Ocean Stability of a Box-Shaped Barge

An ark, like what Noah might have built, would be a consequence of need and skill. The vessel's design wouldn't have to consider propulsion, so it's efficiency through the water wouldn't be a consideration. The likelihood of a box, as opposed to a boat-like shape would not be so high, as it needed to handle seas that would be broadside to the vessel's lay. The skills to make a box as strong as a vessel with the diagonal bracing that is natural to a canoe end would be higher, from an engineering point of view and may actual take extra work.
Certainly it could have been built, but rounding the ends and bending the planks would be more familiar to any carpenter asked to build an ocean going vessel. Square transoms, for example, seem to be much more common in later eras.
-Will

 

Arguing about the ark is pointless. Design, engineering, building material and workforce oversight were all supplied by god, and he also controlled the weather in wich it sailed.

Mechanically fastened wood has known limits, wich vary with wood species and type of fastener. Untill you define the wood species, fastener type and building system, we can't tell you if the shape and dimensions are viable or not. From what you posted so far, allowing the best possible scenario with what's available today (knowledge and materials), the box would float without breaking apart, but surviving a storm would be an act of god.

 

Here is a bit of thread drift, but still relevant I think.
They built a 91 metre dhow shaped ark in Dubai a few years ago - she made it into the Guinness book of records -
https://www.guinnessworldrecords.co...d-from-dubai-recognised-as-the-worlds-largest

Here are a few photos I saved a while back when I first came across her. Note the massive scantlings in the hull construction!

 

I was initially trying to withhold my own beliefs to avoid influencing the responses to see if my suspicions were confirmed but...

My personal understanding is that box-shaped barges are a poor design for traveling the ocean, and the new scans of the Ark at Durupinar showing it was NOT designed as a box makes perfect sense to me.

A V-shaped or rounded hull would make more sense I think, so that wave pressure from below does not thrust it upward but would flow around it. The deeper draft provides additional stability. Likewise with a pointed bow, you would want to shed the impact of waves to reduce wave-making resistance.

My understanding is that flat-bottomed boats are best kept inland or along the coasts since the flatness will absorb the full brunt of wave impacts to risk breakage or capsizing, which is why you typically don't see flat-bottomed barges at sea and when they end up there it commonly results in disaster.

As mentioned here, I do not believe a box-shaped Ark would have been practical for a storm environment, let alone the biggest oceanic storm in history.

Was Noah’s Ark Shaped Like a Box? https://answersingenesis.org/noahs-ark/was-noahs-ark-shaped-like-a-box/

"Noah’s Ark was a ship; therefore, it likely had features that ships would commonly have. These are not at all unreasonable assumptions. Noah was 500–600 years old and knew better than to make a simple box that would have had significant issues in a global Flood (e.g., forces on the sharp corners would be too destructive, it could capsize if it is not facing into the wind and waves, and so on). The common way that a floating boat would keep from being turned perpendicular with the wind and waves is by having features on the front and back that naturally point it into the wind and waves. This would eliminate the need for four sharp corners as well."

 

Really? What did you read or see to give you this understanding?
There are a LOT of flat bottomed barges (with accompanying tugs) trading between the islands in the Caribbean, and the seas here can get pretty rough when the trade winds are blowing lustily at 20+ knots.
The shape of the hull at the bow and stern is of much more importance to it's seaworthiness (or not) than the mere fact that it has a flat bottom.

Your Ark link, written by Bodie Hodge, is quite entertaining - I had a good laugh. Thanks!

 

Ok, let us re-approach this from a different angle. What is the maximum size of a wooden vessel? Could you build a 500 foot long wood vessel? Would the vessel be seaworthy?
Conventional Maximum size:
The SV WYOMING (1909) was an iron strapped wooden hull and was actually not 450 feet long (that was the spared length). WYOMING was 350 ft on deck and 329.5 between perps. This represents about the limit of a commercially viable wooden hulled vessel competing with iron hulls. A non-strapped conventional hull was limited to about 240 ft length on deck (HMS VICTORIA & HOWE screw 1st rates circa 1859). The largest composite wooden hull (i.e. wood and iron used together) was the USS DUNDERBERG (1865) at 352.3 feet between perps and less on deck. A significant amount of stress in this hull was taken by the iron armor of the casement.
A the foregoing presumes conventional post-Roman western caravel construction. If we look at Roman and pre-Roman Mediterranean construction (i.e. plank and tenion), there are several archaeological examples of vessels approximately 312 to 341 ft long. Caligula's "Giant Ship", also known as the "Round Ship", was a very large barge the ruins of which were found during the construction of Rome's Leonardo da Vinci International Airport in Fiumicino, Italy. The ship was dated to c. 37 AD using dendochronological dating methods. It was six decks high, displaced a minimum of 7,400 tons, and carried a crew of 700–800.
Additionally, there are several references to Ming Dynasty "Chinese treasure ships" of Zheng He circa 1403 to 1430. Because of uncertainty in the size of the actual Chinese units the dimensions of the largest treasure ships as recorded by the History of Ming would have been between 385 and 440 feet. Because of the construction of chinese junks, it could have been possible to mitigate the still water bending stress limits of caravel construction with a significant reduction in seaworthiness. However, it has be argued by Chinese scholars, that China lacked the technology to produce such large vessels except for river excursions and a more realistic size was 200–250 feet in length for the sea going vessels of Zheng He's fleet.
So, based upon the needs of a viable hull, without metal strapping, the maximum length of a wooden hull would be somewhere between 225 and 325 length between perps, 250 to 350 length on deck.
Actual Maximum Size:
Notice that all the vessels mentioned above had to be functional ships; i.e. they had to have space to house crew and store provisions and cargo. If we remove those requirements, could it be possible to build a wooden structure 500 feet long, 90 feet wide, and 50 feet tall shaped like a rectangular box?
Assuming it is hollow and made out of white oak. SG=0.6, Rupture strength=14.8 kpsi, Crushing strength=7.3 kpsi
https://www.engineersedge.com/imagefiles/equations/modulus-rectangular_tube.png
The sectional modulus is S=((BH^2)/6)-((bh^3)/6H)
Solving for maximum hogging condition, if we assume a homogeneous material, you can get skins down to about an inch before failure (ignoring buckling, I'm not going to spend that much time on this optimizing framing.) If you assume plank size pieces and 50% effectiveness of connection, the skin/frames are much thicker, but the structure is still buoyant with a small hollow space.
Seaworthiness:
If you have a sealed hull it will always be seaworthy (c.f. Ishmael on Queequeg's coffin). Realistically though, because beam (90 ft) is ~ twice depth (50 ft), as long as KG does not get above ~36 ft, you will always have stability. Unfortunately, an Ark like barge is unlikely to have both these requirements. Additionally, a breaking wave of ~75 ft striking from dead abeam would have enough energy to capsize the vessel regardless of KG inside the vessel. A wave this size would be unusual but not impossible. Like almost all well found vessels, it is at risk to a small, but real, chance of capsize due to statistically significant wave slope.
Final analysis:

If you have a 500 feet long, 90 feet wide, and 50 feet sealed wooden rectangular box vessel constructed of white oak with the Cg at the center of the vessel, it will float, be seaworthy and most likely survive a hurricane. But really, that is not a vessel, but a very large plank of wood.

 

That's an awful lot of space and not very much frame from my perspective. But then again Indian Ocean/Red Sea vice North Atlantic. <shrug>

 

That is for sure. I would not like to rate her chances in the North Atlantic.
I hope that they at least installed some bulkheads before they launched her.
I suppose they are copying the composite technology of the clipper ships, (some of) which had iron frames and timber hull planking?

 

First of all, the Ark needed to be seaworthy for a year-long trip during massive storm conditions. The Wyoming for all its problems was 450 feet long and sailed for 15 years from 1909-24. The Solano, which I already mentioned, was 425 feet, and sailed for 53 years from 1878-1931 before being scuttled. The Great Republic, which I also already mentioned, was 335 feet and sailed 19 years from 1853-72. The aforementioned Eureka at 299 feet long has been afloat since 1890 for 132 years. A 500-foot-long ocean-going ship is hardly unthinkable, although I do not believe that it was box-shaped.

 

There are numerous sources for the issues flat-bottomed boats and barges have on the open seas:

"Barges are designed to be used on shallow inland waters. They are not considered sea-worthy watercraft due to their flat bottom hull and shallow draft. However, there are commercial ocean-going barges that are used along coastal routes. Smaller personal barges, like a narrowboat, can be taken out to sea but only under very specific conditions. These boats are not designed for rough water and should only ever be used in open waters under optimal weather conditions, if at all. A barge can be taken to the sea but it is not advised."

https://www.flatbottomboatworld.com/can-barges-go-to-sea/

"Barges are generally employed for transportation of goods within a river, canal, creek or an estuary. Hardly any barge is seen in seas whereas ships can be found on all sorts of water bodies for e.g. Oceans, seas, rivers, canals, estuaries, creeks, etc."

Different Types of Barges - Uses And Differences https://www.marineinsight.com/types-of-ships/different-types-of-barges-used-in-the-shipping-world/

See also:

https://www.fishandboat.com/Transact/AnglerBoater/AnglerBoater1999/JulyAugust/Documents/boathull.pdf

https://www.fishandboat.com/Transact/AnglerBoater/AnglerBoater2004/MayJune/Documents/san-hulls.pdf

Boat Hull Shapes: What Hull Shape is Best? - boats.com https://www.boats.com/boat-buyers-guide/boat-hull-shapes-designs-options/

 

The biblical dimensions of Noah's Ark: length 300 cubits, breadth 50 cubits, and height 30 cubits.
How Big Was Noah’s Ark? https://arkencounter.com/blog/2019/01/17/how-big-was-noahs-ark/

The Titanic was built to these proportions. There may be a reason the Titanic struck an iceberg on her maiden voyage. What might a higher power not want us to know about a ship built to these specs?

The size of a cubit is estimated to be between 18" - 22" on one site.

Wikipedia says:

{A royal cubit from the tomb of Maya,18th dynasty}
These royal cubits measure between 20.61" to 20.83".

Noah, wouldn't have used a royal cubit. He was Jewish and probably a little smaller in stature than an Egyptian royal statesman or Pharoah. Since a standard cubit was divided into six palms instead of seven, Noah's cubit may have been a much as four inches shorter than the one pictured above.

I'm certain that archeologists and theologians have beaten this debate to death, but I'm thinking the Ark was likely about 17" X 300 / 12 = 425' long.

However, I also wonder about the design when there is no propulsion mentioned; no oars, no sails. A forward keel and a shallower draft aft might encourage the ark to turn into a large wave, but elongated shapes turn sideways to wind and seas. In that case, a flat bottom with tumble home sides would be my preference. Noah wouldn't have used a weighted keel. I don't know of an example of a weighted keel from ancient times. Stones lining the bottom were used up through the Renaissance. Perhaps simply building the bottom from fully planked 12" timbers would give it strength and ballast. If the bottom can withstand the twist of large seas, the topsides would be fine.

I doubt pounding would be an issue at all. No drive, laying sideways to the seas, maximum form stability would come from a flat bottom. Tumble home sides would contain moving cargo to concentrate lower down or keep it inboard of the waterline.

 

The stability and structural integrity is argued well enough by my associates, here on the forum. I will be the devils advocate and ask; what kind of chainsaw did Noah have? Probably not a chainsaw, maybe an adze. An adze would likely be made of bronze and require frequent sharpening. The planks would have been fastened with trunnels as iron nails and screws would have been in short supply. If using trunnels (tree nails), one might wonder how the joiner holes were made.

Must have been a good sized forest at or near the building site. That big boat would have needed a lot of trees in order to make planks. Perhaps Noah did not use planks at all. He could have used whole logs, as in a log cabin. Caulking up the gaps would then need a lot of mud or tree sap. Concrete maybe, if he could find suitable masonry cement. Logs were probably not scarphed. If successive logs were staggered, that might have worked.

Resolving the mystery would surely require us to speculate about construction tools, joinery techniques, and logistics. Fortunately, the dimensional specifications were already delivered by the Grand Architect.

 

Very good post. I always think it is irresponsible for someone to insist that "Faith" and "Science" can't coexist. They are perpendicular axes, no matter how much the same volume they cover.

 

Shipbuilding in Ancient Egypt https://jdeweyblog.wordpress.com/shipbuilding-in-ancient-egypt/

According to the site, who's link is above, the shell was built first and members were fitted later.

Here is a picture of the Phoenician edge joining technique.


The early Egyptians were sophisticated enough to have used the dovetail joint. Why not a locking scarf ?

-Will

 

Personally I'm not convinced the ancients even lacked technology. Assumptions of a common ancestor with apes were proven false by the discovery of Ardipithecus ramidus in 2009.

Oldest Skeleton of Human Ancestor Found https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/oldest-skeleton-human-ancestor-found-ardipithecus

It is now known the earliest hominids all walked upright, bipedally similar to modern man, per Ardipithecus ramidus, Sahelanthropus tchadensis, Orrorin tugenensis, and Australopithecus afarensis. Genesis 4 shows that people from the beginning were working metal, running cities, playing musical instruments, farming, and tending cattle.

The farther back one goes the more the Bible justifies its claims, and the list of archaeological evidence supporting the Bible stretches back at least 4,600 years, so extensively that virtually every single major detail has major archaeological corroboration.

Archaeological Evidence for the Bible https://biblestrength.net/wiki/Archaeological_Evidence_for_the_Bible

The Bible states that modern advancements are just patterns over the ancient. (Ecclesiastes 1:10) That the angels had space technology is evident from Ezekiel 1, which gives precise descriptions of circular spaceships with multiple rings surrounded by portholes transporting beings similar to humans (vv. 15-21), as well as spacesuits made of metal coursing with electricity. (vv. 5-14)

Computers and batteries existed even 2,000 years ago per the Antikythera Mechanism and Baghdad Battery, although I would hesitate to conclude the ancients were that advanced. Advanced legal codes existed 4,000 years ago per the Law Codes of Ur-Nammu, Eshnunna, Hammurabi (which preserves the Bible's 'eye for an eye' back 3,700 years ago), and Lipit-Ishtar.

Nonetheless, some degree of metallurgy over the 1,600 years preceding the Flood allowing for semi-modern ship-building comparable to that seen prior to 1,000 A.D. seems probable.