Simulating Caulking between hull and deck planking

[Jorge Hedges]

Hello!

 

Quick question... I have a very thin, flexible plastic sheet that look very nice to simulate the caulking between hull framing and planking and deck planks.

 

I have normally used a very dark lead pencil, but I am intrigued, and was wondering if any of you have done so.

 

If so, would regular wood glue work? And if so, how do you cut off the excess?

 

Thanks for the input!

 

Jorge

[allanyed]

Jorge,

What scale are you working on? If you are not happy with a pencil or marker, black tissue paper that you can find in most any craft store works very well for smaller scales.  There is no seepage so the line is constant.  It is visible but subtle.   If you are working at 1:48 or larger black construction paper works very well.   Both can be glued with white or yellow PVA or even matte medium.  PVA (wood) glue for wood to plastic does not work well.  If you do go with the plastic, epoxy or polyurethane glue should work well.   I am guessing trimming plastic would be difficult.  If you are working very small scales 1:96 or so it may be better not to use anything as it could look overdone.   

Allan  

Edited August 23, 2023 by allanyed

[Jorge Hedges]

1:72 scale; construction paper should work well, or black tissue paper... will give it a try then.

 

Thanks!

 

Jorge

[Roger Pellett]

Not exactly an answer to the question but some might find this useful:

 

Here is a system that I used to simulate the WHITE seam compound used in the deck seams of a US Navy WW II era motor whaleboat.

 

1. Using my Byrnes saw, cut grooves spaced to planking width in a piece of craft plywood.  

 

2.  Spray piece with white paint, and lightly sand using a sanding block.

 

3.  Insert a piece of thread, color unimportant, into each groove.

 

4.  Spray piece with Navy deck blue.

 

5.  Remove thread, cut piece to shape and attach to model.

 

Results:

 

[allanyed]

 

7 hours ago, Jorge Hedges said:

1:72 scale; construction paper should work well, or black tissue paper... will give it a try then

The construction paper I have is 0.007" thick so would be about a half inch seam which would be OK, but you may find the appearance to be a little too thick.  If you can. experiment with both to see which looks best to you.  

 

After you make your planks to the breadth and thickness that you want, glue a few planks on edge on the sheet of paper and let it dry. I usually lay down several strips on edge at a time with a little space between. (You will only need to glue the paper on one edge.)   Once the glue is cured use a scalpel or other sharp razor cutter and cut the strips apart then shave off the excess.  Just be careful not to gouge the edge of the wood of the plank.   

Allan

 

Edited August 24, 2023 by allanyed

[Jaager]

If the ship is pre-1860  There is dark brown construction paper -

 

There is stamp pad ink - black and red  -  a little black added to red makes brown -  then any thickness paper can be dyed  and thinner than scale paper can be used to adjusted for scale effect.

 

[Bob Cleek]

Just a general opinionated observation for what it's worth: 

 

I think that the overwhelming majority of modeling details which are less than optimal are the result of overscale small details which the modeler focuses upon and obsesses over at the expense of the overall impression of reality which is the true objective of the modeling endeavor. Slightly underscale details do not similarly offend the experienced viewer's eyes because our minds, being what they are, unconsciously compensate for details that are smaller than they should be but not for those that are larger and give us a "poke in the eye." It's always better to err on the side of subtlety. When miniaturists undertake to portray a subject with the level of detail found in a ship model, the smaller the scale the more the modeler must be an "impressionist" rather than a "realist." 

 

I've found that scale and historical accuracy should always take precedence over all else. If you do the research on scantlings for your vessel, you'll likely find that the stopping in its deck seams was narrower than a half inch. In most vessels other than naval warships maintained "Bristol fashion" with regularly holy-stoned decks, the decks will be quite dark, discolored by weathering, dirt, and the drips of pine tar and paint falling from aloft and tracked by the sticky bare feet of sailors climbing in tarred rigging softened by the hot sun.) Indeed, the deck of a working whaler would appear uniformly black from the grease spread by the rendering of blubber. The appearance of a ship's deck from a scale distance (i.e. if one were observing the prototype vessel from a full-scale distance) will very often lack the details of plank seams and fastening plugs or trunnels that so many modelers seem so determined to portray in miniature when in real life they'd be invisible or nearly so. Needless to say, carvel-hung hull plank seams wouldn't be discernable when viewed from the usual distant scale viewing distance because they were always finished fair and painted over. They weren't intended to be seen. Hull seams might become more apparent over time as the hull "worked" and became "tired," but even then they were painted over and would not show seams of contrasting paint color. 

 

Of course, there are modeling styles that deviate from what the eye would see of the prototype vessel. The most common of these would be the "as built" framed models whose purpose is to accurately portray timbering details and are finished "bright" (unpainted) as some of the Admiralty Board models seen in the higher quality maritime museum collections. Even in these often-unplanked open-framed models, where plank seams and fastenings may be shown, proper scale may well dictate that such details are nearly invisible or only very subtly suggested. In the finest 1:48 scale museum pieces, unfinished pearwood deck planking is sometimes merely drawn with a pencil line the width of a human hair, omitting plank ends or fastenings of any kind. The viewer's eyes see only the barest suggestion of "planking" with no hint of fastenings or plank butts, but their brain correctly says "planked decks." It is this "tricking the eye" that produces the illusion of reality in fine scale models. Overscale details such as prominent fastenings and plugs, particularly when set where no shipwright ever would have put them, too close to the plank edge or even a single fastening in a plank end, and shiny polished "real copper" plates with tacks having rounded heads two scale inches in diameter giving the overall effect of a terminal case of acne, may demonstrate the modeler's dedication and patience, but to no good effect beyond that.

 

I post this opinion not to criticize any particular modeler's efforts, but rather as an exhortation in the interests of "better modeling." We often see a  less experienced modeler proudly posting work in this forum which exhibits out-of-scale and inaccurate details, often after obviously spending a tremendous amount of time creating them. At that point, it's too late to comment gracefully on such flaws and so nobody mentions them, directly at least. Alternately, when newer modelers ask questions regarding their intentions to pursue such errors, experienced modelers circumspectly express their opinions in suggested alternative courses of action in order to avoid causing offense or hurt feelings. The result of this, together with the marketing gimmicks of some kit manufacturers ("Over 1,000 parts... includes real copper plates!") seems to only perpetuate these mistakes. So I offer these comments only generally to those who may wish to consider them. For those who might ask, "So what makes you an expert?" I can only answer, "Because these are all mistakes I've made myself!"

 

Tom Lauria, a master modeler who has an excellent collection of YouTube videos on ship modeling, has a good video entitled Scale and the Compelling Impression. I highly recommend it!

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 24, 2023 by Bob Cleek

[Dr PR]

Jorge,

 

I had the same questions when working on my current model. I have no idea what the width is of the caulking between deck planks on wooden vessels, especially from several centuries ago. But I do have the advantage of serving on three modern (mid 20th century) ships, and I have the original blueprints for two of them that show deck construction.

 

The gap between planks was 3/8 inch (9.5 mm). My model is 1:48, so the grout width would be 0.0078 inch (0.2 mm). This is about the thickness of some black construction paper (0.008 inch) that I had, so that is what I used. However, before settling on this method I did a series of experiments using six different techniques that I describe in this link:

 

https://modelshipworld.com/topic/19611-albatros-by-dr-pr-mantua-scale-148-revenue-cutter-kitbash-about-1815/?do=findComment&comment=602855

 

After choosing the black construction paper I added this "grout" as described here:

 

https://modelshipworld.com/topic/19611-albatros-by-dr-pr-mantua-scale-148-revenue-cutter-kitbash-about-1815/?do=findComment&comment=603771

 

https://modelshipworld.com/topic/19611-albatros-by-dr-pr-mantua-scale-148-revenue-cutter-kitbash-about-1815/?do=findComment&comment=605072

 

Planking and nibbing turned out to be very easy, and the paper gave a very consistent widths with none of the mess from liquid pigments soaking into the wood grain.

 

I made the paper width a bit greater than the plank thickness so the paper stood a bit "proud" above the planks. I then scraped the deck with a razor blade perpendicular to the wood surface (so as not to cut into the wood) and at an angle across the plank edges to scrape away the excess paper, and then sanded to get a smooth deck. Afterward I coated the deck with a clear sealer and rubbed down with #0000 steel wool. The results look very nice to my eye, and I think the effect is to scale. You can judge this for yourself.

 

 

****

 

At 1:72 scale a 3/8 inch grout will be 0.0055 inch (0.13 mm) and you can probably find black paper this thick or a bit thinner.

Edited August 24, 2023 by Dr PR

[Bob Cleek]

4 hours ago, Dr PR said:

The gap between planks was 3/8 inch (9.5 mm). My model is 1:48, so the grout width would be 0.0078 inch (0.2 mm).

Very nicely done job! To my eye, your omission of the deck plank butts and plank fastening plugs or trunnels gives a very good effect without cluttering things up. Your nibbed planking against the covering boards is "finestkind!" That must have taken a bit of time to work out.

 

Just a minor note: the tar, or "marine glue" in later times, which was poured hot into the deck seams is called "stopping" or more modernly "seam compound." The seam is caulked with oakum, or cotton "rope" in small craft, which is driven into the vee-shaped seam. The seam is created by planing the sides of the planks at a slight angle after they are initially fitted flush against each other. The seams are primed with paint, the caulking is driven home, and then the caulking material is soaked with thinned paint and allowed to dry. The "stopping" is then poured hot on top of the driven caulking material. The stopping is intended to protect the caulking material from the weather. The watertightness of the seam is provided by the driven caulking material and the swelling of the plank edges below the caulking seam against each other as with a wooden staved barrel. 

 

The width of the vee-shaped seam at the outboard face of the plank is dependent upon the thickness of the plank. The planks should be tightly butted against each other at their inboard edges with the vee-shaped seam above that. The angle of the vee need only be sufficient to hold the caulking material. There are rules of thumb as to how deep, and therefore how wide, the seam has to be to hold the caulking material. I'd have to go hunting for it, but offhand my recollection is that the depth of the seam should be about half the length of the plank thickness. (It's been a while since I last hung and caulked carvel plank.) Consequently, caulking irons are made with varying thicknesses to their edges to fit the different widths of the vee-shaped caulking seams. The irons' edges are identified as to their width by the number of "creases" in the edge of the seam. The creases are lengthwise indentations on the edge of the iron which gives the iron face a corrugated surface. A larger vessel's plank seams will require a "double" or "triple crease" iron, the "double" being twice the thickness of the single crease, and so on.

 

Ship's caulking irons in a range of sizes:

 

Approximately 7'' long. The "ship's iron" has a larger head that a "boat iron."

Blades are 2-1/2'' wide  

 

"Ship's irons'" thicknesses below correspond to the seam width. The vee-shaped seam at the deck surface would be slightly wider than the properly sized iron so as to accommodate the stopping:

 

Right to left: 

 

1/32''  - #00      "Double aught crease iron"

1/16'  -  #0        "Single aught crease iron."

1/8''    - #1        "Single crease iron."  

3/16  '-  #2        "Double crease iron"

1/4''-     #3        "Three crease iron."

5/16''-   #4        "Four crease iron." (Not pictured below.)

 

 

See: Ship Caulkers and Their Tools (sydnassloot.com) and C. DREW & Co. Shipwrights Caulking Tools (numismalink.com) 

Edited August 24, 2023 by Bob Cleek

[Roger Pellett]

Bob,

 

Re: your post #7 above.  Well said! I don’t remember, where I read it but a master model has written about the need to “think in scale.”  This can be helped if you are building to a common scale and are using an architect’s scale to measure things.  I also find it useful to quickly relate scale sizes in my head.  For example, my current project is 1/8”=1ft or 1:96.  That’s close to 1:100.  If I am selecting a piece of wire to make an eye bolt and grab a piece of 1/32in dis wire; in my head- 1/32=.032.   Move the decimal point to the right 2 places: 1:1 scale is 3.2” dia; way over scale!  Reasonable diameter of wire to scale is .0032in.

 

Roger

 

 

[Dr PR]

Bob,

 

Your recollections are she same as on my blueprints for the USS Cleveland CL-55, a WWII era ship. Of course this was a wooden deck overlaid on a steel deck and fastened down with metal studs and nuts.

 

The planks were 2" thick. The plank edges were vertical from the bottom for 1 inch, and then angled (outage) 3/32" at the top to make a 3/16" wide gap. Oops! I thought I remembered a 3/8" wide gap between planks, so my model's deck seams might be 2x scale! I should have double checked the blueprints!

 

 

The notes on the blueprint say for new planking use planks made of 1" Douglas fir with a 1" teak piece laminated on top. The outage should be 3/32" and vertical for 1/2", then tapering to zero 1 1/8" below the top of the plank. That is a bit different from the drawing.

 

The planking was to be caulked with two strands of oakum, and a third driven in if practicable, to a depth of 1/2 inch. Then the gap was to be payed with "approved black marine glue," allowing the glue to overflow the seams for about 3/16".

 

I wonder how far back in history this practice goes? Old nautical traditions die hard.

[Bob Cleek]

3 hours ago, Dr PR said:

I wonder how far back in history this practice goes? Old nautical traditions die hard.

As for the arrangement drawn above, not all that far back. The drawing shows the standard USN arrangement for laying wood decking "veneer" on top of a welded steel deck. Welded ship construction became common during WWII. Two inches of wood on top of the steel deck was specified for a light cruiser, apparently. That's not a whole lot of wood. I've not previously encountered the practice of laminating an inch of teak on top of an inch of Doug fir.  The mention of using this laminated decking on "new work," suggests this was a wartime economizing practice. Even with supply lines open, there was not enough teak to supply the naval building program. Only cruisers and battleships rated teak decks. All the Iowa class BB's had teak-sheathed weather decks, but they were built "finestkind" regardless of wartime shortages. (Interestingly, the Montana class BB's, while authorized, were never laid down due to construction delays caused by wartime steel shortages and, by the time supplies were available to build them, the heavy battleship had been rendered obsolete by the aircraft carrier.)

 

Teak, which became widely available to the British beginning around 1824 when they fought the First Anglo-Burmese War (shortly followed by the second) to take control of the primary source of the valuable timber, was favored for decks because teak weathered very well without the need for any paint or oil, provided a good footing,  was abrasion resistant, and easy to maintain. Teak was not favored for other warship construction applications, though, because teak splinters something fierce on impact and large wood "splinters" flying from the impact of cannon shot caused more casualties in the wooden warships than anything else.  

 

The Navy built something like 143 aircraft carriers during the war, primarily the 24 large Essex class carriers and 50 Casablanca class escort or "jeep" carriers. All American carriers until the Midway class had Douglas fir wooden decks laid over structural steel as in the drawing in the post above. (In contrast to the British carriers which had armor-plated steel decks.) The wooden decks were favored because they were far lighter than armored decks, permitting more planes to be carried, and battle damage was easily repaired. They were also cooler in the tropics and therefore far easier on the plane tires when landing. (They did not, however, stand up to the Japanese kamakazi attacks as well as the armor-plate decked British carriers!) These wood-sheathed steel decks were not structural nor essential for watertightness, so their caulking was for the purpose of keeping water from running beneath the wood and rusting the deck. They used a special welding rig which would spot-weld the threaded spuds right to the steel deck as is still done today:

 

Stud machine-welded to steel plate:

 

 

 

Stud welding rig in use on steel deck:

 

 

I'd be interested to know how they fastened teak decking to riveted iron decks before ship-welding technology came along. I've never had the opportunity to see a wood-sheathed riveted iron deck dissected.

 

On wooden ships, the wooden decking was a primary structural feature of the ship and the wooden decks in an average-sized shop were easily four inches thick. These planks would be mechanically fastened to deck beams with spikes, bolts, or trunnels and the caulking would be driven "hard" into the seams which put tremendous rigidity into the hull structure. Decks were caulked with a "hawsing iron" which is a massive iron similar to an axe. It's a two-man job with one holding the iron in the seam and the other hitting it with a "beetle," a large two-handed mallet. 

 

Hawsing iron:

 

 

Shipwright with an armful of beetles:

 

Edited August 25, 2023 by Bob Cleek

[Dr PR]

I am not sure if the teak/Douglas fir lamination was used during WWII. The blueprint I took the drawing from was for the late 1950s guided missile conversions. I am sure it was a cost saving measure.

 

In a class at Naval Officer Candidate School an instructor told us that wooden decks served to catch shrapnel splinters and prevent it from ricocheting off the steel decks. However, others have said this wasn't true, and that wooden decks were an insulating feature to prevent heating from the sun in summer and loss of heat from inside in the winter (it does work for this). And others have ventured that they put wooden decks on these ships because ships had always had wooden decks (it gives the sailors something to do by holy stoning them to keep the decks looking nice). Another explanation is that you get better traction on wood than steel, especially when the deck is wet (this is true).

 

I have searched for a documented reason for having wood decks on steel ships and I have found no official explanation.

 

Any other guesses?

 

****

 

Walking on the studded decks while the decking is being replaced is hazardous - guaranteed stubbed toes! I speak from experience!

 

Also, imagine the challenge of making new planks with holes correctly located to fit over several studs that are already welded to the deck.

Edited August 26, 2023 by Dr PR

[wefalck]

My German late 19th/early 20th century shipbuilding textbooks explicitly quote thermal and acoustic isolation as the main reason for putting wooden decks over structural iron-/steel-decks. On warships linoleum may have been used instead. Foothold on steel-decks was increased by painting them with an oil-paint/tar mixture to which sand was added, before dry more sand was sprinkled on.

 

Torpedo-boats in the Autrian navy were painted black and didn't have wooden decking. In the Adriatic (where all the Austrian naval ports were) climate it go so hot underneath in summer and condensation trickled from the celing in winter that they put door-mat like mats in port over them.

 

[Bob Cleek]

On 8/25/2023 at 10:03 PM, Dr PR said:

Also, imagine the challenge of making new planks with holes correctly located to fit over several studs that are already welded to the deck.

Perhaps a tedious step, but not challenging, especially if the planks aren't sprung. To begin with, the studs are welded using a template that ensures all are equally spaced and if they've done that correctly, you're starting out in pretty good shape. To replace a plank, patterns are made from cardstock or doorskin. Squares a bit smaller than plank width are cut and holes matching the stud diameter are drilled in the center of the squares.  The squares are laid over the studs with the stud running through the hole in the square. Longer strips of cardstock or doorskin a smidgen less wide than the distance between the adjacent plank(s) and the studs are laid against the adjacent plank edge and on top of the squares laid over the studs. The squares on the studs are attached to the strip of cardstock or doorsking with a hot melt glue gun. The strip and the squares are then lifted off the studs in one piece and form the template for drilling the holes in the plank to accommodate the threaded studs. If they did a good job of setting the studs, This template can be used repeatedly. If a stud is out of place, the square with the hole at that stud is simply peeled off the template strip, placed over the offending stud, and hot melt glued to the template strip again, thereby eliminating the need to make an entire new template.

 

[wefalck]

Again my 1910 German textbook on iron shipbuilding states that wooden deck-planks laid onto iron decks are either screwed down from underneath using wood-screws (cheaper method for smaller vessels) or bolts.

 

The bolt-holes are drilled through holes pre-drilled into the plating near the beams - not through the beams - and then the hole is opened up from above for the plug.

 

When the iron deck is not built flush, either the edges of the outer plates are thinned out with a shaping machine or thin gap-strips of wood are used underneath the wooden planks. The rivets would be countersunk in any case.