Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Hydrodynamic Forces Sailing Yachts

    Uploaded by

    Goutam Kumar Saha
    37 views54 pages
    Hydrodynamic Forces Sailing Yachts

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Hydrodynamic Forces Sailing Yachts

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    37 views54 pages

    Hydrodynamic Forces Sailing Yachts

    Uploaded by

    Goutam Kumar Saha
    Hydrodynamic Forces Sailing Yachts

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 54
    The International HISWA Symposium on Yacht Design and Yacht Construction Approximation of the Hydrodynamic Forces on a Sailing Yacht based on the ‘Delft Systematic Yacht Hull Series’ by JA Keuning ! U B Sonnenberg ' Abstract Over the past years a considerable extension has been given to the Delft Systematic Yacht Hull Series (DSYHS) The DSYHS data set now contains information about both the bare hull and appended bull resistance in the upright and the heeled condition, the resistance increase due to the longitudinal trimming moment of the sails, the sideforce production and induced resistance due to sideforce at various combinations of forward speeds, leeway angles and heeling angles. New formulations for the relevant hydrodynamic forces as function of the hull geometry parameters have been derived to be able to deal with a larger variety of yacht hull shapes and appendage designs. During the past two years some results of this research have already been published. In the present paper an almost complete picture of the relevant expressions which may be used in a Velocity Prediction Program (VPP) will be presented. ' Shiphydromechanics Laboratory Delft University of Technology 99 The International HISWA Symposium on Yacht Design and Yacht Construction 1 - INTRODUCTION ‘The Delft Systematic Yacht Hull Series is a very extensive series of systematic yacht hulls consisting of some 50 models by now, all of which have been tested at the Delft Shiphydromechanics Laboratory of the Delft University of Technology over the last 25 years. ‘The aim of these investigations which led to the testing of these 50 models of the DSYHS was the developments of equations that could be used as an approximation method for the assessment of the most important hydrodynamic forces acting on a sailing yacht. The shape of the yacht designs has changed considerably over these 25 years which necessitated the change in the shapes of the hulls tested as well as in the approach and/or method of anal ‘of the measured data of the DSYHS. Therefore over the total span (in time) of the DSYHS three different parent models have been used. In it's sort the DSYHS is probably the largest systematic series with such a high degree of consistency in both the model shapes and measurement techniques, procedures and analysis. Based on the equations derived from the results of the DSYHS a Velocity Prediction Program was to be developed, which should enable designers of sailing yachts to evaluate their designs and the possible design variations on their performance in an early design stage. In conjunction with this DSYHS a number of smaller systematic series have been tested aimed at solving specific problems not (fully) covered by the DSYHS. In this respect the research on appendage drag and sideforce production should be mentioned. Due to the rather large development in the appendage design and layout in the last decades the standard appendages of the DSYHS did no longer do justice to these new design trends. This research was aimed to derive formulations for the forces on the appendages separately, so that a larger variety of designs could be deal with and was based on a series model experiments containing some 13 different keel configuration placed underneath one particular yacht hull and on a series of experiments with 6 different keels undemeath two systematically different hulls. The growing interest in the behaviour of the yachts in waves and in particular the added resistance due to these waves has led to research specifically aimed at the calculation of this added resistance suitable for the use in a VPP environment. Inevitably also the approach towards the assessment of the forces involved has changed over the past 25 years, which led to additional tests with all the models, also with those already previously tested, for instance to measure bare hull resistance and the change in resistance due to trim and heeling alone. ‘All these changes mentioned above have led to a substantial new set of polynomial expressions suitable for the approximation of the hydrodynamic forces involved in the sailing yacht equilibrium, During the last decades a considerable number of publications on the these subject of calculating the hydrodynamic forces on the sailing yacht have been published by Gerritsma et al,, all of which may be found in the List of References at the end of this paper. A part of the newly derived formulations have already been presented in some recent publications of the Delft Shiphydromechanics Laboratory. In the present paper however the new calculation schedule and the complete set of equations that goes with this schedule will be presented. 100 The International HISWA Symposium on Yacht Design and Yacht Construction ‘The method by which the hydrodynamic forces have been decomposed in separate components is presented in Figure 1 as a kind of flow chart. The decomposition is as follows: Upright Resistance Resistance of Hull Resistance of Hull wit | of Hull with Keel | = Rt with Keeland |= Rtg Keel and Rudder with | = Rig and Rudder Rudder with Heel Hee! and Leeway Frictional] Upright Resistance Resistance of Hull Resistance | = Rth of Hull with Keel with Keel and Hull and Rudder Ruder with Heel [ Residuary Delta Delta Resistance | Rrh Frict Resistance | _ Resistance | _ | Hutt | dueto Hee! Rin | due to Side Force | ~ 4 RFR = | Hull Hull and Kee! Viscous oe Resistance | — Ryk Delta Keel Resistance i due to Heel | ~ 4 Rrho besere Hull Delta pee | Bee =} Resistance Rudder [Delta fee = ARO ” Residuary Resstaee | = a Rekop Trimming Moment Resistance | = Rrk Keel | Keel Figure 1 Graphic Representation of Resistance Components ‘The upright resistance of the bare hull is the starting point of the calculation scheme. In this, condition the frictional resistance and the residuary resistance are calculated. Then the resistance of keel and rudder are determined in the same condition also as the summation of a viscous and a residuary part. In this upright condition the added resistance of the hull due to wind waves is calculated and added when applicable, i.e. in the upwind courses from close hauled to beam reach, Then the yacht is heeled over and the ‘deltas’ of the frictional resistance of the hull and the residuary resistance of the hull, the keel and the rudder are determined. Subsequently the yacht assumes leeway and the induced resistance due to the side force is calculated as a function of heeling angle. Finally the change in resistance due to the trimming moment of the crew, adjusting its longitudinal position along the length of the yacht to counteract the bow dowa trimming moment caused by driving force of the sails in particular at the running and reaching courses, will be brought into the calculation, Finally the summation of all these components yields the total resistance of the yacht. For each of these components expressions will be presented in the following paragraphs. In formula the total resistance asa sum of the various components can be written as: qa) RtoB = Rho + Rokr + Rrh-+ dRrh0+dRrhg + Rrk +dRrkp + Ri To give an impression of the magnitude and the contribution of all these different resistance ‘components to the total resistance of a sailing yacht with a waterline length of 10 m, under 101 The International HISWA Symposium on Yacht Design and Yacht Construction 10° heel, a leeway angle of 3° and with a 4 men crew sitting in the cockpit aft, the relative contributions to the total resistance for Sysser models 1 and 25 are presented in Figure 2. Each line adds the component as labelled in the legend: Resistance Sysser 25 Figure 2. Relative Resistance Contributions Noticeable is the different influence of the resistance caused by the trimming moment. For model 25 the total resistance decreases when the crew compensates the forward trimming moment of the sail force. While for model 1 this influence is limited to an resistance increase in the middle speed range only. 102 The International HISWA Symposium on Yacht Design and Yacht Construct 2 - DESCRIPTION OF THE DSYHS The original parent model chosen for the Delft Systematic Yacht Hull Series in 1974 was the well known “Standfast 43” designed by Frans Maas at Breskens, The Netherlands. The Standfast 43 was a typical contemporary racing yacht design. From this parent model (model 1), 21 other systematically varied designs have been derived (model 2 to model 22) using, as far as feasible, an affine transformation technique. All models were consequently tested in the towing tank over a period of 10 years. This sub-series of the DSYHS is known as “DSYHS Series 1” After 10 years the typical yacht designs started to differ considerably from the lines of this original parent and therefore it was decided in 1983 to introduce a new parent model into the DSYHS according to the lines presented to the Delfi Shiphydromechanics Laboratory by Van der Stadt Design at Wormerveer, The Netherlands. From this second parent huli, model 25, another 6 new variations were derived known as sub-series “DSYHS Series 2” (model 23 through model 28) and later another 12 models based on the same parent with special emphasis on very light displacement and higher Length to Beam ratios (model 29 through model 40; “DSYHS Series 3”). Finally in 1995 yet another parent model was introduced into the DSYHS according to the lines presented to the Delft Shiphydromechanics Laboratory by Sparkman and Stephens from New York, United States of America, known as the “IMS 40” especially designed for research and which was intended as some “average” International Measurement System (IMS) design. From this third parent model, model 44, another 9 variations have been tested sofar and is now known as sub-series “DSYHS Series 4” (model 42 through model 50). In general it is believed that by this significant variety in hull shapes a sufficiently large area of possible yacht designs is being covered by the DSYHS to make its results and the derivations therefrom applicable to a large diversity of yacht designs. Nevertheless new additions to the DSYHS in the future may still be necessary to keep up with (inevitable) developments in yacht design. To give an impression of the hull shapes, the bodyplan of the three parent models are presented in Figure 3 on the next page. 103 The International HISWA Symposium on Yacht Design and Yacht Construction MIL \ Sysser 1 Sysser 25 Sysser 44 Figure 3 The Parent Hull Forms of the DSYHS The International HISWA Symposium on Yacht Design and Yacht Construction ‘Table 1 The Range of Hull Parameters Tested in the DSYHS Ranges ful Length - Beam Ratio Bwl 2.73] 10 5.00 Beam - Draft Ratio 2.46| 10 19.38 Length ~ Displacement Ratio 4.3410 8.50 Longitudinal Centre of Buoyanc 0.0%] to | 8.2% Longitudinal Centre of Floatation 1.8%! to | 9.5% Prismatic Coefficient 0.52| to 0.60 Midship Area Coefficient 0.65] to 0.78 Loading Factor Vee 3.78] 10 | 12.67 ‘The principal hull parameters varied within DSYHS are presented in Table 1 A complete oversight of the hull shape parameters of cach of the 50 models of the Delft Systematic Yacht Hull Series is presented in Table 2. This Table is of particular interest because it illustrates the range of values of the various hull shape parameters (and parameter combinations) that have been varied and tested within the Series which yields an indication of the range of applicability of the formulations derived from these data. 105 The International HISWA Symposium on Yacht Design and Yacht Construction Table 2 Hull Form Parameters of DSYHS Ty er aero cet B_ | oP a a Sysser| voLen3 % voucr2/a) 7 3155] _3992| 4 228] 35] —T sea] —veee| eae | 4.376 2 ses 30a] 476] 230] 3360.67 | 0.867 | 0691 | 0.6a6 | 4 4s Brat] saa] 4779 2.30] 3.32] 0.370[ 0872 | 01 08a T z BOO] 3.84 057. I LT KH ID 5 YAMEX:: ax6[ 241] 3.43] 0.361] 0559] 068s] O.ea7 | 4719) é esp zare[ ae] 2a] aaa 0.sea | 0.861 | 0685 | O6a8| a. OsT 3] ass] ess] 5.143] 220] 3.35] 0.620261] 0685| 0646 | 5.743 Sp 37a sear. Fao} 32] OsTe] 088s] OO] near | 4.07 % 304g] 4131 4776] 2.20] 3.34| 0.353] 0846] Oe72| 0.646 | 5.026 at 3ee2, 4 0:00} TwS| Uses] dess] 0.66] 5.017, T4155] 3907] 4775 | 498 0,365 | 0565] 0682. q2] 3500] 3.936] 5.104] 0.08 0364} 0.564] 0693 73 [3500] 3.036 S104] 5.07 0364 | 0564] 0681 74 602 70a Osaz | 0570] 0657. 35 [ 3165] 3.003 [478% 2 Tas] 0530] —08se 7e_[ 3155] 2.810 4240] 2.90, Os2| 0520} 0887, 7 a 42a 4778] 0.01 O387| 05068] —o724 5 ET ‘0387 | 0598] O71: 1g | 3.188] 3751] 47 Cor} Tuz[ 0550] 066s Tae so] 4178] AS TH2 [0530] 06st Zi_| 3509] 4.167 9g | 2.29 0.367 | 0.508] 0776, Bare} azar] asa 228 0387 | 0599] O71 Sars] —a08T wor sl Osea] —OsaT | OE 4 [3407 | 10.958 [6.935] 2.09, ‘0.402 | 0543] 06; [4000] — 5.388] 6.003] 1.98] 036] 0548] 0671 26 | 3994| 12.907 | 7.970 2.08] 0.407 | 0543] 0678 2 4496 | 2.460 D188 O35 [0546 | —Cor7, [2500 674] 6992] -208[ ‘0.400 —O5aa| Cara 5 zo00| ora | —_7a9s| as] res] Oars] 04a | 677 TO a000| 7.082] 6500] 456] 7.65] 0413] 0.5da] C672] 32000} 15 bes] 8100 483] 781] ora] 05am] —O87E 5 DY A D7 SED CY 4005]; 1087O| Taso} 635] 873] 0.413] 0540] 0680. [34-4 900) 70.3 TagT|-4.37|-7 55] 0.305] 0522 | 064s. 35] 4000] 11.468 —7a72|__4.40]| Daa] 0580] Coad, 364000] 10.163. ATO 436] 7 ap _0.300] 0.351 | 0.863 7 4000; 9434| 7469] 4.42] 6.03] 0.362] 0.552] C54 365.000 | 79.378. oa] a 53] 7 | OMS] OSaT | Or 3e[ 5.000] 896g] 7400] 455] 7 Sa] 0.413] 0.540] 0670) T4000] S208] SaaS re] __-asi | Oaoo] sao] Ow Base] a7] 403 S28] Sai] 094] 05540670) a e20r] 3.26] 64g] 0.394] 0550672. 4a] 3310] 4ave| 492] 328] 0364] 0354] 0.668, 8 7 Beco] S370] 370] 626] 0.294| 0.563] 0.668 Soe 47a] 802] 80] 0.470 | 0.548 | 0.698 Zar save] oe] 803] 0.04] 0.557 | 0.600 BRT] ss0a] S34] BS] 042i | 0568] 0.688 SEL sszt] 7] sr} oto] 0535] 0.688 106 The International HISWA Symposium on Yacht Design and Yacht Construction 2-1 TEST SETUP All models have been tested in the #1 towing tank of the Delft Shiphydromechanics Laboratory with a length of 145 meter, width of 4. 5 meter and depth of 2.5 meter. The model size within the DSYHS ranges between 1.6 meter waterline length for Series 1 to 2.00 meter waterline length for the other models (Series 2, 3 and 4). All models have been tested as bare hulls (unappended) in the speed range from Fn = 0.10 to Fn = 0.60 to measure resistance, sinkage and trim in the following conditions: - upright with no trim correction for the driving sail forces upright with trim correction for the driving sail forces - heeled to 20 degrees heel with no correction for trim due to sail forces In addition the majority of the models have been fitted with a keel and rudder, identical for all models and according to the plan as presented in Figure 4. For the sake of consistency throughout the series all these models have been fitted with physical the same keel and rudder. This implies that the relative magnitude of the keel and rudder on the full scale yachts with 10 meter waterline length is dependent on the model size and the scale factor used. Figure 4. DSYHS Keel and Rudder Configuration Table 3. DSYHS Keel and Rudder Model Dimensions symbol | unit Keel Rudder | Profile NACA 63,A015 0012 Root Chord CK | Cay |_om 0.414 0.124 Tip Chord ck | crip |_m | 0.262 0.096 Span bk | br | m | 0.219 0.266 Volume Vk | Vr | m | 0.00262 | 0.00023 Wetted Area sk | sr | m | 0.1539 0.0550 ‘Sweepback Angle Ak | Ar |? | 45 54 All these appended models have been tested in the following conditions: - upright with no trim correction for driving sail forces (Fn = 0.10....0.60) - heeled, yawed and trimmed condition in a matrix consisting of all combinations of ~ 4 heeling angles (i.e. 0, 10, 20 and 30 degrees) - at least three different speeds . ranging from Fn = 0.25 to 0.45) - 4 different leeway angles (ie. ranging from 0 to 12 degrees) 107 The International HISWA Symposium During the experiments the following values were measured: ~ forward speed of the model - resistance force heeling angle ~ heeling moment ~ leeway angle - side force and yawing moment ~ sinkage and trim (at speed) ~ trimming moment The standard measurement _ technique developed for sailing yachts experiments at the Delft Shiphydromechanics Laboratory has been used throughout the whole series. This technique implies that the model is connected to the towing carriage in such a way that it is free to heave, roll and pitch but restrained in all other modes of motion. The connection to the towing carriage is established by means of two balanced arms situated at equal distances fore and aft of the longitudinal position of the Centre of Gravity of the model at deck level. A schematic presentation of the measurement set-up is presented in Figure 5. Figure 5 Test Set-up under Towing Carriage During the measurements the model is fitted with carborundum strips for turbulence stimulation, both on the hull and the appendages. On the hull three strips are placed which are 4.0 cm wide each and placed at equal separation with the first strip at the forward end of the waterline and the after most one approximately at station 61/2 just forward of the leading edge of the keel. On the keel and rudder one single strip is placed close to the leading edge of the appendages and these have a width of 3.0 cm for the keel and for the rudder 2.0 cm. To correct for the extra resistance originating from the presence of the strip itself all resistance tests are carried out twice: once with half width and once with full width of the strips. The difference in resistance between these two conditions is used to determine the resistance of the strips. The model resistance is obtained by subtracting the extra resistance from the strips from the measured model resistance. All model data are extrapolated to a full scale 10 m waterline length yacht. The extrapolation is carried out according to Froude’s extrapolation technique. 108 The International HISWA Symposium on Yacht Design and Yacht Construction For the determination of the frictional resistance ‘Rf’ use is made of the following expression: @) Rf =kpV?-S-Cf where: p density of water kg/m? v the forward velocity of the yacht m/s s the wetted area at zero speed im? cf friction coefficient In the determination of the frictional resistance use is being made of the well known ITTC- 57 extrapolation line, according to: (3) 0075 (log(an) 2)" in which the hull Reynolds number Rn is determined by: (4) pp = V0.7 Lvl v in which: Lwl waterline length m v kinematic viscosity m/s ‘As may be seen from this expression for the reference length necessary for the determination of the Reynolds Number ‘Rn’ 70% of the waterline length is taken. For the appendages the average chord length is used for the determination of the Reynolds Number. 109 The International HISWA Symposium on Yacht Design and Yacht Construction For the upright conditions a so-called Prohaska plot is made to determine the formfactor of the hull. As a typical example of such a Prohaska plot of the DSYHS in Figure 6 the plots are presented for the three parent models of the Series. From these figures it may be concluded that the formfactor is generally small. In general the formfactor using this described turbulence stimulation technique and derived from the Prohaska plots has been found to be in the range from ‘k’ = 0.03 to ‘k’ = 0.07 in most cases and only in one or ‘two exceptional cases *k’ exceeded these values. - { | - ast | B fs o 1 2 3 tte extwct Plot for Sysser 1 Plot for Sysser 25 Fronasa i Up | eter lot for Sysser 44 Figure 6 Prohaska Plots for the Parent Model Hull Measurements Since no well based or generally accepted formulation is known (nor could it be derived from the results with the DSYHS) determining the formfactor *k’ as function of the hull geometry parameters of any arbitrary hull, it was decided, from the beginning of the series, not to use a formfactor for the calculation of the viscous resistance in the extrapolation procedure. This would make such a calculation method of ‘k’ necessary in order to be able to calculate the resistance of a specific yacht under consideration. 110 The International HISWA Symposium on Yacht Design and Yacht Construction 3 - CALM WATER RESISTANCE 3-1 CANOEBODY RESISTANCE As shown in the flow component chart for the definition of the various resistance components (Figure 1) the first resistance to be assessed is the bare hull canoe body resistance. 3-1-1 UPRIGHT RESISTANCE First the resistance in the upright sailing condition will be calculated. Two separate parts of the resistance in the upright condition will be considered: i.e. the frictional (or viscous) resistance and the residuary resistance. 3-l-L-1 VISCOUS RESISTANCE ‘The frictional resistance of the bare hull is determined using the following expression: (5) Rpk=1pV2-Se-Cf in which: p density of water kg/m? v the forward velocity of the yacht m/s Se the wetted area of the hull at zero speed m Cf friction coefficient The wetted area of the hull is considered to be known from the hydrostatic calculations. If this is not the case the wetted area of the hull in the upright and zero speed condition may be approximated by the following expression derived from regression using the hydrostatic calculations carried out for all the models of the DSYHS: (6) 197+0171 SHE). (965)" (ye. pws) Te Cm in which: Bwl beam of waterline m Te draft of canoe body m Cm _midship section coefficient Ve volume of displacement of canoe m Lwl length of waterline m Fully turbulent flow along the hull both during the experiments as in real life is assumed and therefore the friction coefficient Cf is determined using the ITTC-57 extrapolation line. Although the choice of 70% of the waterline length as the reference length in the Reynolds Number, as shown before, is quite justifiable for the hull geometry’s of Series 1 the choice remains debatable, Particularly for the more contemporary shapes of Series 2, 3 and 4, 90% of the waterline length would appear more appropriate. For the sake of consistency however lL The International HISWA Symposium on Yacht Design and Yacht Construction 70% of Lwl has been used throughout the whole DSYHS for the determination of the frictional resistance. It should be noted that this therefore effects also the magnitude of the residuary resistance part. As explained before no “form” factor ‘k’ is used in the DSYHS for the transformation of the frictional into the viscous resistance of the hull. This decision is based on the absence of a generally accepted formulation of the form factor as a function of hull parameters for an arbitrary hull. Such a formulation could also not be derived from the results of the DSYHS. This implied that ‘k’ = 0 was the best approach leaving any differences in the viscous resistance due to hull shape in the residuary resistance. 3-1-1-2 RESIDUARY RESISTANCE Based on the experience gained with previous expressions for the determination of the residuary resistance of the hull of a sailing yacht, see Ref. 1, Ref. 2 and Ref. 3, the following expression for the residuary resistance of a yacht hull in the upright condition at one specific Froude number has been found to yield sufficient accuracy as well as “robustness”: ny *+a,-Cp+a, Se LCF, ‘ie in which Rrh _residuary resistance of canoe body N Ve volume of displacement of canoe body m? p density of water kg/m? g acceleration of gravity m/s? Lwi __ length of waterline m Bwl beam of waterline m LCB,, longitudinal position centre of buoyancy to fpp sm LCF,, longitudinal position centre of flotation to fpp m fpp "forward perpendicular (ordinate 10) - cp prismatic coefficient - Aw waterplane area at zero speed m Se wetted surface canoe body at zero speed m? 112 The International HISWA Symposium on Yacht Design and Yacht Construction Some principal considerations which led to the presented shape of the parametric terms contained in the polynomial are: 1. The parameters in the terms are coupled with the displacement length ratio to make them dependent on displacement. The terms are composed in such a way that their supposed contribution to the residuary resistance has a similar trend as the displacement length ratio. 2. The beam to length ratio is introduced for all speeds involved as an contributing factor. 3. The beam to draft ratio is replaced by the ratio between the displacement and the wetted area of the hull, which term is considered to yield more robustness and less sensitivity to small changes in midship section shape. 4. The LCB-LCF separation is introduced as a possible measure of hull distortion. 5. Higher order terms of both Cp and LCB are introduced to yield optimum values of Cp and LCB as function of speed within the range covered by the polynomial. The coefficients of this polynomial expression have been determined at constant forward speeds and are presented for a number of different Froude numbers using a least square fit through the measured data. Since the original presentation of this expression in 1996, Ref. 3, the number of models tested within the DSYHS has increased therefore leading to differences in the coefficients compared to those presented before. Also this time not all models of the DSYHS have been included in the regression but only 39 out of the total of 50 models available have been used, leaving some of the more extreme or highly distorted models out. The coefficients ‘a,’ to ‘a,’ are presented in Table 4 for 11 different Froude numbers from Fn = 0.10 to Fn = 0.60. ‘Table 4 Coefficients for Polynomial: Residuary Resistance of Bare Hull Fa | 0.10 | 0.15 [0.20 | 0.25 [030 [035 [ 0.40 [ 045 [ 050 | 0.55 | 0.60 a |-0.0014| 0.0004] 0.0014[ 0.0027] 0.0056] 0.0032] -0.0064] -0.0171| -0.0201| 0.0495] 0.0808. ‘a, | 0.0403] -0.1808] -0.1071| 0.0463] -0.8005| -0.1011| 2.3095] 3.4017] 7.1576| 1.5618| -5.3233 a | 0.0470] 0.1793] 0.0637] -0.1263| 0.4891 -0.0813| -1.5152| -1.9862| -6.3304] -6.0661 -1.1513 ax | -0.0227] -0.0004| 0.0090] 0.0150] 0.0269] -0.0382| 0.0751] 0.3242] 0.5829] 0.8641] 0.9663 ‘a, |-0.0119| 0.0097| 0.0153] 0.0274{ 0.0519 0.0320] -0.0858] -0.1450] 0.1630] 1.1702| 1.6084) 0.1721] 0.1021 -0.0595] 0.7314] 0.0223 The resistance curves obtained for the models within the DSYHS using this polynomial expression all showed quite satisfactory correlation with the measured data and they do so over the entire speed range. As a demonstration of this fit, the measured and calculated residuary resistance curves of the three parent models of the series, some additional models of Series 2 and four models not belonging to the DSYHS are presented in Figure 7 3 0.0061] 0.0118] 0.0011] -0.0299] -0.0313] -0 1481 | -0.5349| -0. 8043] -0.3066] 1.7610] 2.7459] -0.0055] 0.0012| 0.0110] 0.0292] 0.0837] 0.1715] 0.2952] _0.5023| 0.9176] 0.8491 2.4550] -3.5284] -7.1579| -2.1191| 4.7129) -0.1728) -0.0648] 0.1220]-0.3619| 0.1587] 1.1865] 1.3575] 5.2534] 5.4281] 1.1089] The International HISWA Symposium on Yacht Design and Yacht Construction Parent DSYHS Models Wessuna a sulted 10m nt waa 000 oe Sp zm 02 025 03 038 04 04s 05 085 05 - ‘Non DSYHS Models. Figure 7 Comparison Hull Residuary Resistance Measured and Approximated 4 The International HISWA Symposium on Yacht Design and Yacht Construction 3-1-2. CHANGE IN RESISTANCE DUE TO HEEL. ‘When the yacht heels over there will be 2 change in the resistance of the yacht. In real circumstances this heeling will be caused by the arthwarth forces on the sails. This implies lift forces on the hull and its appendages also and therefor the induced resistance component will be a large part of the change in total resistance. However to be able to calculate this induced resistance more accurately first an attempt has been made to assess the change in resistance due to heel alone, i.e. no sideforce involved. This resistance change is split in a viscous and a residuary part, each being treated separately. 3-1-2-1 CHANGE IN VISCOUS RESISTANCE, ‘The change in viscous resistance due to heel of the canoe body is solely attributed to a change in wetted area of the yacht hull. This implies no change in viscous resistance, i.e. no change in formfactor, is taken into account. This approach originates from two considerations: 1. A formfactor is not taken into account in the upright condition as well. 2. A change in form factor due to heel alone can hardly be established based on towing tank measurements alone. The model could be towed with heel and without total sideforce (possibly implying a small drift angle) but this does not mean that there is no sideforce distribution along the length of the model which sums up to zero. This implies a possible “mix up” between a complicated induced resistance component and a possible change in formfactor. Based on the hydrostatic calculations which have been carried out for all models of the DSYHS the change in wetted area of he hulls with heeling angle has been determined. This change in wetted area of the yachts could be approximated with a high degree of accuracy by the following expression: (8) Bwl —_beam of waterline m Te draft of canoe body m cm midship section coefficient a With the coefficients ‘s,’ to °s,” being determined using a least square fit regression analysis in Table 5: 11S The International HISWA Symposium on Yacht Design and Yacht Construction Table 5 Coefficients for Polynomial: Wetted Surface under Heel 5 10 15 20_[_25 30 [35 s_| 4.112] -4.522[3.291[ 1.850] 6.510] 12.334] 14.648 s, | 0.054] -0.132| -0.389| 1.200] -2.305]_-3.911[ -5.182 0.027] -0.077| -0.118| -0.109| -0.066] 0.024] 0.102 6.320] 8.738] 8.949] 5.364] 3.443] 1.767| 3.497] ‘A typical result of this expression is shown in Figure 8 for one “average” and two “more extreme” models of the DSYHS. Both the accuracy of the fit using the polynomial expression for such widely different hulls as the significant difference in the magnitude of the change of wetted area itself is clearly demonstrated Measured and Calculated Wetted Surface ° 5 1 8S, Heeling Angle PHI [DEG] Figure 8 Calculation of Wetted Surface 3-1-2-2 CHANGE IN RESIDUARY RESISTANCE Due to the asymmetry of the hull when heeled and a corresponding change in the distribution of displaced volume along the length a change in residuary resistance will most probably occur, To asses this change in resistance two possible approaches have been tried: 1. To use the same polynomial expression as used for the upright resistance of the canoe body but determine new coefficients based on the measured data under heel. The result is not a change in residuary resistance but the changed residuary resistance due to heel. 2. The change of residuary resistance due to heel is determined from the measured data and a simplified polynomial expression is formulated for just this delta resistance alone. Both approaches have their pro’s and con's. The results of the first approach have been published in Ref. 5 but predicting the total residuary resistance of the heeled hull with the ‘upright geometrical properties of the upright hull seems less justifiable than predicting the 116 The International HISWA Symposium on Yacht Design and Yacht Construction upright resistance with the upright parameters and using only some of these to predict the generally small change (delta) due to heel. So the second approach is presented and used throughout this report, although the differences with the first approach are generally small for the cases investigated. ‘The change in residuary resistance of the canoe body due to heel is derived from the measurements at zero and 20 degrees of heel with all models used for the upright condition polynomial by determining the viscous resistance upright and heeled and subtracting these from the total resistance of the hull upright and heeled respectively. According to: (9) ARAG ness) = PHP mes) ~ PEM oi) The delta residuary resistance at 20 degrees of heel (as an average sailing angle) could then be approximated by a polynomial expression given by: (a0) ) + uy LCB +u,+LCB with the coefficients for u, through wu, : Table 6 Coefficients for Polynomial: Delta Resistance Hull due to 20° Heel (Coefficients are multiplied by 1000 Fa] 0.25 | 030 [| 0.35 | 040 | 045 | 0.50 | 0.55 uy | 0.0268] 0.6628] 1.6433] _-0.8659] -3.2715| 0.1976] 1.5873 uy, | 0.0014] -0.0632| 0.2144) -0.0354] 0.1372| -0.1480)_-0.3749 uu; _| 0.0057] -0.0699| 0.1640] 0.2226] 0.5547] -0.6593/_-0.7105 u 0.0016] 0.0069] 0.0199| 0.0188] 0.0268] 0.1862] 0.2146] uy _| -0.0070| 0.0459] -0.0540| -0.5800| 1.0064] -0.7489|-0.4818 * | -0.0017| -0.0004[ -0.0268] -0.1133]-0.2026] -0. 1648) -0.1174 ‘The dependency on the heeling angle which is necessary to obtain values of the resistance increase due to heel for any other angle of heel has been determined using a much smaller database of measurement data. In general a good fit was obiained using a dependency of the delta resistance on the heeling angle. The change is calculated to be equivalent with the heeling angle to the power 1.7, according to: (i) ARrh, = ARPh,.49s6.0: 9" with the heel angle ‘o’ in radians. The fit through the experimental data for a few DSYHS models is shown in Figure 9 and Figure 10 and demonstrates to be quite satisfactory. It should be noticed in Figure 9 and Figure 10 that the delta part is small compared with the upright resistance. The scale of the vertical axes in the graphs differ with factor 10. 7 The International HISWA Symposium on Yacht Design and Yacht Construction Fo Figure 9 Delta Resistance due to 20° Heel of Bare Hull ‘Rev Rest iv Ha 2 ep hoe a enzo - f @ 3 8 g 2 028 03 08 04 a4 05 05 0s Figure 10 Residuary Resistance of Bare Hull at 20° Heel 3-2. APPENDAGE RESISTANCE ‘The resistance of the bare hull and the appendages are dealt with separately. The viscous resistance of the appendages has been found to be independent of the heel angle and therefore only one expressions is formulated for the calculation of this viscous part. Based on the DSYHS experiments with systematic keel variations underneath various hulls it was concluded that the residuary resistance of the appendages is significantly influenced by the (immediate) presence of the free surface and therefore definitely has a heeling dependency. So the residuary resistance of the appendages is determined in the upright condition first and a delta resistance due to heel is formulated thereafter. 118 The International HISWA Symposium on Yacht Design and Yacht Construction 3-2-1 UPRIGHT APPENDAGE RESISTANCE 32-11 VISCOUS RESISTANCE ‘The viscous resistance ‘Rv’ of the appendages is considered to be a summation of the frictional resistance and “other” viscous effects accounted for by the introduction of a “form” factor. (2) Rv=Rf-(1+k) For the calculation of the frictional resistance ‘Rf use is made of the following expression: (13) Rf =h-pV?S-Cf in which (4) of = 005 (log(Rn) originates from the ITTC ‘57 extrapolation line and is valid for a fully turbulent flow. For the determination of the Reynolds number ‘Rn’ the average chord length of the appendage may be used or, if the appendage is span wise divided in several segments, the local chord length of such a section. No attempt is being made here to take into account more complex dependency on the cross section profiles of the appendage and so possibly for mixed flow, i.e. a combination of laminar and turbulent flow over the chord of the appendage. There are no principal procedural problems however for taking these mixed flow possibilities in account except maybe the correct formulation of the frictional and form effects The viscous and formdrag is taken into the calculation by making us? of the well known formulation for *k’ as given by Hoerner’s “Fluid Dynamic Drag” Ref. 7 and generally accepted in the aeronautical sciences, which determines the formfactor a sole function of the relative thickness of the sections, according to: laa Each of the appendages, i.e. keel and rudder(s), is treated in a similar manner using the same formulations For the “straight course” upright resistance a possible wake effect from the keel on the rudder may be introduced. From experiments, in which the wake behind the keel on sufficient distance aft of the kecl has been measured on a 3.5 meter Lwi model, an (is) (1+k) 19 The International HISWA Symposium on Yacht Design and Yacht Construction acceptable mean reduction value of 0.80 times the free stream velocity has been found for the water velocity over the rudder, see Ref. 8 and Ref. 9. The general applicability of this, value may be disputed however and because the rudder will only be in the wake completely if the yachts sails with absolutely no heel and no leeway, the necessity of such an approach is also questionable. 3-2-1-2 APPENDAGE RESIDUARY RESISTANCE, The very existence of a significant residuary resistance of the appendages beneath the hull in the upright condition has long been disputed. A report in 1975 by Beukelman and Keuning Ref, 10 however already showed an influence of the keel sweepback (i.c. longitudinal distribution of the displaced keel volume over the length) on the upright resistance of a yacht. From analysis of the results of the experiments with bare hull and the appended model within the DSYHS, in which series one and the same keel has been tested underneath a wide variety of hulls, it became obvious that a residuary resistance of the appendages should be taken into account. Straight forward comparison of the appended and unappended results within the DSYHS however necessitated the subtraction of two big quantities to produce the residuary resistance of the keels. This yielded too much scatter in the relatively small keel residuary resistance component to justify a reliable assessment. Therefore an additional Delft Systematic Keel Series (DSKS) has been set up, in which so far a family of 6 different keels has been tested underneath two IACC type hulls with different Beam to Draft ratio’s. These experiments are extensively described in Ref. 9 and Ref. 4, Also the results of recent inyestigations on the DSKS by W M Meulemans, Ref. 14, are included. Therefore this research will only be summarised briefly here. During these experiments the in the SKS the resistance- and liftforces on the appendages were measured directly and separately as well as the forces on the model as a whole. The tests program contained experiments both with the bare hulls as with the hulls equipped with the various appendages. The standard measurements and test program of the Delft Shiphydromechanics Laboratory have been used during these experiments. The profiles and main dimensions of the keels used in the experiments are presented in Figure 14 and Table 7 and for the two model hulls in Figure 11, Figure 12 and Table 8. Sa Model 329 Figure 11 Drawing of [ACC Model 329 Hull 120 The International HISWA Symposium on Yacht Design and Yacht Construction Figure 12 Drawing of [ACC Model 366 Hull The parameters tested for their influence on this residuary resistance of the keel in the upright position were: the span of the keel, the displaced volume and the vertical height of the centre of buoyancy of the keel, the beam to draft ratio of the hull and the taper ratio of the keel. In the analysis the keel resistance was determined as the difference between the resistance of the appended and the unappended condition, so possible interference effects between hull and appendage are contained in the keel resistance component. These results are used to develop the polynomial expression for the keel resistance. It should be noted that this DSKS is still under development and future extensions are foreseen, which are intended to lead to an increased reliability of the keel residuary resistance assessment ‘Another systematic keel series has been tested, which consisted of a series of 13 widely different keels underneath one and the same hull, described in Ref. 11. This series is refered to as the Delft Various Keel Series (DVKS). In this series the hull of a JOR type maxi has been used to compare the usual IOR type keel with a number of alternatives both for racing and cruising, like an Elliptical keel, keels with Winglets, Centre boards, Shallow Draft keels , Upside-down keels etc. etc. In the present assessment of the kee! residuary resistance only the IOR-, the Upside-down- and the Shallow Draft keel are being used because the others are not sufficiently consistent with the rest of the keels used. A side view and the main particulars of these keels are presented in Figure 15 and Table 7. The particulars of the IOR type hull, Model 232, are presented in Table 8. 121 The International HISWA Symposium on Yacht Design and Yacht Construction Table 7 Main Form Parameters of Keels ‘acht eel AR | TR A te IDSYHS Model 1 tandard DSYHS keel 0.65 | 063 | 45.0 | 15.0 IDSYHS Model 23..28 |DSYHS Model 43 fodel 117 20° sweep back version | 0.94 | 1.00 | 20.0 | 15.0 jodel 232 HOR® keel 0.92 | osi | 28.0 | 125 [Shoal Draft’ keel 028 | 079 | 33.0 | 110 [Up Side Down” keel 0.92 [198 | 28.0 | 125 fodel 329 TACC TT” [i 1.62 [| 0.75 | 40 | 100 land 070 [08s | 7.2 | 66 fodel 366 'IACC 2" 070 | 084 | 7.2 | 15.0 {10 configurations) 1.62 | 250 | 40 | 100 é 162 [| 040 | 40 | 100 ‘Table 8. Main Hull Form Parameters of Different Yacht Test Series ‘Yacht Lwil | Bwl | Lwl LCF | Cb Cp Bwi | Te_| Vel? % [DSYHS Model 1 3.15 | 3.99 | 4.78 | 3.3 | 0.36 | 0.56 DSYHS Model 28 4.50 | 6.75 | 699 | 2.1 [| 60 | 0.40 | 0.54 DSYHS Model 43 278 | 629 | 498 | 33 | 65 | 0.39 | 055 (Model 117 3.19 | 5.27 | 5.05 | 42 | 46 | 0.42 | 0.58 Model 232 35s | 52 | 546 | 42 | 45 [040 | 055 Model 329 ACC _| 4.52 | 4.82 | 663 | 5.0 | 64 | 034 | 0.53 Model 366 'IACC 2” | 5.73 | 3.00 | 6.63 | -5.0 | 64 | 0.34 | 0.53 This selection was supplemented with the measurements carried out with the standard DSYHS kccl underneath the three parent models and the half span standard keel as tested underneath Model 1 So the expression for the residuary resistance of the keel is derived from the following data: The IOR-, the Shallow- and the Upside-down keel in the Delft Various Keel Series (DYKS), 5 of the 6 keels tested in the Delft Systematic Keel Series with the IACC type hulls (DSKS) and the parent models of the DSYHS of which Model I with half span keel also. The plan views of these keels are presented in Figure 13 through Figure 15, in which figures all the keels are shown in correct relative size. 122 The International HISWA Symposium on Yacht Design and Yacht Construction Figure 13. DSYHS keel (model Lw! = 2.0 m), DSYHS half span (model Lwl = 1.6 m) and Model 117 keel Figure 15 Keels of the Delft Various Keel Series 123 The International HISWA Symposium on Yacht Design and Yacht Construction ‘The following expression yielded a quite satisfactory fit through all the data and is based on the relation between keel and hull volume, the taper ratio of the keel, the Beam to Draft ratio of the hull, the vertical distance of the centre of buoyancy of the keel volume to the free surface Zcb and the ratio of canoe body volume to keel volume. Rrk Vk pg in which: Rrk Vk T Bwl Te Zebk Ve =A, +A Bul (Te+ Zebk) ie Ve residuary resistance of keel volume of displacement of keel total draft of hull beam of waterline draft of canoe body vertical position of centre of buoyancy of keel volume of displacement of canoe body keel (16) For the lower Froude numbers the contribution of the residuary keel resistance in the total resistance is not very large, but it increases for the high speeds. The data set however is still rather limited for such a delicate resistance component and further research will certainly contribute to increasing the reliability of these expressions. With the data set described above the following coefficients were found for the coefficients of the polynomial expression: ‘Table 9 Coefficients for Polynomial: Residuary Resistance of Keel Fa]_0.20 | 025 | 030 | 035 | 040 [ 0.45 | 0.50 _| 0.55_| 0.60 ‘Ac_[-0.00104| 0.00350] -0.01110| -0.00713] 0.03581] -0.00470| 0.00553] 0.04822 _0.01021 “A, [0.00172] 0.00597 0.01421] 0.02632 0.08649] 0.11592] 0.07371| 0.00660| 0.14173} ‘A,_ [0.00117] 0.00390] 0.00069] -0.00232| 0.00999] -0.00064| 0.05991] 0.07048] 0.06409 ‘A,_[_-0.00008| -0.00009| 0.00021] 0.00039| 0.00017) 0.00035] -0.00114) -0.00035| -0.00192| 124 The International HISWA Symposium on Yacht Design and Yacht Construction Calculated- compared with Total Measured Upright Resistance for two models: 30000 6000 Rin cae Mae opts pane calculated: | meas Rm Rt (up) ARImphi Retin Se 020 030 040 050 (060 aRephi Fn Figure 16 10000 RM 200 ror vracnrreastarce ° 020 030 ow 080 050 aR ‘Total Upright Resistance, Measured and Calculated for Model 43 coe ton esac cated | nossa me mow Ru Rt

    You might also like