Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 59

Thread: Formulas, rules, and Benchmarks

  1. #21

    Default Re: Issues of scale - scaling and stability

    Quote Originally Posted by BigCat View Post
    The average reader on a sailing website probably does not know what RM is, and so...
    ...
    That is the context.
    BigCat, just read my previous sample that shows that ratios You reference from that book do not work.

  2. #22

    Default Re: Issues of scale - scaling and stability

    Enjoy :
    Attached Images Attached Images

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    near Seattle
    Posts
    1,116

    Default Re: Issues of scale - scaling and stability

    Quote Originally Posted by Albatross View Post
    OK, I just did a quick study taking Lagoon range as statistical base.

    Say, we have 2 boats with waterline length L0 and L1; L1=k*L0
    Then, for beam B0 and B1 of these boat, the ratios are: B1=k^0.76*B0
    For displacement D0 and D1, the ratios are: D1=k^2.26*D0
    These power factors with k are based on Lagoons, they could be slightly different for other designers/builders.

    If Chris' statements work, those power factors with k would be 1 for beam and 3 for displacement. But evidently they are not! On other side, those factors are very close to Barkla factors I mentioned before.

    Now let's estimate increase of RM if we scale the boat 2 times, i.e. k=2.
    We get factor for RM increase: 2^0.76*2^2.26=8.11
    Let's remember that from Chris' rule of thumb this factor should be 16, so difference is double!

    It is a good sample how a bit of theory can help to understand the basics. I can't accept such overestimation of stability - it is just dangerous!
    I didn't follow your example, but as I do the math for an comparison of two catamarans, one of which has twice the beam and displacement of the other, I come up with 3x the stability for 2x the increase in beam and weight. This makes me think that his rule of thumb must be meant to factor in the forces with tend to overturn a boat from wind force, sail center height and sail area, and to compare those forces with the increased stability.
    Currently concentrating on http://earthnurture.com .

  4. #24

    Default Re: Issues of scale - scaling and stability

    Quote Originally Posted by BigCat View Post
    I didn't follow your example, but as I do the math for an comparison of two catamarans, one of which has twice the beam and displacement of the other, I come up with 3x the stability for 2x the increase in beam and weight. This makes me think that his rule of thumb must be meant to factor in the forces with tend to overturn a boat from wind force, sail center height and sail area, and to compare those forces with the increased stability.
    Sorry, this does not make any sense to guess what they mean by formulating that 'rule of thumb' (Chris should specify it clearly or we should guess?). In terms of RM it does not work - see my posts.

    In general, I suggest to study more professional books that are peer-reviewed by naval architects; at least if we are talking about boat design books.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    near Seattle
    Posts
    1,116

    Default Re: Issues of scale - scaling and stability

    Quote Originally Posted by Albatross View Post
    Sorry, this does not make any sense to guess what they mean by formulating that 'rule of thumb' (Chris should specify it clearly or we should guess?). In terms of RM it does not work - see my posts.

    In general, I suggest to study more professional books that are peer-reviewed by naval architects; at least if we are talking about boat design books.
    Albatross, I haven't been able to find any professional books directed towards designing sailing catamarans, just disconnected hints and comments widely scattered. There are several textbooks about designing sailing monohulls.

    As I look at the sail area and mast height of a FP 36 compared to a Lagoon 440, and multiply the mast height x .4 to give some idea of the CE, I come up with the Lagoon 440 having twice as much force (SA x CE height, assumed,) as the FP 36. I compare these two because the one weighs (allegedly!) twice as much as the other. If the larger boat had twice the beam (it doesn't) as the smaller, you would get 2x the force working to overcome 3x the stability. I am sure my various estimates are off somewhat, but not hugely, I think.

    I'm beginning to think I misinterpreted Chris' rule of thumb. Since you have a copy of 'The Cruising Multihull,' perhaps you can review page 198 (part of 'Countering Wave cCapsize by Design,') and see if I have misinterpreted him in some way. He doesn't really draw a picture of what he means by his rule of thumb - perhaps he is talking about the roll moment of inertia? Do you think that could increase by 16 x if the boat size is doubled in every dimension?
    Currently concentrating on http://earthnurture.com .

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    35

    Default Multihull Size Factor

    Let us then calculate the multihull size factor:

    SF = 1.75 * mMOC * (LH * BCB)^0.5, where

    mMOC is the minimum operating mass (kg)
    LH is the hull length (m) and
    BCB it the beam between centerlines (m)

    In stability standard ISO 12217-2, the multihull size factor is "a degree of protection against being inverted by breaking waves".

    Just put the numbers in and compare different catamarans. When LH/BCB ratio is between 2.2 and 3.2 the SF over 40 000 shows an ocean capable catamaran. For wider and narrower catamarans, see the standard.
    Last edited by terhohalme; 10th October 2009 at 10:30 AM.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    in BC Canada, the UK
    Posts
    370

    Default Re: Formulas, rules, and Benchmarks

    I think this thread shows how hard it is to write the "truth" for all people. Chris White is making some general comments for the lay reader, not ones to be considered the complete and absolute truth by naval architects.

    Unfortunately yacht design is too complicated for generalizations. One part of the yacht designers "art" is deciding what compromises to make, knowing full well what the disadvantages are.

    For example, I said I'd always go for the wider beam boat, but in the same thread I also said that wide boats are heavier, thus slower, thus need more sail to compensate, thus need to be wider to regain the stability etc

    So design spirals can be quite complicated to follow.

    You certainly must not think that a boat twice as long is 8 or even 16 times more stable. That could only be true if you assumed that the rig stayed the same size - highly unlikely.

    Some things are fixed "facts of life" and I guess can be considered the naval architecture bit of designing a yacht. Others are dependant on ones own philosophy and are the "yacht design" bit.

    As many know, I have been the "multihull expert" on the ISO stability working group for around 15 years. You may like to know that we are currently revising the ISO standards with several meetings planned for this year.

    It is unlikely that the MSF will stay in its current form. Instead we are trying to include both pitchpoling and roll factors as well as a "Bare Poles" factor. We are also seriously exploring the possiblity of have a class of "uncapsizable multihulls"

    Hope this helps the discussion

    Richard Woods of Woods Designs

    www.sailingcatamarans.com

  8. #28

    Default Re: Multihull Size Factor

    Size factor formula is well known to anyone who had ever designed sailing catamaran to CE certification. Besides it does not prove any of BigCat's statements on stability

    It could seem that I am trying to be too pedantic, but this is attitude developed for years of teaching the subject and developing stability simulators for navy and merchant ships. Those days I tried to explain complicated things in simple but correct words not allowing interpretations. Let's take it right even if we are talking about simplified rules of thumb; no need to replicate aberrations.

    I will try to have a look at the book, but only on Monday because it is in office. We had good sea trials today, and tomorrow we go fishing on the islands

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    35

    Default Re: Multihull Size Factor

    Quote Originally Posted by Albatross View Post
    Size factor formula is well known to anyone who had ever designed sailing catamaran to CE certification. Besides it does not prove any of BigCat's statements on stability

    It could seem that I am trying to be too pedantic, but this is attitude developed for years of teaching the subject and developing stability simulators for navy and merchant ships. Those days I tried to explain complicated things in simple but correct words not allowing interpretations. Let's take it right even if we are talking about simplified rules of thumb; no need to replicate aberrations.

    I will try to have a look at the book, but only on Monday because it is in office. We had good sea trials today, and tomorrow we go fishing on the islands
    I don't think that I was writing here to prove any of BigCats statements, it is his job.

    Still I can't see writing something totally untrue. In maximun righting moment the rule of thumb is only about 5 % too high and very much used in catamaran estimations. Unfortunately there isn't that easy way with merchant ships.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    near Seattle
    Posts
    1,116

    Default Re: Multihull Size Factor

    Quote Originally Posted by terhohalme View Post
    Let us then calculate the multihull size factor:

    SF = 1.75 * mMOC * (LH * BCB)^0.5, where

    mMOC is the minimum operating mass (kg)
    LH is the hull length (m) and
    BCB it the beam between centerlines (m)

    In stability standard ISO 12217-2, the multihull size factor is "a degree of protection against being inverted by breaking waves".

    Just put the numbers in and compare different catamarans. When LH/BCB ratio is between 2.2 and 3.2 the SF over 40 000 shows an ocean capable catamaran. For wider and narrower catamarans, see the standard.
    Well, this started out as a quote, but now that I examine it, I can't substantiate the quote from Chris White's book as either a correct statement of righting moment, righting moment compared to sail area times sail center height, or as compared to the EU standard for seaworthiness offshore. Working through some samples, it seems that the EU formula declares a boat twice as big in beam, length and weight produces a claim of roughly twice as seaworthy offshore. Incidentally, the EU formula, per TerhoHalme above, worked out for a typical 35' catamaran requires a least displacement of about 3,600 kilos (@8,000#) to be considered seaworthy offshore.

    CW states that the roll moment of inertia is a product of mass x distance squared. If we assume that this can be reduced to (displacement times .5 x hcl to hcl beam) squared, (which neglects the contribution of the rig,) examples I work out come out to exactly 16x, so Chris' rule of thumb refers not to RM, or RM compared to wind leverage on the rig, but rather as a statement regarding roll moment of inertia. So, unless Chris has mis-stated the factors affecting the roll moment of inertia, this is the meaning of his statement, and it is accurate.
    Last edited by BigCat; 10th October 2009 at 10:38 PM.
    Currently concentrating on http://earthnurture.com .

  11. #31

    Default Re: Multihull Size Factor

    Quote Originally Posted by BigCat View Post
    Well, this started out as a quote, but now that I examine it, I can't substantiate the quote from Chris White's book as either a correct statement of righting moment, righting moment compared to sail area times sail center height, or as compared to the EU standard for seaworthiness offshore. Working through some samples, it seems that the EU formula declares a boat twice as big in beam, length and weight produces a claim of roughly twice as seaworthy offshore. Incidentally, the EU formula, per TerhoHalme above, worked out for a typical 35' catamaran requires a least displacement of about 3,600 kilos (@8,000#) to be considered seaworthy offshore.

    CW states that the roll moment of inertia is a product of mass x distance squared. If we assume that this can be reduced to (displacement times .5 x hcl to hcl beam) squared, (which neglects the contribution of the rig,) examples I work out come out to exactly 16x, so Chris' rule of thumb refers not to RM, or RM compared to wind leverage on the rig, but rather as a statement regarding roll moment of inertia. So, unless Chris has mis-stated the factors affecting the roll moment of inertia, this is the meaning of his statement, and it is accurate.
    Moment of inertia has no meaning for STATIC stability which is common representation. Yes, moment of inertia effects the roll but in this case we should also consider a) added masses and b) damping factors, both effected by underwater geometry and roll accelerations. Then, everything becomes complicated and it is definitely not CW's level

  12. #32

    Default Re: Multihull Size Factor

    Quote Originally Posted by terhohalme View Post
    Still I can't see writing something totally untrue. In maximun righting moment the rule of thumb is only about 5 % too high and very much used in catamaran estimations.
    Yes, just need to say that the formula works in certain range (wide boats, low CG) to prevent inappropriate use of this formula.

  13. #33

    Default Re: Multihull Size Factor

    This sample is for terhohalme:

    I have done study of catamarans stability with variation of BCB (BCB=BCL if hulls are symmetrical). Just some results here, this is data for 44' displacement power catamaran, for real catamaran BCB=3.33m. For this boat VCG is 0.6m above WL (for reference - vertical clearance of bridgedeck is 0.9m). So we should expect similar results for sailing cats as well.

    Note that GZmax is not BCB/2 as You state in Your post, that is specially true for narrower boats where this assumtion can be dangerous.
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Last edited by Albatross; 11th October 2009 at 02:34 PM.

  14. #34
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    35

    Default Re: Formulas, rules, and Benchmarks

    OK, now I see the light. Modern sailing catamarans have LH/BCB ratio between 2-3. Very seldom more. My experience is in sailing catamarans where LH/BCB is near 2. Ever designed one?

    Power catamarans seem to be much narrower, your example have this ratio more than 4. If this ratio is 5 or more, the boat have to consider as a monohull in stability standard.

    We are both right, just looking the beast at the other edge.

  15. #35

    Default Re: Formulas, rules, and Benchmarks

    Quote Originally Posted by terhohalme View Post
    OK, now I see the light. Modern sailing catamarans have LH/BCB ratio between 2-3. Very seldom more. My experience is in sailing catamarans where LH/BCB is near 2.
    If we take our 44' powercat example, then BCB=5m gives LWL/BCB=2.48; BCB=4m gives LWL/BCB=3.10. This well complies with numbers You specify for sailing cats, so it should work for sailing cats. The only reason why I show example for powercat is becasue I have this sample ready made (for one publication).

    Ever designed one?
    Sure, pls look at our web www.amdesign.co.th or my blog www.albertnazarov.blog.ru

    Power catamarans seem to be much narrower, your example have this ratio more than 4.
    Yes and no, some of them are quite wide. Our 50' trawler cat is 7.6m wide...

    If this ratio is 5 or more, the boat have to consider as a monohull in stability standard.
    Yes, but this clause is applied only for sailing boats. In ISO12217-1 and 3 there is no catamaran definition for non-sailing cats, they are treated as monohulls with high initial stability anyway

    We are both right, just looking the beast at the other edge.
    I am just trying to emphasize that every simplified formula or rule of thumb works in certain range that should be specified. I have met few 'simplifed' formulas and factors that are just dangerous if used without knowledge of its limits.
    Last edited by Albatross; 11th October 2009 at 06:00 PM.

  16. #36

    Default Re: Formulas, rules, and Benchmarks

    2BigCat:
    OK, finally I have opened CW's book at p.198 and have no idea on what he is takling about 'doubling size increases its stability 16 times'. Again, stability is complex a property of boat that is characterised by many parameters. Anyway in terms of RM it does not work. Why don't You ask this question to the author of book?

  17. #37

    Default Re: Formulas, rules, and Benchmarks

    Quote Originally Posted by Woods Designs View Post
    We are also seriously exploring the possiblity of have a class of "uncapsizable multihulls"

    Richard Woods of Woods Designs
    Richard,

    Would you give us more information about "uncapsizable multihulls".

    Thanks
    John

  18. #38
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    near Seattle
    Posts
    1,116

    Default Re: Formulas, rules, and Benchmarks

    Quote Originally Posted by Albatross View Post
    2BigCat:
    OK, finally I have opened CW's book at p.198 and have no idea on what he is takling about 'doubling size increases its stability 16 times'. Again, stability is complex a property of boat that is characterised by many parameters. Anyway in terms of RM it does not work. Why don't You ask this question to the author of book?
    You must have missed my post where I worked it out. CW is referring to the roll moment of inertia.
    Currently concentrating on http://earthnurture.com .

  19. #39

    Default Re: Formulas, rules, and Benchmarks

    Quote Originally Posted by BigCat View Post
    You must have missed my post where I worked it out. CW is referring to the roll moment of inertia.
    CW is clearly talking about stability, not roll moment of inertia!

    Again, roll moment of inertia has no meaning here. Look at equation of free roll motions on flat water:

    (Ixx+Jxx)*dw/dt + Kxx*w + DISPL*GM0*sin(H) = 0

    Ixx - moment of inertia of boat around longitudinal axis;
    Jxx - added moment of inertia for underwater body;
    w - angular velocity around longitudinal axis;
    Kxx - roll damping coefficient;
    GM0 - initial gravity metacenter;
    DISPL - displacement
    H - heel angle

    So the first component is inertial, second is damping, third is hydrostatic.
    Moment of inertia is only a part of one component here; other components should be considered before saying that 'stability increased 16 times'.

    I still recommend to ask question to CW on his '16 times' statement, just send a link to this thread. We do not need to guess what he means
    Last edited by Albatross; 12th October 2009 at 06:32 PM.

  20. #40
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    near Seattle
    Posts
    1,116

    Default Re: Formulas, rules, and Benchmarks

    Quote Originally Posted by Albatross View Post
    CW is clearly talking about stability, not roll moment of inertia!

    Again, roll moment of inertia has no meaning here. Look at equation of free roll motions on flat water:

    (Ixx+Jxx)*dw/dt + Kxx*w + DISPL*GM0*sin(H) = 0

    Ixx - moment of inertia of boat around longitudinal axis;
    Jxx - added moment of inertia for underwater body;
    w - angular velocity around longitudinal axis;
    Kxx - roll damping coefficient;
    GM0 - initial gravity metacenter;
    DISPL - displacement
    H - heel angle

    So the first component is inertial, second is damping, third is hydrostatic.
    Moment of inertia is only a part of one component here; other components should be considered before saying that 'stability increased 16 times'.

    I still recommend to ask question to CW on his '16 times' statement, just send a link to this thread. We do not need to guess what he means
    I don't think flat water is what he had in mind. He is referring to the famous Fastnet race where lots of (monohull) boats rolled over more easily after losing their masts, and points out that their decreased roll moment of inertia due to mast loss made them more vulnerable to rolling again. Whether you agree with him, I will leave between him and you - I am satisfied to feel sure that I have correctly understood and reported what he said and meant.

    I can't make anything out of your formula, because it references other formulas (or measurements,) without giving them; Kxx, for example.
    Currently concentrating on http://earthnurture.com .

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •