Wales

[-Dallen]

I have determined that wales are added support areas of the hull possibly around deck joints and gun decks. My research has revealed little concerning the actual location, use and number that a hull may have or be required. Most references in forums seem to assume knowledge that I  don't yet have. Could someone give a reply concerning the wale and its relation to the hull concerning its use, and how its location(s) are determined. Thanks in advance

 

dallen0121

[druxey]

More information would be helpful in providing you with an answer. What time period and country are you talking about?

[Jaager]

My observations are:

 

In warships- wales are to mitigate the weakness produced by cutting large holes in the side of a ship and are generally

at the port sills and below, since cutting a wale would negate any usefulness.  They also  resist the tendency of the hull

to hog in all ships and in warships , a source of stress would be the guns - at the side and the heaviest are just above the

waterline, so the heaviest wales are there.  The trick was to find the sweet spot- as low as possible, but not too low. The Vasa

taught European ship designers what happens if they got that wrong.

 

In the 16th C. and 17th C. the wales tended to be purely functional, and stuck out.  By the end of the time of wood and sail, the

wales were often masked by having the planking smoothly transition in cross section.  The increase in thickness of the transition

plank would add strength, but also be more expensive in both wood and carpenters' time.  I suspect that early wales that extended

below the waterline had an adverse effect of speed and handling, so they tend to be above the waterline in their lowest extent - until

 the transition technique was developed.

[Mark P]

Hi dallen;

 

To answer your question in general terms,  relating to British/American warships:

 

The wales were lengths of planking which were considerably thicker than the general exterior planking of a ship,  and so projected beyond the face of the other planks,  which makes them obvious features on both drafts and models.

 

The main wale normally followed the line of the widest part of the ship's body,  known as the line of maximum breadth.  On the majority of British and American vessels,  this was mostly vertical amidships,  and changed profile towards the bow and stern. 

 

As Jaager remarks above,  the wale was intended to counter-act 'hogging' or the tendency of the bow and stern to curve downwards over time,  leading to curvature of the keel and affecting the ship's performance.  This was caused by a combination of over-loading the ship at these points, normally with too many/too heavy cannon,  and by the fact that when at sea,  the movement of the waves often means that the ends of the vessel are not as deep in the water as the midships,  leaving the ends less well supported.

 

As a way of increasing the effectiveness of the wales in resisting this hogging tendency,  the wales were curved upwards at each end more sharply than the decks curved upwards.

 

Ships normally had one wale per deck,  with the main wale the lowest,  and those above diminishing in size.

 

The method of constructing the wales varied considerably over time,  and is one of the diagnostic features used to help date models in Museums and other collections. 

 

The upward curvature of the ship at each end is known as the 'sheer',  and was much greater in earlier centuries than in more modern times,  decreasing gradually,  until by the first quarter of the Victorian era,  most vessels were almost straight from end to end.

 

All the best,

 

Mark P

Edited October 5, 2016 by Mark P

[AntonyUK]

Hi Mark.

That is the best explanations on what a Whale is.

 

Regards Antony.

[Mike Y]

Mark, thanks for the great explainer!

Any thought on why the curvature was reduced over time?

[allanyed]

Dallen

 

As mentioned by Druxey, the country and era would help a lot. If for British ships, there is quite a bit of  information available.

 

The 1719 Establishment gives the depth, thickness, mention of hook and butt construction of the main and channel wales and also the thickness and number of diminishing strakes above and below the wales.

 

The Shipbuilders Repository (1788) and Steel's, Elements of Naval Architecture (1805) give the height of the lower edge of the main wales at the stem, dead flat, and after timber as measured from the upper edge of the rabbet for all rates.  It also gives how broad, the  number of strakes and thickness.  It gives distance from the upper edge of the main wales to the lower edge of the channel wale in midships as well as the thickness, etc. of the channel wales.  They also give thickness of the strakes above and below the main wales.   All of the above dimensions can be found in Scantlings of Royal Navy Ships.   

 

Allan

Edited October 5, 2016 by allanyed

[-Dallen]

Druxey, Jagger, Mark, Anthony, Mike and Allanyed;

 

What a response and education! Thank you Jagger and Mark for your eloquent and informative narrative concerning the wale. Thank you Allanyed for your research material. All the information and research data will become part of my running "Deck Log" that will detail my entire voyage as a builder. Druxey, my broad type and era target would be 19th century American/British warships with focus on Frigates. Tweets and flurishes to you all.

 

dallen0121

[Mark P]

Greetings dallen; gentlemen;

 

I am glad to know that several people found my post useful. 

 

Mike:  the reason for the gradual reduction in the sheer of a ship seems to be that the higher the bow and stern are built,  the more they catch the wind,  with the result that the ship will heel over more easily,  and make more leeway. 

 

In earlier centuries,  it was considered an advantage to have one's decks higher than those of an enemy,  for the purpose of shooting down at them with bows or spears etc,  whilst it was much harder for the enemy to respond.  Shipwrights therefore curved the hull upwards as much as they could.  As cannon became more important in warfare,  this height became less important,  and performance considerations drove a gradual flattening.

 

Improved construction techniques developed under Robert Seppings,  chief surveyor to the Navy,  led to the ability to build longer ships that were less likely to hog due to the greater strength of their hull structure,  thus removing the last reason to build with an upward curve.  Ships could then be made with little or no sheer.

 

All the best,

 

Mark P 

Edited October 5, 2016 by Mark P

[Chuck Seiler]

    Dealing mostly with 18th century ships, but also having worked on a 1607 vintage ship model, I got some insight on wales.  I am sure there are more knowledgable people on the subject, but I will add my 2 quid.

 

    One function of the wale is to hold the frames together...sort of like barrel hoops.  I am not sure if that is the intended function, but as a major structural part, that's what it does.

 

   What I believe to be the primary function, is to provide structural "meat" to support other parts of the ship.  In the 18th century, this was to support the deck structures, such as the clamps, knees, etc.  In earlier years, the frames were much different.  Then, the futtocks were NOT bolted to each other.  Rather, they were bolted to a wale where the two futtocks overlapped.  That is why you see several narrower wales on ships like the Santa Maria or same era ships.  ...and, yes, from what I could tell from the plans, there were wales below the waterline.

[Mike Y]

Got it!

[Marcus.K.]

Let me dig deeper in this topic:  @Mark P was stating: 

Quote

... and so projected beyond the face of the other planks,  which makes them obvious features on both drafts and models.

Is that really true for all ships?

 

@The Bitter End found in his building log USS Constitution by the Bitter End - Wales reason to doubt that.

 

Were the wales, which consisted of thicker planks than the regular ones, left with sharp edges at their margins – or were the transitions to the thinner planks worked in such a way that no visible edge remained?

 

We found that the Isaac Hull Model does not show the wales at all. 

Here in this photo - taken by @Force9 - we can see no edge indicating the contours of wales. 

 

John Lord - in his reconstruction of Old Ironsides between 1926 and 1931 produced several - at least - 3 drawings with 4 different section cuts, in which he showed different approaches:

 

In his Feb. 1926 drawing #35208 he shows what his research of the Joshua Humphreys papers and other sources seem to have indicated:

The 6 thick planks of wales are supported by not as thick (but thicker than the planks) 5 planks "black strakes" on top and 4 planks "thick stuff" below the main wales.

The dimensions for sure were provided in Humphreys list of material. Of course - what nobody can know from the written specification of the materials main dimension of Humphreys list : did the shipwights smoothen the edges - or did they keep the edges "sharp" or with a certain chamfer - so that the thick strakes or the main wales would be notable as being something other than the classical planks?

 

In his Jan. 1926 drawing #34535 he represents on left side the ship as he found it - most likely done in the earlier 1906 resoration - while the right side shows what he by then found after "considerable researche" including "old models", "drawings", "paintings" ...

 

The 1906 / 1926 Ship seems to have the edges of thicker planks smoothened - so that at observation no one would notice which of the planks are wales, which are planks.

It would look like this photo: 

this is the 1926 ship - at the beginning of Lord´s restoration process - as he "found" it (like in left side of the drawing #34535).

 

On right side of that drawing it now seems that only the top edge of the wales have a sharp edge. 

 

If we look at Lords final drawing #24472 done in June 1931 we can see that now even the top edge of the wales are not visible anymore - just as the ship was done in 1906:

O.k. .. all those drawings were done in the late 1920s .. ca. 130 years after the ship was launched.

How was it done in those days around 1800 ?

 

Let´s see what Maestro Felice Cornè had to show in 1803 - "Frigate Constitution":

is there a fine line below the ochre gun strake in the already black area.. just above air vents of the berth deck?  ... Hm... 

Maybe even a tiny indication of a line in about where the wales lower edge would be?? Or do I just wish to see that ..??

 

Let´s check the sistership: US Frigate President:

Antoine Roux - a in many details precise observer of Mediterian Sea vessels painted several times USS President - in around 1803. No prominent wales visible, right?

 

If we look at this beautiful old bones model of US Frigate Chesapeake - done 200 years ago by prisoners of war - this model is in Internationales Maritimes Museum Hamburg. The model builders were experts, sailors knowing those ships in detail. It might have been done by sailors of the USS Chesapeake after being captured in 1813. Would they be mistaken when showing the wales having very sharp edges?

You can see on top and on bottom the sharp thickness increase for the wales. 

 

Also from british admirality models of that times we also know that often the wales were prominent and clearly distiguisable from classical planks. .. 

 

On the other hand: those edges would always be endangered to be damaged, if the ship was struck by harder objects in the water like boats, loads, flotsam, etc.. And those damaged areas would be the starting point of rotten timber .. making repairs essential. 

 

 

So there are pro´s and con´s for prominent wales.

• It might be that the wales just in models were prominent as they were a very important feature for the admirality or experts to really see the ships "anti-hoggin-stiffneners".. 
• it might be that the wales were prominent in real ships too
• Maybe some shipwrights just did not smoothen the edges of the thicker wales as this is effort which was not payed - seemed not needed by some?
• Maybe other ship yards did smoothen the edges as the lower edge would cause resitance and friction in the water and both - lower and upper edge would be senstive for damage. By smoothening they durablity of the planking would be improved - an expensive work - but providing more robustness. 
• maybe just some artists (modelist, paintes, engravers) just did not show this feature?

Is it possible that both options existed in parallel? Some ships had prominent edges?.. some had smoothened wales? Maybe it depends not only on the nation but the shipyard what was the preferred design??

 

 

So we started trying to find if George Claghorn or the Hartt Shipyard had their own "habit".

 

George Claghorn, the assigned shipbuilder for USS Constitution, was chosen as he was building "big" ships before. We found that a waler - Rebecca - a ship of 175 tons and the first waler to pass Cape Horn and a merchant ship named Barclay with 200 tons have been build by Claghorn before USS Constitution. Non after the big frigate.

Unfortunatly no visual description of both ships seem to exist today. A dead end for now.

 

For the Hartt Shipyard there is a bit of visual evidence: 

This is USS Michigan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Michigan_(1843)) build some years after Constitution. Its hard to really see - but at least we can not identify the wales .. very little evidence for anything, I agree ! .. a poor picture ...

 

There are two engravings by the french artist Baugean - who was a precise documenter of ships in this age - showing ships build in Hartt´s shipyard:

USS Enterprize .. a very smooth ships hull, right? But I agree: here too the simplification by the artist or even the poor representation of the digital photo might just not show the wales.

 

What about this one?

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Boston_(1799)#

 

USS Boston 1799 - also build in Hartts shipyard in Boston. Here the artist / the representation even shows vertical lines to show the shape of the hull - and no step is visible at all. 

 

And finally even a photo again!

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Independence_(1814)#

 

This is USS Independance as a hulk in the 1890s - and if you investigate the area close to the bow - in between that vertical toilet effluent pipe and the start of that 2nd layer of "overplanking" of the ships sides you recognize the orginal planks of the original hull of the ship - and again: no step is visible, no sharp edge.

 

And of course: the photo is not very sharp - and we don´t know whether the planking is still the original one. The ship had been razeed years ago - and for sure had to go through repairs .. who knows how old those planks are. 

 

Summarized:

do those few examples provide real evidence that at Hartt´s shipyard it was custom to smoothen the wales? .. a "thin ice" assertion - maybe, maybe not - but a possibility. 

If we add the Cornè-painting of 1803 .. and if we assume that this tiny line SHOWs an edge, ... well .. all that is interesting - but does not really solve the mystery, right?

 

 

Now to you, shipmates, comrads, experts, sirs, ladies and captains .. 

• Does anyone of you have better evidence of what was done in about 1800 in Boston´s Shipyard - or in the US in general - or .. in other nations? Is there any known logic?
• Were edges always prominent?
• Was that sometimes the case - and sometimes not? .. if so, why and where?
• Did any authority in age-of-sail describe this feature in detail?

[Kenchington]

Most of what might be said about wales has already been offered on this thread. I'll just add that, in their 18th-Century form, they were not really part of the planking but rather a component of the "skeleton" (the "frame" as the term was then used, in contrast to its modern meaning). Bolted to the clamp, waterway and lodging knees of the deck, the combination formed a major band of strength around each side of the hull, which worked with the keel/keelson structure, the stem and post (with their associated extras: inner post, apron, stemson knee and whatever), plus the long coaming carlings, to provide longitudinal strength and rigidity.

 

Also:

 

On 10/5/2016 at 6:17 AM, Mike Y said:

Any thought on why the curvature was reduced over time?

Short answer is because design methods improved over time.

 

The curve (technically the "sheer") of the wales followed the sheer of the hull lines -- the main wale crossing each transverse section at its widest point, for example.

 

The crudest design approach, called "whole moulding", involved taking the midship section (the "main bend") and laying down the rest of the hull by preserving the shape of that one section while lifting that shape above the keel and moving it towards the centreline as the bow and stern were approached (those changes following curves called "rising" and "narrowing" lines). To get a reasonably fine entrance (to part the water at the bow) the fat midship section had to be raised a lot. It had to be raised a lot further still aft, in order to give a fine run and so a clean flow of water to the rudder -- else the ship couldn't be steered. Hence, the design needed a strong sheer (low amidships, high at the bow, higher still at the stern) and that meant an equally strong sheer of the wales.

 

Even in the 16th Century, there were more advanced designs that changed the shape of the sections along the length of the hull but still used rising and narrowing lines. The more advanced 18th-Century designs had a lot less sheer than the 16th-Century galleons but it was not until well into the 19th Century that quite different approaches were introduced and very different hull shapes emerged. (Where the ships that both Drake and Nelson knew had quarterdecks higher than their forecastles, the clippers had high bows (for riding the waves) and lower quarterdecks -- a difference in shape that is very noticeable once you look for it.)

 

 

Trevor

Edited Friday at 10:29 AM by Kenchington

[Force9]

Hello all...

 

A very interesting discussion to which I can add nothing substantial.  Clearly the American 44s had Wales built into their structure, but how prominent they would appear on the ship makes for interesting possibilities.

 

My knee jerk reflex is to reject any reference to the John Lord restoration when considering historical configurations of the Constitution.  He seemed more concerned with cost and practicality than any historic exactitude. 

 

I have a copy of Commander Tyrone Martin's pamphlet "Creating A Legend" which outlines the design and construction of the Constitution along with an appendix section for Humphreys' notes and construction directives.

 

Some that seem pertinent:

 

Height amidships of lower edge of the wale: 17' 11"

Six strakes of Wales, ten inches wide: 5'

Height from the top of the wale to port sill: 2' 11"

Main Wale: six strakes on each side, seven inches thick and ten inches wide.

...The upper edge of the black strake to be mitered down to a level, in order to carry the water out of the seam: plank between the black strake and the string, to be three and one-half inches thick.

 

Pg. 70 with Martin's description based on Humphreys' notes: "The area of the main Wales was six strakes (courses of timber) high.  The strakes of planking above and below the main wale gradually tapered down until the uppermost strakes were just three and a half inches thick.  Below the Wales, the strakes thinned again to four and a half inches as they turned under the bilge, then thickened again to six inches at the keel.  All of the strakes above the main Wales had their upper surfaces mitered down so that water would not collect in the seams.

Fun stuff!

Cheers,

Evan

 

[dafi]

But it is very tricky to take everything past ≈1860 as a referenece (if not for that very special time) as the ships were heavily reworked with view on the costs and the fact that those ships mostly went into harbour duty.

There is not "one" place for the wales as it followed the "fashion" of the times and the needs of the ship. As the internal structures were always improved, so were the outer parts too.

If I recall well, the wales on Victory changed place during the great repair in 1803. And in ≈ 1860 they were completely replaced by a smooth and cheap planking as only harbour duties were done. And even today (or at least before the last restauration) Victory´s wales were just a fake by being much thinner than the looks suggested and being invisibly augmented by steel bolts to give some distance to the frame ...

 

XXXDAn

Edited yesterday at 08:19 AM by dafi

[Marcus.K.]

Thanks Gentlemen !!

 

I fully agree being careful with compareing the orginial design with results impacted by later repairs and renovation. Constitution and Victory both have a VERY long history - and since they are wooden ships, most of the timbers have been replaced - often much more than only one time. The good thing in case of Old Ironsides: we have this Humphrey Specifictions written in June 1794 - which at least describe his plan in that year - and which provides the width and thickness of the used timbers. Unfortunatly not position nore final shape (as this dimensions most likely were the "midship" dimensions where planks are widest) and not providing any information about the tapering vs. bow and stern section. And of course also no information about the edge preparation of the designs. 

...

This seems to be "a copy" which might be the basis for the text in the "American State Papers - naval affairs Vol. I" which often is used as reference. 

 

Martin - who collected so many information concering Old Ironsides - unfortunatly is not very precise with his sources - especially in his books. I got a copy of the "a close up" in which carefully lists his sources. His statements on Page 70 ff in "Building a Legend" make from principle perfect sense - but I did not see any source providing that thickness change - nor any details concering the way the thicknes change was done - especially on the main wales.

 

So especially these edges were the concern of our discussion in @The Bitter End´s building log. We were wondering whether the edges are smoothened - to prevent rotten wood at the exposed edges - and "in order to carry the water out of the seam" - a very important issue.

Any "unchamfered" edge in the ships planking (where thickness of planks changed) might generate a tiny "plateau". And especially if the ship is sailing close to the wind the steps in the planking on windward side would even generate tiny "pockets" in which the water would be able to stay and work it´s way into the caulking.

I used one of Lords section cuts as starting point - just to illustrate the position.

If the top edges of the wale would not be chamfered or smothened ... it would look like this, right?

 

And the result on sea would be that one:

Water might be trapped and has a lot of time to make it´s way into the caulking or work its way into the wood allowing the planks to start rotting.

 

Chamfered the situation would change:

 

A chamfer done at the wale´s edges must on one side come as close to the next thinner plank as possible - and must be wide enough to avoid any pocket under heeling. It wasn´t a simple 45° chamfer of the edge. It was at least a perfect reshape of the timbers edge to fulfill that task. Even a complete "smoothened" upper wale plank is possible.

 

THIS is the question we try to clearify - do we know from other ships how the edges of the main wales were shaped?

 

 

I guess if we look into models the builders might not have shown that chamfer - as it is

a) hard to produce in a pleasant way (having the chamfer being constant over the lenght) and

b) it might be just too small to try to represent it.

 

@Force9 you sure are right concerning John Lord´s reconstruction - which is impacted a lot by his given timeline and budget. But what chance did he have? .. At least his two section cuts from 1926 showing his research seem to me to be not that bad! He tried to follow Humphreys written specs - and he obviously studied paintings (Cornè and others) and "old models" (Hull Modell?) - and he did not have internet !

But I agree: one must be careful in studiing his results. .. and that´s what this posts is about 😄 

 

By the way: Haiko @The Bitter End was pointing on the fact that even in my examples of Hartt Shipyard build ships like USS Enterprize and Boston one might be able to see a tiny edge indicating the wales ... 

Do you see that tiny bright line below the gun streak? If you look into the engraving you even think to see a line in the midship area .. 

One would need to see the original engraving to study that effect better .. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Kenchington]

I'd not be so worried over water pooling above the wale when at sea and close hauled. That would be salt water (which discourages rot) and soon washed off by more salt water. The problem would be rainwater when at anchor or moored, with the hull (almost) perfectly upright for long periods.

 

Chamfering was a better solution to that than the textbook one of shaping the upper and lower exposed (outside the planking) surfaces of the wales so that they were horizontal, though it necessarily removed more of the wood from the (expensive) "thick stuff" that was there for its strength -- the removal negating part of the purpose of the wale.

 

Looking at the development of ships through the 18th Century, I see a slowly growing understanding of things we take for granted today, like cause-and-effect relationships. The savants in London and Paris had begun the move away from the Age of Faith into The Enlightenment long before but that fundamental shift in human thought seems to have only slowly percolated through to more practical men -- even master shipwrights in royal dockyards, let alone village carpenters and the like. So I am not surprised that prominent, squared-off wales were still being used until after 1800 but were replaced with chamfered ones later, then with broad bands of thicker planking that had no visible, external steps.

 

Trevor