Accuracy of AOTS Deck Planking Diagrams

[Beef Wellington]

After studying the deck planking diagrams as shown in both the AOTS books 'Diana', I am looking to follow these books as closely as possible, but there seems to be a little discrepancy with the planking diagrams and what I have taken to be 'common wisdom' from this site, namely the use of a 'butt shift' pattern.  The AOTS books clearly show a staggered deck termination, but clearly show which beams these are terminating, suggesting a sound principle behind this.  These are clearly well researched and authored by people far more knowledgeable than I....but why the discrepancy?  I've tried to illustrate below not wanting to infringe on copyrights.

 

Planking pattern per AOTS Diana

_________________________________________________________________________

_________________I________________________________________________________

__________________________I_______________________________________________

_______________________________________I__________________________________

_____________________________________________________I____________________

_________________I________________________________________________________

 

vs.

 

Commonly referred to butt shift pattern (approx only)

_________________________________________________________________________

_________________I________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________I____________________

______________________________I___________________________________________

_____I____________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________I_______________________________

_________________I________________________________________________________

Edited September 16, 2014 by Beef Wellington

[druxey]

AOTS series often contain errors, unfortunately. The planking pattern you show is one example. The second version is correct. If the first layout were actually used, once one butt gave way, the rest would follow like a zipper. (This particularly applies to hull planking). The second, staggered pattern minimizes this possibility and is much stronger.

[michaelpsutton2]

In addition to Druxey's absolutely correct observation you have the option of choosing 3 step, 4 step decks or more.  I put a patio deck in at my step son's about a month ago and it became a rather warm conversation.  We finally agreed to drink on it for a while and the next morning laid the neatest 4 step you could wish for.

 

The real issue was ending up with rather short bits on some of the ends. Which leads me to the suggestion that you lay out the whole deck before doing anything even slightly permanent

[Beef Wellington]

Thanks for confirming druxey.

[dafi]

AOTS series often contain errors, unfortunately. The planking pattern you show is one example. The second version is correct. If the first layout were actually used, once one butt gave way, the rest would follow like a zipper. (This particularly applies to hull planking). The second, staggered pattern minimizes this possibility and is much stronger.

 

This is common in AOTS and I think it was thought as a mere simplification which results in those stupid errors.

 

AOTS Victory has the same issue - same wrong pattern, all planks exactly 6 meters, split planks in between the coamings and not respecting that the butts should be atop a deck beam.

 

I am even not mentioning that some decks have straight planks, other have curved ones ...

 

XXXDAn

Edited September 18, 2014 by dafi