Marine Technology, Vol. 21, No. 4, Oct. 1984, pp.

364-369

Small Fish Boat Stability: A Case Study

George A. Lundgren I and Richard L. Storch 2

A review of a 27-ft hull in two configurations, as a salmon troller and a pleasure craft, provided an opportu-
nity to perform a case study of small fish boat stability. Simplified inclinings and a review of the applicability
of the IMCO and roll period stability criteria are discussed. Conclusions concerning small fish boat stability
are presented.

Introduction heavier engines is offset by the engines being forward, causing

a higher KG of the house and accommodations.
Background. Stability evaluation of small boats is quite
subjective, with formal study and analysis very seldom per-
formed. Criteria to determine whether or not a given boat is Inclinings
"stable" or "unstable" have not been developed for small vessels.
Applying International Maritime Consultative Organization
Procedure (fish boat). As the decision to incline the fish boat
was made spontaneously, in a virtually uninhabited area, the
(IMCO) stability criteria to small fishing vessels is questionable,
methods used were necessarily very unsophisticated compared
as the criteria were developed from vessels larger than 79 ft (24
to normal inclinings. Moments were produced by hanging objects
m). from the trolling poles and corresponding heel angles were esti-
An opportunity to investigate the stability of a 27-ft fiberglass
mated by comparing photographs taken from shore.
salmon troller arose during an evaluation of its suitability for Figure 6 shows the photograph with zero moment applied. The
intended purpose. The arrangement consists of an open, aft
angle of the starboard trolling pole with respect to the water
cockpit with a raised deck and large cabin forward, as seen in Figs. represents the nominal angle equivalent to zero heel angle. A
1 and 2. The vessel had been factory built as a commercial troller
30-1b trolling lead was then hung from the port trolling pole, as
utilizing a hard-chine, planing hull originally developed as a
shown in Fig. 7. The increase in the static angle between the
pleasure boat. starboard pole and the water was measured from the photograph.
At the vessel's rather remote location in Glacier Bay, Alaska, Similarly, Fig. 8 shows the angle of heel with the owner hanging
a decision was made to perform a "poor man's" inclining exper- from the same point on the trolling pole.
iment after witnessing the boat's lack of stiffness. Stepping Two additional data points were obtained independent of the
aboard the boat from the dock produced an immediate feeling photographs. One consisted of measuring the change in the port
of tenderness. While underway in calm water, rapidly turning the
side waterline with a different body weight suspended from a
wheel one-half turn to port and back to starboard caused a stool different point on the starboard pole. With the beam of the boat
to tip over and many items to fall off shelves, and made it im- known, the corresponding heel angle was calculated. Another
possible to stand holding onto something. data point was obtained by reading the total angle change on a
The owner, who fishes Southeast Alaska, was understandably bubble inclinometer (trim indicator placed athwartships) as the
concerned. The vessel had also broached in Puget Sound on its owner moved from one gunwale to the other.
maiden voyage in moderate following seas. Freeboards were taken to prominent hull features rather than
Hullform. The hull is a fairly conventional single-chine to the deck, since the fish boat has a different deck and deck/hull
planing form, with a fairly constant prismatic afterbody and attachment method than the pleasure boat.
15-deg deadrise, as seen from the sections in Fig. 3. The overall
length is 271/2 ft, the maximum beam 101/2 ft, and the transom
width 8 ft.
Waterline length is approximately 24 ft, waterline beam 8 ft,
and maximum fairbody draft 2 ft.
Alternate uses. In order to establish a benchmark for stability
of the fish boat, a comparison was made with the stability of a
pleasure boat using essentially the same hull. The pleasure boat
studied is a single-screw gas-powered express cruiser shown in
Figs. 4 and 5. The layout has the engine under an aft cockpit with
the accommodations forward, down three steps.
The fish boat weighs 5700 lb more (74 percent) than the plea-
sure boat. The difference is primarily due to the fish boat's twin
diesels, heavier house and deck construction, and its fishing gear
and rigging. The lowering of the fish boat's KG because of its two

1 Partner, Marine EfficiencyEngineering, Seattle, Washington.

2 Research assistant professor, Ocean Engineering, University of
Washington, Seattle, Washington.
Presented at the May 14, 1983meeting of the Pacific Northwest Sec-
tion of THE SOCIETYOF NAVALARCHITECTSAND MARINEENGI-
NEERS. Fig. 1 Fish boat layout

364 0025-3316/8412104-0364500.37/0 MARINE TECHNOLOGY

 Data (fish boat). Table I summarizes the applied moments . . . . . .

and corresponding heel angles obtained. The moments are I- - - - - - - ~ - - ~ - - - 5 _ _ _ ~ __

plotted versus the tangent of the heel angle in Fig. 9. The slope
of the line divided by the 13,530-1b displacement indicates a
metacentric height of 1.5 ft.
Procedure (pleasure boat). The pleasure boat was similarly
inclined, using much less rigorous techniques than practicing
naval architects are accustomed to. Heeling moments were in-
duced by hanging 5-gal buckets full of water on an old section of
sailboat mast lashed to the boat and cantilevered over a dock.
Other values were induced by simply standing alternately on the
port and starboard deck ledges. Heel angles were measured on
a bubble inclinometer, accurate to perhaps +1/4 deg.
Data (pleasure boat). Table 2 summarizes the results, which
are plotted in Fig. 10. As can be seen, the points lie very close to
a straight line, considering the crudeness of the inclining exper- f
iment. Metracentric height is 3.5 ft based on the slope of the line
and a displacement of 7790 lb.
Fig. 3 Body plan--computer plot
Precision. In any engineering experiment it is important to
evaluate the precision with which resulting numbers are known.
All too often it is not done, leaving the reader confused or dis-
trustful of the precision implied by unwarranted significant
figures. Since part of the point of this paper is that inexact
Roll test
methods can still provide useful information, the subject is par- Roll periods of five complete (port to starboard to port) cycles
ticularly relevant. were recorded for both vessels. Repeated measurements were
G M values derived from slopes of inclining data curves are extremely consistent and were within 0.3 sec total for the five roll
rounded to 0.1 ft, while computer output (which uses G M as period tests. The roll period with the fish boat's aluminum
input) is presented using a greater number of significant figures. trolling poles up was 0.07 sec longer than with them down, and
This is not to imply greater precision, but is done simply so dif- was easily detectable. The test results are summarized in Table
ferences can be seen which would be lost if the end result were 3.
properly rounded. (text continued on page 369)

Fig. 4 Pleasure boat layout

Fig. 2 Fish boat layout, stern view Fig. 5 Pleasure boat layout, stern view

OCTOBER 1984 368

 Table 1 Inclining data (fish boat)

Moment Moment, Angle, Tangent

x
Weight Arm, ft ft-lb deg angle,deg
/ ii
30-1b trolling lead 26.0 780 P 2a/4 0.05
172-1b fisherman 9.3 1600 P/S 41/2 0.08
197-lb naval architect 17.0 3349 P 81/2 0.15
172-1b fisherman 26.0 4472 P 131/2 0.24

4000 /

Fig. 6 Fish boat inclining, no heel

.

TANGENTANGLE
I
.24 .
I
.
m
i 7 !
08
I
.16
I
.24

2000

PORT GM = ].5 FT

4000

Fig. 9 Fish boat inclining plot of tangents

Fig, 7 Fish boat inclining, 23/4-deg heel

2000 /

STBD/

1000 /

TANGENTANGLE
" : ~i:Zz' x :~
I I I I , ,
.. :~!i!~x~i~i .08 . 0 ~ .02 .04 .06 .08

lO00

GM = 3.5 FT
PORT
2000

Fig. 8 Fish boat inclining, 131/2-degheel Fig. 10 Pleasure boat inclining plot of tangents

366 MARINE TECHNOLOGY

 Table 2 Inclining data (pleasure boat) Table 3 Roll test data

Moment Moment, Angle, Tangent Fish Boat, Fish Boat, Pleasure

Weight Arm, ft ft-lb deg Angle Poles Up Poles Down Boat
50-1b water bucket 8.7 435 P 3/4 0.013 Time/5 cycles 19.5 19.2 12.0
50-lb water bucket 9.5 475 P 3/4 0.013 Time/5 cycles 19.3 19.0 12.1
100-1b water bucket 9.1 910 P 11/,2 0.026 Time/5 cycles 19.6 19.2 12.1
150-1b university professor 5.0 750 P 11/.2 0.026 Time/5 cycles 19.5 19.1 12,2
150-lb university professor 5.0 750 S 13/4 0.031
150-lb university professor 9.0 1350 P 21/,2 0.044 Average roll period (sec) 3.90 3.83 2.42
150-1b university professor 10.0 1500 P/S 31/4 0.057
195-1b naval architect 5.0 975 P 2 0.035
195-1b naval architect 5.0 975 S 21/4 0.039
195-1b naval architect 10.0 1950 P/S 41/4 0.074
Table 4 Full-load conditions

Item Fish Boat Pleasure Boat

Fuel 110 gal 110 gal
Fresh water 30 gal 30 gal
Crew 2 4
Stores 200 lb 200 lb
Fish (Condition 1) 700 lb cleaned,
and boxed
300 lb whole
Fish {Condition 2) 1200 lb whole

Table 5 Data for stability calculations: Loading Cases 1-6

KG LCG
(Ft Above (Ft Aft of
Condition A(LTSW) Baseline) Midships)
1. Pleasure boat--as inclined 3.48 4.06 1.62
1.20 2. Pleasure boat--full load 4.04 4.15 1.64
I . Pleasure Boat - As Inclined 3. Fish boat--as inclined 6.03 4.40 1.98
4. Fish boat--Fishing Condition 1 6.90 4.37 2.55
2. Pleasure Boat - Full Load 5. Fish boat--Fishing Condition 2 6.98 4.29 2.70
3. Fish Boat - As Inclined 6. Fish Boat--burned out 6.77 4.33 2.68
l .GO 4. Fish Boat - Full Load

/ Table 6 Intact stability data

.80
Pleasure Boat Fish Boat
u_

i J Case
1
Case
2
Case Case
3 4
cD
v
.60 Area to 30 deg (ft-deg) 15.6 14.3 10.3 10.0
Area 30 deg to downflooding (ft-deg) 5.7 4.6 1.2 0.7
Area to downflooding (ft-deg) 21.3 18.9 11.5 10.7
F GZmax (ft.) 0.86 0.82 0.62 0.65
GZmaxlocation (deg) 37 36 32 31
GM fit) 3.48 2.87 1.45 1.22
.40 Downflooding angle (deg) 37 36 32 31
c~

.20

f 1~0
I
20
Heel Angle (0) - Degrees
i
30
!
4O
Table 7 Comparison of pleasure boat and fish boat full-load stability

Area to 30 deg (ft-deg)

and IMCO requirements

IMCO
Pleasure Boat
Meets
Fish Boat
Meets
Required Actual IMCO Actual IMCO
10.3 14.3 yes 10.0 no
Area 30 deg to downflooding 5.6 4.6 no 0.7 no
(ft-deg)
Area to downflooding 16.9 18.9 yes 10.7 no
GZmax (ft) 0.66 0.82 yes 0.65 no
GZmax location (deg) 30 36 yes 31 yes
Fig. 11 Curves of statical stability GM 1.15 2.87 yes 1.22 yes

OCTOBER 1984 367

 I0

/
~8

.../S
Fig. 12 Rolling pe-
riod stability criteria
Tender
4

M~ckel lines

Suggested revised
lines

Suggested ror~e of
good stobility

[] Fish boat
Pleasure boat
//
/
/ B
2 4 6 8 I0 m
i I I I
16 24 ~?.* ft

I 1 I
e.o~c BI

Tender limit for B = 2 m

~1 ,.~ /82 - - - - Tender limit for B= 4 m
1.5 . . . . T-#=-,u~~ I ~ for B = 6 m -6

Tinclef ~ ~ 0 Fish boat

& Pleasure boat
IO

//
Fig. 13 Rolling pe-

Stiff // riod versus GM

05 --2
I

l j ~ GM
.4 .6 .8 1.0 1.2 m

368 MARINE TECHNOLOGY

 The equation for a vessel's natural period of roll is
C.B
Roll period -
where
C = a constant for any given vessel
B = beam
GM = metacentric height
Therefore, although the effect of putting the trolling poles up
causes only a 0.05-ft (5/s in.) reduction in GM, it is easily detect-
able using simple roll period tests. Similarly, using the above
relationship, the metacentric height of the pleasure boat is esti-
mated to be 2.5 times that of the fish boat, assuming C is the same
for both cases. The same ratio is 2.4 using the slopes of the in-
clining data plots.
Stability calculations
Based on the inclining experiments previously described, it
was possible to estimate loading conditions for both vessels.
These conditions were used for the stability evaluation. The as-
inclinied conditions represent a light load condition 0/2 fuel,
water) for each vessel. Six loading conditions were considered,
two for the pleasure boat and four for the fish boat.
The conditions included the light load and a full-load condition
for the pleasure boat and the light load, two full-load fishing
conditions and one burned-out condition for the fish boat. For
both vessels, the full-load conditions were calculated assuming
the conditions summarized in Table 4. The burned-out condition
was for the second fishing condition with 10 percent fuel, fresh
water and stores remaining. The displacement, KG above the
baseline and LCG aft of amidships for each condition are given
in Table 5.
Curves of statical stability were computed for each of the six
cases described in the preceding, using the Ship Hull Charac-
teristics Program (SHCP). Calculations were performed main-
taining constant trim moment. Differences between the curves
of statical stability for Cases 4, 5 and 6 were minimal and for
clarity, curves for Cases 5 and 6 are not presented. Figure 11
shows the curves of statical stability for Cases 1-4. Table 6 pre-
sents the stability data for the four cases and Table 7 compares
the full-load-condition stability data for the pleasure boat and
the fish boat with IMCO requirements.
The results bring out some interesting points. First of all, the
fish boat fails to meet four of the IMCO stability requirements.
The pleasure boat fails to satisfy one requirement. Both vessels
are adversely affected by the fact that they do not have tight
weather decks and therefore downflood at comparatively low heel
angles. This accounts for the one requirement that the pleasure
boat fails to satisfy. Inherent in this regard is the importance of
freeboard. The difference of about 21/2 tons in displacement in
the full-load conditions translates to a reduction of nearly 8 in.
of freeboard for the fish boat. This results in a lower downflooding
angle as well as in less righting energy at all heel angles.
In comparing the two boats, it is interesting to note the con-
tribution o f K B , BM, and KG to GM. For the full-load condition
for the pleasure boat (PB) and fish boat (FB), Cases 2 and 4 re-
spectively, these values are
KB + B M - KG = GM
PB 1.64 + 5.38 - 4.15 = 2.87
FB 2.00 + 3.59 - 4.37 = 1.22
OCTOBER 1984
Clearly the overriding difference here is BM, indicating that
significant improvement in GM is attainable ~)rimarily from in-
creasing beam or decreasing displacement. Thus the added dis-
placement of the fish boat results in lessened stability as evi-
denced by the large reduction in B M and therefore GM, the lower
downflooding angle and the generally lower righting arms at all
heel angles. These difficulties are compounded by the fact that
the additional weight is not located in a position that would re-
duce KG. In fact, KG increases slightly for the fully loaded fish
boat compared with the pleasure boat.
An alternative approach to evaluating the stability of these two
boats involves the use of roll period criteria. A number of these
criteria have been proposed. Gurtner, in Fishing Boats of the
World: 3, has summarized this approach, including a review of
work by Traung and M6ckel. The proposed roll period stability
criteria were based, in part, on stability analyses applying IMCO
or Rahola criteria.
Figure 12, from Gurtner, is a plot of roll period versus beam
and includes suggested limits for tender and stiff conditions. The
roll periods as inclined for both the fish boat and the pleasure
boat are shown, clearly indicating that the fish boat is beyond the
tender limit, while the pleasure boat is between good and very
good. A related approach is to plot roll period versus GM. In Fig.
13, also from Gurtner, contours are for constant values off, the
metric equivalent of C presented earlier for both boats. Based
on the roll test data, C for both boats is about 0.56, equivalent to
an/-value of about 1.0. These points plot nicely on Gurtner's plot,
again indicating that the fish boat is tender and the pleasure boat
acceptable. Gurtner recommends a rule of thumb of roll period
less than 1.1 times the beam in meters. Applying this rule of
t h u m b would further confirm the tenderness of the fish boat.
Conclusions
1. Stability analysis is important for commercial fish boats
of all sizes.
2. Inclinings can be performed inexpensively (that is, quick
and dirty), and can still provide useful information on small
boats.
3. Roll period is a practical way to detect small changes in
GM, and fishermen should be encouraged to monitor it.
4. Initial GM is not a good indicator of ultimate stability.
5. IMCO criteria provide a useful standard for stability
analysis of vessels under 79 ft, until something better comes
along.
6. Skipper seamanship and vessel behavior in following seas
are more important determinants of the stability of small boats
than large ones.
7. Larger steel crabbers, combination boats, and other tanked
vessels should be carefully inclined using conventional
methods.
8. For small fish boats, the principal cause of poor stability
is inadequate waterplane moment of inertia compared with their
relatively heavy displacements.
9. Watertight decks, higher freeboards, and large down-
flooding angles could improve small fish boat stability.
10. Always look at stability. Be creative; some knowledge is
better than none at all.
Metric Conversion Table
1 in. 25.4 mm
=
1 ft 0.3048 m
=
1 lb = 0.45 kg
1 gal = 3.8 L
1 lb/ft = 1.356 N-m
369