~b-a =

.A.

0.1592--L
n' S , ~ 3 ~ S

O"x = 0 ,

L/B
M/b
O. 5
O. 162
1.0
O. 371
2.0
O. 703
3.0
O. 843
4.0
O.906
5.0
O.938
Ratios are for harmonic loads only.
.

S,/S
O.239
O. 468
O. 758
O.873
O. 924
O. 953

'

L/B
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0

FIG. 8 (CASE VI).'--=LONGITUDINAL BULKHEADS

Ex=O

X,,/b
O. 956
O.967
O. 975
O. 980
. O.984

. S,/S
0.,965
O.978
O. 980
"0. 984
O.985

418

EFFECTIVE

BREADTH

ship girder in accordance with certain assumptions.

The longitudinal distribution of these forces, of
course, determines the shape of the bending mom e n t curve, b u t has no effect upon the computed
section modulus, if the Navier hypothesis (simple
beam theory) is used. The forces are assumed to
be distributed rather than concentrated. In this
situation, the system of framing is not a factor.
If, however, the premise is accepted t h a t only
the ship sides behave according to Navier, while
decks and b o t t o m s function as flanges which
exhibit shear lag, t h e n the type of framing becomes important. If only transverse framing
were present, then all loads, both weights and
buoyancy, would be transmitted to the sides as
distributed loads b y the closely-spaced succession
of frame rings. If, however, no transverse framing existed, t h e n all such loads would be transmitted to the transverse bulkheads b y Whatever
longitudinal framing existed (including keels;
keelsons, deck longitudinals, etc.), which in turn
would transmit these loads to the ship sides as
loads concentrated at the transverse bfilkheads.
T h e effectiveness of decks and bottoms in acting
as flanges will now be lessened sharply at the
transverse bulkheads where these concentrated
loads are applied, in accordance with effective

CONCEPT

breadth theory for concentrated loads; the Section modulus decreases, and m a x i m u m longitudinal stresses increase.
Longitudinal framing is present in some degree
in practically all steel vessels; a vertical keel is a
m i n i m u m example. The actual loading transmitted to the ship sides will therefore be a combination of distributed loading and concentrated
loads at the bulkheads.
In Reference [7], Vedeler illustrated some
methods of d~termining the distribution of loads
taking the framing systems into account. A
simpler method for m a n y approximate design
purposes is available in cross-stiffened plate
theory, as described in Appendix C, and Fig. 10
gives curves for determination of the fraction of
total load on any deck or b o t t o m between a pair
of adjacent transverse bulkheads, which is transmitted to the bulkheads, as a function of the relative stiffness of the two systems of framing. The
higher the proportion of longitudinal framing, the
greater the proportion of load transmitted as
concentrated loads b y the bulkheads, and the
greater the hazard due to reduced section modulus because of reduced effective breadth of deck
and b o t t o m in the vicinity of the bulkheads.

1.2

1.0

0.8

0.6

//

Be

0_4 / f

Xn

0.2

5
6
7
8
9
L/B
FIG. 9.--SECTION MODULUS RATIO COMPARED WITH EFFECTIVE BREADTH ]~ATIO--CAsE V I

10

EFFECTIVE

BREADTH

APPENDIX
UNSYMMETRICAL

With the same notation as in Reference [1],

the common boundary condition for unsymmetrical flanges, such as those identified a~ C~tse IV
and Case V in this paper, is t h a t there can be no
transverse' direct stress at the junction of web
and flange, i.e.,
bx ~

--

0 y=o

419

A
FLANGES

b~f = ~ [ f + 2D cosh ~y + 2C sinh o~y]

by 2

3Fbf

b3f

--~
by = ~ L ~ + 2c cosh ~y + 2D sinh ~y

For these situations, the fact that there is no

transverse stress in the flange at the junction
means t h a t the two varieties of effective breadth
defined in Ref. [1] are identical, so t h a t

b2F
0"~

CONCEPT

'

The relatively slight resistance of the web to

transverse bending is thus ignored. The imposition of this common boundary condition on the
general equation for the stress function (see Ref.
[1]), reduces the number of ,,constants in the
latter from four to three; in equation (3) of
Reference [1], A becomes zero, and f and its
derivatives then become

L = X*n =

by

sinh ~y]

byJo

Y7

b~f7

and this produces the expression for b o u n d a r y

function for these unsymmetrical cases:
1

b__f = o~[(B + C + Do~y) cosh o~y + (Co~y + D)

bffl2b

byJo

b~f

k~

f = Co~ycosh o~y + (B + Do~y) sinh ~y

b f ] 2b

aD [(B + C + D a ) cosh a +
(Ca + D) s i n h a

(B + C)]

In addition to this common bounda~ry condition

two boundary conditions can be imposed on the

1.0

\\"\ " # ~
\\,

SUPPORTED

o;

0.75
N \\
\NN\\\

~"~\

\\\
\~K

0.50

\\\<.
\ x"\~
\ ""~

'"
~ -

,-7;

--'-,'-'w.

~X

",-7
"

. SUPPORTED

".,(" ~'~

_ _

u J ~ . ~ l

X , ' - -

"<.~Z.o

0.25

ALL EDGESSUPPORTED
I

0.50

1.0

1.5

20
,-

,.

2.5

3.0

3.5

i( l

Fro. 10.--i~ROPOR'rIONOF TO~rALLO2D CXRRmDBY TRANSVBRS~(b) EDGB""SbPPORTS(2Q/P-)

4.0

420

EFFECTIVE BREADTH CONCEPT

~X2

other side of the flange. From these two boundary conditions the constants B and C can be
evaluated. For the two cases defined as Case IV
and Case V in Figs. 4 and 5, respectively, these
relationships are:

B = Dsinhacosha_
C =

0,~

0]y=2b

B = -D

2 j + (1 + u ) a 2
(3--~)sinhacosha+
(1 + ~ ) a

C =

(3 -- ~t) sinh2a + 2
(3 -- ~) sinh a cosh a + (1 -[- ~)a

--D

Case V
~,=

-.q

O , r = O]y=2b

From these values are derived the final expressions for effective breadth ratio X/b shown on
Figs. 4 and 5 for Case IV and Case V.. The constant D is not evaluated, and need not be for determination of effective breadth only. If stress
patterns across the flange were to be investigated,
D would have to be evaluated, and this can easily
be done.
For the unsymmetrical cases, a value of X/b of
unity means that only one-half of the flange
breadth of 2b - B is effective, whereas" "for the
symmetrical Cases I, II, and I I I , such a unity
value of X/b means that all the flange breadth is
effective.
"

Case IV
v

sinh 2'a
--Dsinhacosh a--

APPENDIX B
COMPUTATION OF E F F E C T I V E BREADTH R A T I O

The two converging infinite series N and D may

each be expressed as the sum of a finite series
Nm (or Din) representing the sum of the first m
terms, and a residual value Nr (or Dr) representing
the sum of all the terms to infinitely neglected in
the finite series, beginning with the first term
neglected, i.e., the m + 1 term. Thus, in pre-

T h e reduced general equation for effective

breadth ratio X/b is, from equation 14(b) in the
previous paper, Ref. [1].
X

N
Nm -4-_Nr
= D = Dm -4- D,"

(1)

where

D =

K,,
x.-

K,,
=

+~

Here, N and D are used merely to indicate numerator and denominator in the general expression
for effective breadth ratio, which is, according to
equation (1), the quotient of the sums of two infinite series. T h e symbols X,,/b and fl are the
boundary function and section function, respectively, expressed for the five cases under discussion in Figs. 1 to 5, while Ks is the load function,
depending only on the form of the bending moment curve. These three functions are defined
and explained in detail in Reference [1].

K,,
+

~+~

x2-

T +~

vious computations by the author and others,

when only the first eleven terms in the series were
used, m = 11. The objective now is to evaluate
the residual terms, from m + 1 to infinity.
For the larger values of n involved in N, and
Dr, the corresponding values of X,~/b are obtained
by using the approximate forms given in Figs. 1
to 5 corresponding to a --~ oo, i.e., X,,/b = d/a,
where d = 1.0 or 1.14. The minimum value of a
involved in any of the residual terms in 2.3~,
since the minimum value of n in the neglected

EFFECTIVE

BREADTH

terms in 23 (i.e., the twelfth t e r m if n = 1, 3, 5,

. . . ) , the minimum value of B/L computed is
1/10, and a = nrrB/L.
If now this limit, or approximate, form of
~,/b is used to evaluate Nr and Dr b y substitution in equation (1), they become [provided/3 #
0 and C = (d/rr/3)(L/B)]:
co

m+

CONCEPT

421

Dr = 3

K.

i--

n+C

m + l

M a x i m u m and minimum possible values of

residual terms can be determined b y suppressing
C in the numerator or denominator, respectively.
(See Ref. [9], page 258.) Accordingly

Nr (maxi = C ~ K - ~ n
m + l

N,

(rain) = N, (max) -

C~

n 2
m + l

00

Dr (max)

= 3

K,
m + l

Dr (rain) = Dr (max) -

,-CZ

Knn - Dr (max)

Nr (max)

mi+ 1
The numerical series involved in the terms, with the forms ~ l / n 2, ~ 1/n 3, etc., have either
known closed values or values which are known to a large number of significant figures. For example, the series used if K , = (1/n2)(n = 1, 3, 5, 7, . . . ) are:
1

rr~
= -~ = 1.233701

1
n2

12

,o

11

*o

n~ = 1.051791

n3

~r4

Obviously the values of the summations

n3 = 0.000501

--1_

n-i = 0.000016

0.022711

12

na -7 1-.014662

12

are

m + l

easily computed b y subtracting computed sums

~from

1.051290

n-~ = 9-6 = 1.014678

. . . .

1
n2

1.210990

Finally, the upper and lower limits of

computed as follows:

~/b

(max)

= Nm + N,

k/b

(rain)

=- N~ + Nr '(min)

the known total values.

" "1

I t turns out t h a t these residual-terms are inconsequential whenever the exponent of n is higher
t h a n 2 i n the form of K , . B u t for K , = 1/n 2,
which represents the concentrated symmetrical
.., ....... load~--_t.heir-~inclusion=perceptibly...changes the computed .values of k,/b based-on Nn/Dn only.
,:

~/b

are

(max)
D~ + Dr (rain)

D~ + Dr (max)
When C is large, Nr (min) and Dr (rain) for
positive series m a y be negative when computed
as proposed; and in this situation, the m i n i m u m
values of the residual series should be suppressed,
since the sum of the residual terms o f a positive

422

EFFECTIVE

BREADTH

CONCEPT

series c a n n o t be less t h a n zero. T h e n the limits

of X/b become
X/b (max) = Nm -F Nr (max)
D~
N~
X/b (min) = D ~ q- Dr (max)

Example :
Case IV, with L / B = 5.0, fl = 0.10, K~ = 1/n 2

W h e n the u p p e r and lower limits thus c o m p u t e d

are at hand, the value desired for design purposes
is c o m p u t e d as the mean.

T h e ratio of these values is k/b = 0.793, which

is the l 1-term value. However, to bring the
residual terms into the c o m p u t a t i o n

C .

1 L
. . .
~ B

5.0
. .
~(0.10)

= c Z

N,(max)

N,(min)

1.0751
1.3560

=
=

15.915

--K"n=

m+

Nu
Du

(15.915)(0.000501)

= 0.00796

= N,(max) -- C 2 ~

K__~n

m+

0.00796 -

(15.915) 2 (0.000016) = 0.00398

D,(max)

1 Z

K~

10(0.022711) =

0.22711

m+l

D,(min)

= D,(max) -- ~ Nr (max) = 0.22711 -- 0.07960 = 0.14751

X/b(max)

1.0751 + 0.00796
1.3560 + 0.14751

1.0831
1.5035

1.0751 + 0.0040
1.0791
=
1.3560 + 0.2271
1.583[

h/b(min)
k/b(mean)

0.720

0.682

0.720 + 0.682
= 0.701
2

1.2
CASE

]2,

/3 = 1.0, k .

1.0

UPPER

LIMIT-~

.......

I.......

0.8

_k
b
0.6
~ / ~

__A

i/~/

0.4

.///

I
x,,

~X

0",,

o---

Xoo '

eToo

0.2

0
0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0
:

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

I0.0

I1.0

L/B

" FIG."11.--EFI/ECTIVE BREADTHCOMPUTEDBY ELEVEN TERM SERIES AND LIMITSCOMPUTEDBY INFINITESERIES

EFFECTIVE

BREADTH

CONCEPT

423

All the data given on Figs. 1 to 5 for. concentrated loads were c o m p u t e d i n this manner, the
values listed being the mean values. For illustrative purposes, the computed values for X/b (11), X/b
(max), X/b (rain), and X./b (mean) for Case IV, fl = 0.10, K , = 1/n 2, are tabulated in Table 1 and
plotted in Fig. 11.
TABLE 1

LIB

X/b (11)

0.5
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0

X/b (max)

X/b (min)

X/b.(mean

0.121
0.242
0.438
0.564
0.653
0.720
0:775
0.821
0.861
0.897
0.930

'0.121
0.240
0.431
0.549
0.627
0.682
0.722
0.753
0.776
0.794
0.809

0.121
0.240
0.435
0.556
0.640
0.701
0.748
0.787
0.818
0.845
0.869

0.126.
0.255
0.477
0.621
0.722 .
0.793
0.847
0.890
0.923
0.950
0.971

APPENDIX

TRANSVERSE BOUNDARIES

If the transverse boundaries of a rectangular stiffened plate field give rigid fixed support, and
the longitudinal boundaries rigid free support, then from equation (20), of Reference [8], the unit
vertical shear q at the transverse boundaries is
P 4Vt_____2

~ = bp r2

V~l -t- 71

1 cosh a

-~

cos j3 sin n rby

o~

sinh a -1- ~ sin B

where n = 1, 3, 5, 7 . . . .
a
b
ia
i~

=
=
=
=

co, a n d where, as defined !n Ref. [8]

length of plate field width of plate field

.
unit stiffness in a-direction
unit stiffness in b-direction

P = virtual side ratio - a

and" thus the proportion of total ioad carried b y

both transverse boundaries is
2Q

~b

n -- torsion coefficient-- ~ I ~

z,0
I~

v/1 +

The corresponding relation if the transverse

.boundaries give rigid free support (instead of
rigid fixed support) is
.2Q

I ~ and I,b = m o m e n t s of inertia of plate flanges

alone, without including stiffener webs
The total shear supported b y a' transverse
boundary is then -..

~ ' ~ 1 16%/2 _/;--7---, 1 cosh a -- cos/~

= Z_. ;
v i
.__-- -.--d_-\
. s m n a - t - ~ sm/~

Z 1

8%/2 % / ~ - - ~

1 sinh a -k- ~ sin 13

The values of these proportions are tabulated in

Table 2 and plotted in Fig. 10. Decks and bott o m s t r u c t u r e would normally be regarded as
continuous plate fields, with fixity at the transverse boundaries.

424

EFFECTIVE

BREADTH CONCEPT

As an example, if .the distance between transverse bulkheads were equal to the beam, and if unit
stiffness of transverse and longitudinal stiffening members of a ship bottom structure were identical,
so that p = 1.0, t h e n in accordance with Fig. 9, at least 75~o of the buoyancy load would appear as
concentrated loads transmitted to the ship sides b y transverse bulkheads.

TABLE

p\n
0.25
0.50
1.00
2.00
3.00
4,00

1.00
0.952
0.904
0.798
0.529
0.362
0.271

2.

VALUES

OF

Transverse 'edges fixed

0.5
0.0
0.948
0.942
0.896
0.8831:.
0.780
0.757'
0.474
0.395
0.313
0~255
0~235
0.192

2O
P
.....
Transverse edges free1,00
0.5
0.0
0.864
0.883
0.904
0.730
0.763
0.811
0.500
0.500
0.500
0.270
0.237
0.186
0.181
0.157
0.127
0.136
0.11.8
0.096

REFERENCES
[1] Schade, H e n r y A., " T h e Effective Breadth
of Stiffened Plating Under Bending Loads,"
Transactions of The Society of Naval Architects
and Marine Engineers, Vol. 59, 1951.
[2] Hovgaard, W., "A New T h e o r y of the
Distribution of Shear Stresses in Riveted and
Welded Connections and Its Application to Discontinuities in the Structure of a Ship," Transactions of The Institute of Naval Architects, Vol.
73, 1931.
[3] Vasta, John, "Structural Tests on Passenger Ship S.S. President Wilson--Interaction Between Superstructure and Main Hull Girder,"
Transactions of The Society of Naval Architects
and Marine Engineers, Vol. 57, 1949.
[4] Bhich, H. H., "Non-linear Distribution of
Bending Stresses Due to Distortion of the Cross
Section," American Society of Mechanical Engineers, November 30 to December 5, 1952, Paper
No. 52A-7.

[5] Holt, Marshall, "Structural Tests of

Models Representing a Steel Ship Hull with
Aluminum Alloy and Steel Superstructures,"
New England Section of The Society of Naval
Architects and Marine Engineers, March 29,
1949.
[6] Shepheard~ R. B., and Turnbull, James,
"Structural Investigations in Still Water on the
.Welded Tanker Neverita," Transactions of The
Institute of Naval Architects, 1946.
[7] Vedeler, G., "The-Distribution of Load in
Longitudinal Strength CalcuIations," Transactions of The Institute of Naval Architects,
1946.
[8] Schade, H. A., " T h e OrthogonaUy Stiffened Plate under Uniform Lateral Load," Journal
of Applied Mechanics, December 1940.
[9] Knopf, K., "Theorie und Anwendung der
Unendlichen Reihen," Springer, Berlin, 1931.

DISCUSSION
MR. JOHN VASTA, Member: This is an import a n t sequel to the paper t h a t the author presented
two years ago on the same subject. With the refinements and extensions made over the previous
work, this paper should prove of value in the solution of m a n y ship structural design problems.
The writer's principal c o m m e n t on this presentation is confined to his t r e a t m e n t of the deckhouse.problem. When the writer presented his
paper on the experimental results of the steamship
President Wilson, 4 he expressed t h e thought t h a t
* Author's bibliography, Reference [3].

what was needed then was the development of an

appropriate theory to help explain the experimental data. I t is most gratifying indeed to say
t h a t this hope has been answered, at least in part.
We have seen the theoretical work of Bleich [4]
which was sponsored b y the Ship Structure Committee. Now the author has given us an additional theoretical slant which is both unique and
challenging.
The author employs the effective breadth concept to predict the nonuniform stress distribution
of Fig. 7 of the paper. In so doing, however, he

EFFECTIVE BREADTH
has introduced some simplifying assumptions
which m a y be open to question notwithstanding
the remarkable numerical agreement he obtains
between calculations and experimental values.
I t is true t h a t the theory developed b y Bleich requires a knowledge of the spring coiastant of the
main deck structure supporting the house, and it
is. equally true t h a t the determination of this
spring constant admittedly presents a difficult
practical problem. However, the present paper
does not seem to have removed the difficulty, it
merely hides it. The assumption t h a t the curvat u r e ' o f the deckhouse is zero does not, in fact,
eliminate the spring constant of the deck structure as a variable. I t is believed t h a t this quant i t y still remains implicit in the effective breadth
solution.
If the author would refer to the writer's discussion of Captain Wright's paper ~ in 1952, he
would note, in Figs. 22 and 23 of t h a t paper, t h a t
the particular behavior of Models Nos. 7 and 10
clearly establishes the fact t h a t a deckhouse can
bend to the same Curvature as the main hull. In
comparing Model 4 with 7, and Model 8 with 10
of t h a t reference, i t is noted t h a t the deck stiffness
provided in those models, a factor not easily
recognized in the present paper, brought a b o u t
significant changes in behavior.
-The writer believes that, b y keeping stiffness
out in the open where its effect can be evaluated,
changes in design can be assessed more accurately.
There still remain m a n y obstacles, as y e t unsurmounted, in the way of determining, accurately
the main deck stiffness of a ship girder, and any
reasonable guess would seem almost as valid as
the zero curvature concept advanced by the
author. The latter concept m a y be a good approximation of actual conditions in m a n y cases,
b u t in others it would be far from correct. Again
the writer pleads for continued interest and support of this problem, to the end t h a t sufficient
experimental data m a y be gathered to be able to
answer Admiral Coehrane's well-known refrain
t h a t "while analyses are essential, the realities
of life should not be overlooked."
MR. JOHN P. COMSTOCK, Member: T-he behavior of a deckhouse will usually lie somewhere
between one approaching Fig. 6 (c) of the paper
as it apparently did in the steamship-President
Wilson, and one approaching Fig.'6 (a), as it apparently did in the liner United States, depending
entirely on the rigidity of the support of the deckhouse b y the main hull. This is clearly shown in
Mr. Vasta's discussion of Captain Wright's paper, 5
" R e s e a r c h u n d e r the Shil~ Structure Committee," ~y E. A.
Wright, F i n n Jonassen, a n d H. G. Acker, T r a n s . . S N A M E , vol. 60,
1952, pp. 223-247, discussion by John Vasta, ibid., pp. 254-258.

CONCEPT

425

where in three cases the behavior of Fig. 6 (a)

was .attained. Bleich has derived a theory for
this which, as the author says with commendable
restraint, "as a design procedure, offers some
difficulties." B u t to say t h a t this problem can
be "easily hahdled," even as an approximation,
b y assuming t h a t "the true curvature of the deckhouse is zero" amounts simply to assuming an
arbitrary answer to the problem, and is no solution at all.
There is no short cut to the problem of the
stress in a deekhouse which by-passes a.quantitative s t u d y of the rigidity of its a t t a c h m e n t to the
main hull.
MR. LYNDON CRAWFORD, Associate kIember:
The clarity of this and the author's 1951 paper is
greatly admired by the writer, hence he is particularly sorry t o take issue on the matte~" of deck1210uses.

As Mr. Vasta has said we have now observed

in model form both hogging and sagging ""deflections" ofdeckhouses with the hull under Virtually
a constant hogging moment. T h e framing stiffness has been shown t o be the dominant factor
followed b y the house length. This is as theorized
b y Bleieh. To assume, in approximation, t h a t
the house will not arch, it would seem, might breed
underdesign in the hous~ elements p'articularly
with regard to elastic stability.
We actually have observed on our model at
Reed Research stress distributions similar to t h a t
shown on Fig. 7, at the ends of high deckhouses;
b u t the house stress line seems to havd straightened out as we work toward the midship section.
I t is believed t h a t this distribution and its variation are strongly identified with the shear-lag
p h e n o m e n o n . Nevertheless, on the question of
long deckhouses the writer finds it difficult to assimilate Class I. Evefi if a long house were to
remain straight, it would have to be loaded b y
vertical forces from the hull to counteract the
eounterflexing m o m e n t exerted b y the longitudinal shear stresses a b o u t the house's own
neutral axis. B u t this would be equivalent, in
the ideal Class I, t o a series of loads in the ydirection applied to each flange. I t is believed
t h a t this would change the nature of the stress
function.
T h e writer believes t h a t this lag in tensile
stresses, d u e to sheaf, could be 'investigated "furt h e r - - p a r t i c u l a r l y with regard to short high
houses. For this reason, he is interested in the
study of l o n g i t u d i n a l bulkheads in this paper
(Class VI). Except for the restriction t h a t one
edge of the web be positioned at t h e vessel's
neutral axis, this is the case of any short e r e c t i o n - -

426

EFFECTIVE

BREADTH

a very i m p o r t a n t problem. W h a t are the author's

feelingson a generalization of this Case, bearing in
mind the restriction of his 1951 paper; i.e., t h a t
a't: the plate end with the stress function chosen
as a sine series in x, the shear stress does not
vanish as in reaiity it might? M i g h t it not be
possible to introduce corrective functions to improve this and the admittedly difficult m a t t e r of
finite longitudinal stresses at the edge. B = 2b
of Fig. 8? Corrective functions were used to good
advantage in the work of Conrad, Honsinger,
Hinners and Yeh in their work under Professor
H o v g a a r d in the 1930's.
W h a t e v e r the future extensions of this work
m a y be, it is believed t h a t .the author is to be
greatly admired for extending the concept of
"effective b r e a d t h . " I t seems to lead to a neatness in terminal results t h a t is refreshing b y comparison With much theoretical work. Thus, the
designer gets real tools before the tide runs o u t :
PROF. HENRY C. AI)AMS I I , M e m b e r : This
paper is a valuable extension of the author's 1951
paper b e f o r e t h e Society. T h e application of
Case IV should prove valuable in determining the
a m o u n t of doubling, if any, to be fitted along the
hatch side, especially on the lower decks. I t is
interesting to note the little difference in this
case in the v:alue of k / b for the uniform and the
single load; i.e., at the middle and the ends of a
uniformly loaded fixed-end beam.
The application of the i d e a s of this paper to
the effectiveness of long longitud, inal bulkheads
seems to lead to rather a higher value than the
available tests would seem to indicate.
"
The L B P of the Neverita = 460 ft. As the
bulkheads extend beyond the q u a r t e t p o i n t s , L
for Fig. 9 would be 230 ft. T h e distance from the
neutral axis to the deck is about"17 ft = B.
L I B = 13.5 and S ~ / S = 0.98 approx. As the
b o t t o m shell and deck plating contribute the
m a j o r portion of the section modulus, this reduction, 2 per cent o~ the longitudinal bulkhead area,
would not affect greatly the section modulus of the
ship girder.
In the t r e a t m e n t of deckhouses is $1, the section
modulus of the deckhouse 100 per cent effective,
to be calculated in the usual ~vay; i.e., leversto"
actual centers of the material?
There seems to be no question b u t t h a t in a
longitudiflally'framed vessel the b u o y a n t forces
and the loads will tend to be concentrated at the
bulkheads'and t h a t the ~essel will be similar to a
beam under concentrated and distributed" loads.
This will'iricrease the bending m0ment: s o m e w h a t
b u t the form of the curve will more nearly approximate the usual one than t h a t of a single

CONCEPT

concentrated load. T h a t is, k n (reference [1]

of the paper) should be more nearly t h a t for uniform load t h a n a concentrated load so t h a t X / B
of the ship girder is a b o u t 97 per cent.
However, if the effective b r e a d t h concept is applied locally to the botto m plating in a longitudinally framed vessel, would it not explain the
persistent failures at bulkheads?
T h e b o t t o m shell and framing of t h e Neverita
consists of the following: (a) Transverses spaced
126 in.; (b) shell longitudinals 17 in. b y 4 in. b y
4 in. b y 0.52 in./0.63 in. channels with most of
the. faying flange removed, spaced 33 in.; (c)
shell plating 0.67 in.
Owing to continuity, the longitudinals m a y be
considered as fixed at the bulkheads and nearly
so at "the transverses. Assuming complete fixity
at both ends, for the ends cL = 0.21 X 126 X 2 -53 in., c L / B = 53/33 = 1.6; /3 = 0.10, neglecting the outstanding flange of the channels.
C a s e I I I . ~ = 0.365; ~B = 12 in. A s 5 0 t =
33 in., under the time-honored concept of effective breadth, the plating would have been considered 100 per cent effective instead of 36.5 per
cent.
At the.center of the span c L / B = 2.21, ~, =
0.770, kB = 25 in.
This brings up the question as to which ),
should be used in calculating ia and ib to find the
proportion of total load carried b y the transverse edges, Fig. 10 of the paper, and for crossstiffened plating in the author's 1951 p a p e r before
the Society.
Assoc. PROF. J. H. EVANS, Member: There is
a great need these days for more effective two-way
communication between the highly theoretical
research scientist a n d . t h e practical design engineer. I t would be m u t u a l l y beneficial to both.
The author's efforts in this direction, as evidenced
bY this and his 195]~ paper, are to be commended
highly.
In the present paper, t h e writer is pleased to
note the addition of three new cases for which
effective breadth d a t a have been worked out and
presented, as well as the inclusion, for all six,
of the triangular load characteristic of bulkheads.
For concentrated loads, /3-factors of 0.01, 0.10,
and 1.00 are much more convenient for interpolation than the values given in the preceding paper, s
The. application of the effective breadth concept
to deckhouses, as an example, i s appealing if
understood for w h a t it is; namely, a gross estimating procedure.
Probably. the most gross of the features underlying the method as here applied is the lack of
means to account precisely for the support reac-

EFFECTIVE

BREADTH

CONCEPT

427

One last word of caution seems in order with

tion provided b y the deck to the deckhouse. As
yet, the writer is unaware of the exact significance regard to the uninhibited use of the d a t a so exof this factor, b u t it should not be inferred t h a t cellently presented, and this is to the effect t h a t
because in Vasta's a n d / o r H o l t ' s experiments the ships with their shape' fining toyvard the ends are
"deekhouse remained almost straight" this is not akin to open-ended box girders, and shear
usually so. Naturally this depends on m a n y as- transmission b~twe'en sides and longitudinal bulkpects of the deck s t r u c t u r e n o t leasf of Which is heads and b o t t o m and decks, for example, cannot
the distance of the deckhouse side from the tell the whole story b u t it can convey a large p a r t
vessel's side as compared to the distance inboard of i t .
of the next girder, longitudinal bulkhead, or the
MR. GEORG V E D E L E R ~ Member: T h e author's
like, supporting the transverse deck stiffeners.
a
t
t
a c k on the deekhouse problem is interesting,
If deckhouse bending is practically significant, it
would be well if this deckhouse offset value could although the explanation is not quite clear. As
be included as one of the p a r a m e t e r s in a n y esti- far as the writer understands, the center line Of the
mation of structural performance. At least some house deck is assumed to be equivalent to the
limiting values of deckhouse side offset as a pro- free edges of the T - b e a m flanges in Fig. 1 of the
portion of the vessel'sbeam might be proposed for paper, while the stress at the bond is the same as'
which the theory presented in this paper is pre- at the upper edge of the hull side. These assumpsumed to be adequate. In other words, when is tions m a y be said to be valid for a. superstructure
with very weak side frames and deck b e a m s ' a n d
a "deckhouse" not a "deckhouse?" '
In transversely framed deckhouses well clear without transverse bulkheads. The superstrue=
of a n y openings the conditions of "Case III-~. ture m a y then flatten in the transverse direction,
Multiple W e b s " m a y be closest to reality in t h a t enabling its deck to stay without curvature in the
no transverse c0ntraction is permitted b y the longitudinal direction.
I n the Building Rules 1953 of t h e Norwegian
deck beams and side frames. However, in way
of deck openings or for the case of widely spaced Veritas (Section 5, B la) a similar reasoning has
transverse stiffening members, as well as for the been used to estimate the influence o f ' a sffperreason of no transverse stress carryover men- structure on the longitudinal strength of t h e
tioned b y the author, Case I should be" very closely hull. I t is a rather rough estimate, being the
first step in this direction made b y a classification
applicable.
The s t a t e m e n t of the numerical example society, b u t should be much better t h a n the' prebased o n the President Wilson d a t a purports to vious rules which considered a superstructure to
take the deckhouse girth as "twice the distance be either fully effective (with increasing stress
from the bond at the promenade deck to the according to Navier right to the top d e c k ) or
c e n t e r l i n e at the navigating bridge level." I t completely absent. This was the meaning of the
seems more justifiable to measure the girth only previous terms long and short superstructure,
to the casing instead. I n fact, the figure of 91 ft which have now been substituted by. a confor the girth seems to indicate t h a t this was w h a t tinuously, varying efficiency of the superstrucactually was done. Also, it is felt t h a t the boat ture. e
If one wishes to distinguish between a superdeck within the deckhouse should be included as a
shear-carrying member. Surely it is. Adding structure and a deekhouse (with considerably less
it brings the girth m e a s u r e m e n t up to 107 ft and breadth t h a n the main hull) there seems to be r/o
gives a ~/b value of 0.53; ~ then is 5700 psi in- other way t h a n considering the spring constant
stead of 5500 psi, compared to 5880 psi, as' meas- of the hull deck. As can be seen f r o m ' t h e model
ured. The writer hopes he will not be aceused test results published b y Mr. Vasta, 5 the 'stress.
of permitting the numbers to sway the j u d g m e n t distribution is so much affected b y transverse
for t h e y are suspiciously and unnaturally close. stiffening of the main deck a s to m a k e the a u t h o r ' s
I t is interesting to note in the ease of the approach too incomplete. I t woflld be very wellongitudinal bulkheads of the Neverita t h a t the come if the influence of main deck stiffness could
stress distribution conf0rms well with t h a t pre- be included in a siriaple approximate form.
When the author's approach meets the test
dicted from shear-lag theory. T h e distribution
found in the eases of Our T-2 tankers with corru- results of the President Wilson, this can only be
gated bulkheads as tested b y the Maritime Com- explained b y assuming t h a t the stiffening effect
mission seems to be more nearly in agreement of deckhouse frames and beams happens to be
withthe
classical straight-line b e a m theory. counterbalanced b y the spring effect of the upper
6 For a m o r e complet'e ex'planation see the writer's, recent paper, in
T h e vertical stiffness of the .bulkhead in its own
the T r a n s a c t i o n s of t h e N o r t h E a s t ' C o a s t Institution of Engineers
plane m u s t be i m p o r t a n t in this m a t t e r .
a n d Shipbuilders, Newcastle-on-Tyne, vol. 70 p. 50.

428

EFFECTIVE BREADTH CONCEPT

main deck. This single example does not seem

to be sufficient to prove the method's reliability.
The author's application of the effective breadth
method to longitudinal bulkheads also seems to
be somewhat too simplified. I t is difficult to understand why the load distribution in the longitudinal direction should be sinusoidal with zero
value at every transverse bulkhead, or why the
distance between transverse bulkheads shoul d be
treated as equivalent to the distance between
zero m o m e n t s . If the reasoning be applied to
cellular double bottoms, say, it would make the
webs of the longitudinal girders rather inefficient
because of the narrow floor spacing. Or if it be
applied to flanged stiffeners of any kind strengthened by tripping knees, it would make the flange
less effective the closer the spacing of the knees.
At every transverse bulkhead or floor or knee
one would probably have to assume v = 0, which
would retain only one of the harmonic terms of
the stress function. For the bending moment,
however, several other terms would have to be
used because the moment is not necessarily zero
at each transverse stiffener. This suggests t h a t
the solution of t h e Lagrange equation for the
stress function in these cases cannot be expressed
as the product of an x-term and a y-term, but
m a y be more comlJlicated and Fourier series m a y
not be applicable.
In any case it might be worthwhile in some of
these cases to try Prof. Lockwood Taylor's shearlag method. 7 This method is based on the distortion of the section caused by the shear stress
and operates directly with the load per longitudinal foot run in way of the section. The
influence of transverse bulkheads m a y be estimated by determining the distribution of loads as
dealt with in the last section of the paper.
The distribution of shear stress over a .ship
section with longitudinal bulkheads is statically
indeterminate, but can" be calculated by the principle of minimum energy. For a rectangular box
With two longitudinal bulkheads placed halfway
between the centerline and the sides and with
.breadth of box equal to twice the depth, the
maximum shear stress at the neutral axis will be
25 per cent greater in the bulkheads than in the
sides if the box is made of constant plate thickness
all over. -If t h e bulkhead plating is only half the
thickness of the plating elsewhere, the maximurn
shear stress in the bulkheads will be 30 per cent
greater than the maximum shear stress in the
sides. I f the bulkheadS' are shifted to the third
points of the breadth (i.e., center tank of same
v As explained in " T h e Theory of Longitudinal Bending of Ships,"
by Lockwood Taylor, Trans. N. E a s t Coast Institution of Engineers
and Shipbuilders, vol. X L I .

breadth as side tanks), the excess in shear stress

in the two cases will be altered to 19.5 and 38
per cent, respectively. The method used by the
author does not consider the 'thwartship position
of the bulkhead, and would give the same effective.
breadth for the ship side as for the bulkhead.
The. method gives useful and important information, especially with simple beam problems.
But it has its limitations; e.g., the effect of stiffeners of any kind is not easily predictable, nor
is the effect of cutouts. Aeronautical scientists
have attacked similar problems in different ways,
and naval architects will have to do the same.
DR. G. SCHNADEL, Member: The author's
papeI is a valuable contribution to the problem of
effective breadth in ship structures. I t is amazing
that the i m p o r t a n t results of the theory are now
being used in shipbuilding all over the world.
For a long time this problem had been considered
essential for technical and marine construction
only in Germany. Several authors in Germany
investigated the different cases during the years
1924-1930, Th. yon K~rm~n, Metzer, Schnadel,
Chwalla, and some others. A year ago, Getz,
Norway, also gave an important summary of all
work produced on this matter. The results are
in accord with the investigations of the author.
He has improved upon the normal cases for concentrated loads of girders which are now in agreement with the results obtained by the authors
mentioned. Furthermore the present author has
given new results concerning the effective breadth
of superstructures and deckhouses. He has explained the differences in the loading of superstructures and deckhouses very clearly.
However, it seems to the writer that the calculation of the author should be more refined for
the case of superstructures and deckhouses. The
shear stress at the end of a superstructure is very
high, as the writer has found by measurement and
calculation, and it is not in agreement with Case Iof the paper. There should be determined special
series for the stress distribution in length direction of the superstructures or deckhouscs to get
useful results.
To get a useful solution three points should be
considered. The breadth for the calculation of
the effective width in a superstructure is composed of the sum of the height of the superstructure and the real breadth of the deck. For the
calculation of the effective breadth of a deckhouse
the 'distance of the deckhouse sides from the
ship side is to be added. Using the shear-lag for
this, assumed breadth s m a y be calculated in the
normal way.
s The effective'breadth.

EFFECTIVE

BREADTH

COMMODORE SCHADE: Several of the discussers focused their attention somewhat critically
upon the proposal concerning the deck-house, problem, and it is simpler to answer these comments
together, rather than individually. T h e i r g e n e r a l
theme is t h a t it is untenable to propose to t r e a t t~e
deck house as if it does not bend, and several discussers point out t h a t deck houses in fact do bend.
Perhaps it would h a v e been better to have worded
the porposal otherwise. If one were t 9 say t h a t
it is proposed to accept the experimental fact t h a t
the deck house does bend but to ignore the effect of
this bending upon the stress in the deck upon
which the house rests, perhaps the proposal would
have been more acceptable to those who criticize
it. The two wordings come to exactly, the same
thing, of course, in so far as design procedure is
concerned.
Even if the deck house bends completely with
the same curvature as the ship girder assumes, the
effect of this bending is small, in so far as the
stress in the deck is concerned. Now, since in fact
the bending can never be as great as would be involved in a perfect fit between house and deck
curvature-because of the finite spring constant of
the deck beams, ignoring the deck house bending
was suggested as an acceptable design procedure.
The following must be noted:
(a) I t is proposed only to ignore the bendin
of the house structure a b o u t its own neutral axis,
but not to ignore the resultant of the longitudinal
stress pattern across the section of the house.
(b) I t is proposed to take account of the effect
of shear lag in the house b y using effective-breadth
data. This effect, usually ignored, is more significant than the bending effect for the problem at
hand.
(c) ;i'his reasoning is applieabie only to determination of the design stress in the deck. I t will;
of course, produce no useful information concerning the stress pattern in .the deck-house top, for
which a much more elaborate investigation is
necessary, if an estimate of this feature needs to be
made. For most practical designs this is a m a t t e r
of no consequence.
Most of Mr. Vasta's comments have been answered. The method of Bleieh is certainly interesting and important, so far as in'vestigating
the problem of the distribution of stress within the
deck house is concerne d, but the point of view of
the author is t h a t its complexities are.quite unnecessary for the usual design process, the objective of which is to get a value for stress in the
strength deck.
With respect to Mr. Comstoek's c o m m e n t , the
author cannot agree t h a t the proposal with respect
to the deck house amounts simply to assuming an

CONCEPT

429

a r b i t r a r y answer to the problem. I t is no more

arbitrary to assume t h a t the edge of a short shearloaded girder, which is what the deck h o u s e
amounts to, remains straight t h a n it is t o a s s u m e
t h a t plane seefion.s of the girder remain plane untier load; which is the Navier assumption inherent
in the.method defended b y Mr. Comstoek. There
[g no short cut to the problem of the stress in a
deck house, as Mr. Comstoek says, b u t no proposal to solve the problem of the stress in a deck
house wag intended. The proposal made in the
paper is simply t h a t of assessing the effect of the
deck house upon the stress in the deck, which is
quite a different matter.
With respect to Mr. Crawford's comments, it is
quite true t h a t there is inferred a series of loads, or
rather a distributed loading, in the y-direetion.
This is the equivalent of the stress pattern at the
centerline of the flang e in Case I, which.is compatible with the stress function used.
The author would be a~pprehensive of accepting
Mr. Crawford's suggestion t h a t t h e longitudinalbulkhead case is the case of any short erection on
t h e ship. In the longitudinal bulkhead case, we
ignore the resultant of the longitudinal stresses in
the bulkheads, if it exists, b y assuming t h a t ' t h e
neutral axis of the bulkhead is the same as t h a t of
the ship,.but we do take account of the bending
m o m e n t provided b y the distribution of stresses in
the bulkhead plating. This is the meaning of
the proposal in the paper.
On the other hand, for the short erection such
as a deck house, we do just the opposite. We
take account only of the effect of the resultant of
the distributed longitudinal stresses in the deckhouse section upon the bending of the ship girder
and ignore the bending moment, if any, contributed by the stress distribution. In some cases,
more complicated than those considered in the
paper, it m a y be desirable to take both effects into
account. The generalization t h a t Mr. Crawford
m a y have had in mind, and with which the author
w o u l d eoneure in general, is t h a t except for the
ship's sides which m a y be regarded as the webs of
the ship girder, all other components of the ship
girder are most reasonably treated as shear loaded
plates. Mr. Crawford is certainly correct in
pointing out, as did Professor Sehnadel, t h a t the
stresses in the ends of these erections are not given
by the stress function used. Corrective functions
would have to be employed if this effect were to be
investigated.
The quantitative computations made by P r o lessor Adams on the longitudinal b u l k h e a d s of the
Neverita are interesting, and confirm the general
thought t h a t the effectiveness of longitudinal
bulkheads in a normal ship structure is close to

430

EFFECTIVE

BREADTH

unity. I n r e a l i t y , it is probable t h a t most longitudinal bulkheads show some lag effect in the
stress "distribution, b u t the significance.of this is
submerged when only the effect upon the stiffness
of the ship girder as a whole is taken into account.
This is because the section-modulus ratio is higher
t h a n the effective-breadth ratio, as shown in Fig.
9 of the paper.
In respect to the question of Professor Adams,
the section modulus $1 with the deck house 100 per
cent effective would be c o m p u t e d in the usual way
for use as proposed in the paper.
With respect to the question of the effect of the
concentration of loads at transverse bulkheads,
Professor Adams is incorrect in his assumption
t h a t the shape of the bending-moment curve will
more nearly approximate a usual m o m e n t curve
than t h a t of a single concentrated load. When
these concentrations are taken into account, the
bending-moment c u r v e exhibits a sharp peak at
each transverse bulkhead. At present, one of our
students is making an investigation as to the
actual magnitudes of these stress raisers at the
bulkheads, and preliminary results indicate t h a t
they m a y be very significant. T h e effect of the
lessened stiffness of the longitudinal girders in the
ship's b o t t o m at the point of support at the bulkheads is additive to this effect, and Professor
Adams' computations are v e r y illuminating in
this respect.
Finally in answer to Professor Adams' last
question, the value Of ,k to be used in calculating ia and ib to find the proportion of total
load carried b y transverse edges in using Fig. 10
should be t h a t which is consistent with distributed
loading. T h e reason for this is t h a t the distribution of load along the supporting edges of the
cross-stiffened plate panel is dependent almost
entirely upon the deflection surface and not upon
the local effects of the concentrated loads at the
supports.
Professor Evans' characterization of the application' of the effective-breadth concept to the
deck house as "gross estimating procedure" is
very apt. The speculations concerning the significance of the support reaction provided by the
deck to the deck house are interesting, b u t have, as
inferred earlier, only a second-order significance
with resl6eet to the problem at hand. There are
good arguments in favor of using Case I I I rather
t h a n Case I on some deck houses, b u t the difference would be quite u n i m p o r t a n t quantitatively. Professor E v a n s is correct in his statement
t h a t the girth should be measured only to the
casing in the President Wilson, "and this actually
is w h a t was done; and his suggestion concerning
the inclusion of the boat-deck material and the

CONCEPT

allowance for the use of aluminum are refinements which certainly can be introduced if desired.
T h e author has been unable to find the reference
by Professor Vedeler in the 1953 Building Rules of
the Norwegian Veritas, but does concur with him
t h a t almost a n y proposal which will regard the
effect of a deck house u p o n m a i n - d e c k stress as a
continuous function of the deck-house length is to
be preferred over previous rules which considered
only two cases; viz., a short house or a long house.
Professor V edelerhas misunderstood thesuggestion
shear-load distribution in long bulkheads m a y be
regarded as sinusoidal. Actually, the shear curve
for any normal vessel afloat is usually a two-lobed
curve with o p t i m u m values near ship's quarter
points, and the suggestion is merely t h a t this be
regarded as a sine curve. There is no inference
t h a t shear in longitudinal bulkheads must come
to zero at every transverse bulkhead; in fact this
obviously would be impossible.
Again, the author is grateful to Professor
Schnadel for his interest in discussing the paper
since Professor Sehnadel first aroused his interest in
these and kindred matters m a n y years ago in Germ a n y . He is certainly correct in pointing out t h a t
the shear stress at the ends of the superstructure or
deck house are very high, and these high values
will not be reflected in the results of the method
proposed. This is a m a t t e r of investigation of
deck-house structure itself, and its bond to the
deck, which is not the problem discussed i n t h e
paper. Professor Schnadel is probably correct in
suggesting t h a t the distance from the deck-house
side to the ship side should be included as p a r t of
the girth.
In conclusion, the author is grateful to all those
who commented on this paper. Admittedly, it
deals with m a t t e r s which are not simple, b u t the
only purpose of bringing out the more complex
elements of the situation is to justify and give
confidence in the final results. These results involve simply the use of shear-lag d a t a for a variety
of practical configurations, together with simple
methods of using these d a t a which a n y designer
can apply.

CHAIRMAN DAVIDSON: Commodore Schade has

given us again a v e r y interesting and stimulating
paper on a subject I assume m u s t be very close
to his heart because he is quite proficient at it and
has worked at it for a long time. I t is, of course,
an extension of his previous work.- T h e Society
is indebted to Commodore Schade for this. new
paper on this subject, and I should l i k e to thank
h i m on behalf of the Society.