Page 19 - Minutes of Proceedings of Civil Engineers Vol CXCV 1913-14 Part 3 Correspondence

134 coRRESpoNDENcD oN TlrE coNSTRUcrroN ot' ptinurea ol Mr. Flunter. which had aliserr bet,wecn shipowners lr,nd dockowners rvith regaril t<-r the duos clrnrgctl for the colossnl prssenger-steanrels of the yrreserrt rl:r,y, eslrccirrlly ns shipbuilders had rcrluced to l firre a,r't the prl"ct,ico of builtling stetrncls in rvlrich the deld-wciglrt cl,pa,city antl gertot'rll trctlottttuorlntiolr lvere lt thoirurlximuru, rvhile thelegistered tonnlgc, rrpolr whidr ship dues rvere pnid, rvls at il ruirrimurn. hr cotrnectiorr rvith tlre questiorr of cost, ib tvns rrot clea,r rvhy so short a dock wru{ constrrrctod 400 feet rvide, rr,s ever rvith thnt widbb, whtrtr the nrljtcerrt, belths rvele occupied, the berth l,t the north end of tlrr-r tlock woulcl not bo lorrg enough for the accornnrodrrtion of a rnorlern lirrer'. With r.egard to the ordinarly section of tlre tluny-rvnlls, Mr. flunter was in completo agreernent with the Autlurr so ftr :rs the slope from flont to back on the foundction of tho wall w:rs concerned. In a case in which he was concerned rvhoro t sirnilar slope was proposed in the design of a dock-wall, but wrr.s ornitted in construction under the advice of superior :urthority, a forward urovemcnt of the wall had resulted whiclr hrtrl c:r,used no little rrnxiety and trouble, IIe also concur.r'ed in tlro somewhat unusual projecbion of the foundation lrcyorrd tho faco of the w*ll, as well a.s the steel leinforcernent tb tho foot of th:rt projection. These ferr,tures of the design were, in his <.r1rinion, sound in plinciple and wolkmnnlike in execution. IIe regrotted, howevcr', to be compelletl to dissent from tha,t elernent of tlro design which introduccd the batter of I in l0 on prrb of ttre fnco of tho wnll. The Author stated tbat this batter extended florn ths low-rvlter lirre downn'ards, but he seemed to have dono himsulf trr irrjrrsbice in tlris, and to have represented the matter as worse than it rcnlly was, iLS Figs. 3 and 8, Plate 2 showed that the plumb portion of tho face of tho wall was errried down to a line about 6 feet below the lovel of low water. In Mr. Ilunter's view the construction of dock- wnlls with t brtter on the face was due to a mischievous tradition which lratl neither scientific basis nor practicnl vtlue. Its elfect wts slrown cl:trly irr the section of the wall in Fig. 12, Plate 2, from rvhich it n,pponred th:r,t for tbe safe berthage of a, stermer in the now tt rlock it wos lrec€ssary to insert what was described as a dummy " (plesrururbly a timbel fender with a tlrickness of 4 feet 6 inches) beiweon tlro ftcs of the lvall and tho side of theship. Such fenders wero rloulrly disrr,dvarrtageous. In the first phce, they necessitabed a sensible increase in the radius of the cranes employed for loading and dischrrging cargo or baggage, and rendered it much more dillicrrlt for passengers to enbark or disembark from gangrvays; and in tlrr,r soconrl plrce, rvhich wix nlore important, they caused con- centr'&tiou of loud l,t the particular spot in the ship's side where it