The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

: RegulationsGoverning Freeboard a iene A aT HE important position held by the United States among mari- time nations of the world, as a result of the stupendous building program so expeditionsly carried out during the last three years, has had the effect of bringing all matters rela- tive to and affecting merchant ship- ping into the limelight. Of these matters the load line question certain- ly is not the least important. Although valuable papers, from which the development of freeboard rules _ and regulations can be traced, and which together form a very complete historical record of load line legisla- tion in Great Britain, have appeared from time to time in the transactions of our kindred society, the Institution of Naval Architects, this very impor- tant question of freeboard does not seem to have received, at the annual meetings of the society, the degree of © attention it merits. The only paper dealing with the subject, to be found in the transactions, is one contributed in 1897 by Lewis Nixon, entitled "Reg- ulations for Loading Vessels.' Bill Awakens Public Anterest The Load Line bill, at present before the senate, introduced with a view to bringing the United States into line with the other. maritime nations in the matter of compulsory load lines for merchant shipping, has awakened . public interest in this question. It was considered a short paper giving a brief history of load line legislation in other countries and outlining the development of the various rules and regulations with regard to freeboard therefore might prove of general and historical value to all interested in the safety of life and property at sea, and mat ieast serve as a basis for discus- sion among the members of this so- ciety. The freeboard of a vessel usually is defined as the height of the side above the load water line at the mid- dle of her length measured from the top of the deck at side, and marks the limit of loading which is con- sidered consistent with the mainte- nance of a proper factor of safety un- der all conditions of wind and weather. Freeboard rule and. regulations are an endeavor to define this limit, and From a paper read before the Society of N Architects and Marine Engineers, Te evel @). 'minimum BY DAVID ARNOTT one can readily understand that the problem of fixing a safe load line for a complicated floating structure, mov- ing through and supported in a con- stantly varying degree along its length by a fluid which is itself in motion, does not lend itself to simple mathe- matical treatment. Considerations are Obvious There are, however, obvious and es- sential considerations, which must be kept in view in determining the proper freeboard for any vessel: (a) Provision of that height of plat- form which will prevent any un- due tendency to ship water aboard with consequent deck dam- age and which will insure the crew getting about the deck in heavy weather with, if not com- fort, at least comparative safety. Preserve Ot displacement, "i. ¢., re- Serve Or Spare buoyancy, must be provided as a margin against possible leakage and entry of water into the holds. Freeboard, as determined from the above considerations, has been termed the geometric freeboard and. is the freeboard allowable having regard to the vessel's dimensions, form and_ type. (c) The vessel must have a sufficiency of structural strength to render _her safe when loaded to the min- imum or geometric freeboard. Acs cal ship, like any other structure, must be designed for the load to be carried, freeboard and strength cannot be disassociated and the inclusion. of a definite standard of strength in any freeboard regulations is essential. (d) If the vessel has a deficiency of structural strength as compared , with that of the freeboard stand- ard, the freeboard must be in- creased in order that the reduced load carried will render her rela- tively as safe as the standard vessel, Although the present Load Line bill appears to be the first serious attempt to provide load line legislation for this country, the desirability of placing some limit on loading seems to have been recognized for many years prior to 1917, at which United States shipping definite time board the took 268 action and issued instructions that load lines be marked on all vessels building and to be built tor -the Emergency Fleet corporation. Marine underwrit- ers, as one would expect, had always endeavored to see that the loading of vessels in which they. were particu- larly interested was kept within reas- onable limits, and their surveyors had instructions to report cases where, in their opinion, vessels were overloaded to an undesirable extent. The Amer- ican' Bureau of Shipping's "old rules" emphasized the importance of adhering to general principles by which the amount of freeboard for safety might be determined, and contained a gen- eral table of freeboard allowances which varied from 1% inches per foot of depth of hold at 8 feet to 334 inches per foot at a registered depth of 30 feet for full scantling vessels, with one-half of this allowance for hurricane deck vessels. In the case of vessels of the latter type in which the deck below the superstructure, or hurricane deck, was the main strength deck, the minimum freeboard proposed was re- quired to be submitted to the commit- tee before classification was granted. Freeboard Law Wise Lewis Nixon, in the paper previous- ly referred to, while criticizing certain minor features of the British free- board tables in force at that time, gave expression to his own _ personal opinion regarding a compulsory load line in these words: "It must not be assumed that the general opinion of having a definite safe freeboard for vessels is wrong; for as it stands this is a very wise law. If adminis- tered impartially and without undue interference with trade, it is of the utmost value to floating property." In the discussion following the read- ing of his paper it transpired that a bill to regulate freeboards, particu- larly for lake vessels, had been intro- duced into congress some years before, but was dropped, when it was pointed out that most of the channels of the Great Lakes would not allow of ves- sels being loaded to their proper free- board. The opinion was expressed also that freeboard was not so vital a_ question in the United States as im some other countries, owing to the limited draft of harbors and exten- sive use in the coasting trade of hur-