3] Rare forse. Hebadt, Tre Armbelian. N enevbar (4 Prediction of aerodyramic sal forces for upwind yacht velocity prediction programs. Saling Science Conference PREDICTION OF AERODYNAMIC SAIL FORCES FOR UPWIND YACHT VELOCITY PREDICTION PROGRAMS by Dr Patrick Couser! Abstract This paper presents a review of current technologies available for assessing yacht performance, with particular emphasis on predicting the upwind performance of the yacht’ sails. An overview of current velocity prediction program (VPP) techniques is given, together with a discussion of the sail force models used. Work towards an alternative sail force model is presented. This model uses a vortex lattice program to compute a database of sail forces for a variety of rig and sailing parameters. Initial findings regarding this technique are given. Finally areas for improvement in both the AME/IMA VPP* and sail force model are discussed. ? Research Associate, Australian Maritime Engineering Cooperative Research Centre, Perth Core, Curtin University of ‘Technology, GPO Box U1987, Perth, W.A. 6845, Australia, Tel: +61 (0)8 9266 3955; Fax: +61 (0)8 9266 2377, Email: p.couser@amecre.curtin.edu.au; htip//student.curtin edu.aw/~rcouserp/ * This VPP has been developed jointly by AME (Australian Maritime Engineering Cooperative Research Centre) and IMA (lain Murray and Associates). It is based on the IMS (International Measurement System) VPP but includes a ‘umber of customised and additional modules. SAILP DOC TeasPrediction of aerodynamic sal ercus for upwind yacht veloc predtion programs Saling Science Conference 1. Introduction During the design of a vessel it is desirable for the designer to be able to predict the speed that the vessel will achieve with its given propulsion system. For conventional power vessels this is a relatively simple task. However, for the yacht designer, this process is complicated by the requirements that not only should there be an equilibrium of the longitudinal forces acting on the yacht but the heeling force and moment should also be in equilibrium. To aid the yacht designer, velocity prediction programs (VPPs) have been developed. Fundamental to these programs is the ability to predict the forces generated by the sails. This paper will focus on the problems and compromises necessary to produce sufficiently accurate sail force predictions. It should be noted that the requirements of a VPP are less stringent than those required for detailed sail design as might be required by a sail maker. It is important to bear this point in mind when reading the rest of this paper. This paper reports on work carried out under the AME Yacht Technology Research Program. One of the motivations for this work was the view that the sail forces used in the IMS (International Measurement System) VPP which date from measurements made in the 1970s would not be suitable for modern rigs which use improved sail designs and materials. There was also some subjective evidence to suggest that the IMS VPP under-predicted yacht speed. (Although this is not corroborated by Euerle and Greeley 1993). It is clear that some form of quantitative study should be made to verify the performance of the AME/IMA VPP against real yachts. 2, Fundamentals of VPP As has been mentioned above, the yacht VPP is one of the fundamental tools of the modem yacht designer. The VPP is used to predict the performance of a yacht on a given course relative to the true wind and for a specified true wind speed. A more complicated algorithm is required to predict yacht performance than the performance of a propeller driven vessel since the aerodynamic forces generated by the sails, the resistance of the hull and the forces generated by the underwater appendages are intimately linked. In principle there are three force and three moment equilibria which must be satisfied. This is normally simplified by satisfying only the longitudinal and transverse force equilibria and the roll equilibrium. Sometimes the yaw moment equilibrium is also included, Pioneering work in this field was carried out for the IMS by Kerwin (1978). This handicapping system uses a VPP to predict the yachts performance and hence determine the yacht’s handicap. The approach used in this VPP is widely used as the basis for other VPs. Current trends in VPPs are to produce a package with greater functionality and improved user interface (Oliver and Claughton 1995). This type of approach enhances the usability of the VPP and aids the analysis of both towing tank (hull performance) and wind tunnel (sail performance and hull appendage performance) data. 2.1 IMS implementation of VPP algorithm The current IMS implementation of the VPP is based on the work of Kerwin (1976, 1978) and additional refinements are reported in more recent literature: Pedrick (1994), Strong (1990) and Poor and Sironi (1990). The sail model is given particular attention by Hazen (1980). The solution method is as follows: The true wind speed and direction are specified. An initial estimate of boat speed and heel angle are made. An iterative procedure is then used to solve for the boat speed and heel angle necessary for the yacht to be in equilibrium with respect to the longitudinal forces and heeling moment, The condition that the net transverse force must also be zero is not satisfied explicitly but is included implicitly in the heeling moment solution. The effect of leeway is SALPOOe 2of26Preleton of aoredynamle sll forse for upwind yacht velocty prediction programs Saling Science Conference also not explicitly accounted for but is included implicitly in the model for the heeled resistance of the hull and appendages There are three slightly different solutions. In the simplest, only the boat speed and heel angle are solved and the reef and flat parameters (which describe the variation in sail area and sail lift coefficients respectively, see Section 3.5.4.1 for further details) are kept at unity. This method is used for light wind conditions. Only the longitudinal force and transverse moment equilibria are satisfied. The second method is for higher wind strengths and in this case the reef and flat parameters are added to the solution, They are chosen so as to maximise the yacht speed — Equation (1 ). This is done by reducing the heel angle and improving the lift:drag ratio of the sails. The final method is used to find the heading for maximum velocity made good (VMG) to windward or downwind, In this solution the optimisation is for maximum V, cos(f,,) and the heading ,, is introduced as an independent variable. The error expressions for the imbalance of the drive force and heel moment are of the form given in Equation ( 2 ), A matrix solution is used to find the adjustments to be made to the yacht speed and heel angle in order to reduce the longitudinal force error and heel moment error to zero — Equation (3 ). This is basically a first order Taylor expansion of the form given in Equation ( 4 ). The partial derivatives are computed using finite difference equations based on the previous solutions. The neat trick of this approach is that it is possible to solve for additional parameters and conditions. The IMS VPP uses this technique to include the reef and flat parameters, which modify the sail coefficients, and also to find the maximum VMG to windward or downwind, These additional equations are of the form given in Equation ( 1 ). This solution procedure will find only the locel optimum for each parameter and not necessarily the global optimum. Provided that the parametric solution surface is ‘well behaved this is sufficient, The optimisation for reef, flat and true wind angle, given by Equation (1), are shown graphically in Figure 1 a , Geo and ze o a) Freog taco aimee = LV 97 Bow) (2) Freatmonetannce =F F591 L Bou) WHEE Egy creeramce 894 Eee manertsheer ate the errors in the longitudinal force and heel moment balances, V, is the yacht speed, ¢ the heel angle, f the flat parameter, r the reef parameter and ,, the true angle. The true wind angle is only used when optimising for vig in which case V, is replaced by V, cos(,.) [A-Line Fetes 000) A) where [2] is the matrix containing the errors and the optimisation values, these latter are always zero — see Equation (1) (] is the matrix containing the derivative terms and [6] is the matrix of adjustments to the parameters V,,4,7,/,8, required to satisfy the equations SAILP.DOS 30rsPrediction of aerodynamic sal foces fr upwind yacht veloty prediction programs ‘Sailing Science Conference © Boat speed V_b ret, fat, p_tw Figure 1: Optimisation of reef, flat and true wind angle parameters 3. Areas for improvement to the basic VPP Yacht performance has improved markedly since 1978, and although the approach used by Kerwin is valid there are several additional considerations which should be addressed when predicting yacht performance. 3.1 Alternative force balance algorithm ‘With the increase in readily available computational power, it is feasible for the VPP to solve a complete six degree of freedom force/moment balance for the yacht. This approach would enhance the VPP and would facilitate assessment of the yacht’s stability. For small, high performance crait, this is often the limit for maximum speed (the crew’s fear/skill level). One method for implementing a six degree of freedom balance would be to use a quasi time domain approach. The net forces acting on the yacht would be calculated yielding the accelerations experienced by the yacht. These accelerations are then integrated to determine the new velocity estimates. A block diagram for such a solution method is given in Figure 2. 3.2. Controllability Many high performance sailing craft, particularly smaller, planing craft are more limited by controllability issues rather than a simple force and moment balance. It is appropriate to investigate methods for determining a yacht's controllability on different points of sail. For practical purposes, the controllability of a yacht may be analysed by investigating the directional stability and roll stability. These aspects also tie in with the fact that the wind is never steady, It is continually varying in strength and direction and that some measure of the yacht's sensitivity to these varying conditions is also appropriate, ‘SALPDOC Bot28Preclction of aerodynamic sal forces for upwind yacht veloc prediton programs. Salling Science Conference initial guess for speed and leeway angle calculate apparent wind triangle calculate heel moment 1 y select sail setting calculate hull and compute sail resistance coefficients accelerate yacht select leeway and rudder angle to give required side force and yaw moment select yacht trim to balance sail induced pitch moment including influence of forward speed determine hull sinkage due to sail forces and forward speed Figure 2: Block diagram for alternative force balance algorithm 3.3 Sensitivity of VPP to off-design conditions A revised VPP should investigate the performance at off-design conditions, A yacht which is relatively insensitive to changes in wind speed and direction will probably perform better than one which is very sensitive to wind speed and direction, even if the latter is faster for its ideal wind conditions. 3.4 What level of accuracy? In order to determine an appropriate approach for the sail model itis useful to estimate the level of accuracy required. This can be done in two ways: a) How close is the performance of real yachts? In the 97/98 Whitbread race, the first leg from Cowes to Cape Town, a distance of over 7300am, was completed in 29 days, 16 hours and 54 minutes by the winning yacht EF Language. The time separating the first 3 yachts was a little over 21 hours or 3%, In match racing it is likely that these margins would be reduced, for a typical Olympic triangle course a three hour race won by 30 seconds is not unusual, this represents a difference in speed of 0.3%, b) The VPP is only as accurate as its weakest link. There is no point in having a high fidelity sail model if the hull or appendage models are poor. ‘SAILP.DOC 5ot28Prediction of aerodynamic sal forces fo upwind yacht velocity prediction programs Saling Science Conference 0.7% 3000 Effect of resistance errors on predicted speed 0.6% om 2500 £ osy oy jz | + 2000 F 5 fos + g Be | + 1500 3 |g 8 03% 2 le + 1000 3 UB 9? | speed error (2) (+) R tot ko] 500 0.0% ° o 5 10 15, 20 ‘Speed [kts] Figure 3: Resistance curve for typical yacht. Effect of errors in resistance model on predicted speed. The resistance curve of a typical yacht is presented in Figure 3. This figure also demonstrates the relative insensitivity of predicted speed to errors in the resistance model. In fact the predicted speed is least sensitive to resistance at 10-1 1kts (this is where the resistance curve is steepest). In this case the change in speed is approximately 20% of the error in the resistance. These data were obtained from the Wolfson Unit VPP*. Model tests have shown a repeatability of around 1% but, as has already been discussed, the VPP speed predictions are fairly insensitive to these errors: the 1% error in resistance measurements produced a 0.2% error in the VPP predicted speeds. The effects described above were also found when changes were made to the yacht sail area, To produce a 0.3% increase in speed (as might be expected in a typical yacht race) a 1-2% increase in sail area was required. From this investigation it has been shown that it is desirable for the sail model to be accurate to within 1% since this is the level of accuracy of the resistance data and this level of accuracy is required to distinguish between 0.3% in yacht speed. 3.5 Sail force model for VPP 3.5.1 The ideal sail model An ideal sail model would include the effects of all the above water portion of the yacht. The aerodynamic model would include the effects of viscosity and separation. The forces and pressures acting on the sails and rigging would be incorporated into a structural analysis to determine the flying ? Wolfson Unit for Marine Technology and Industrial Aerodynamics, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK. httpu/Avww soton.ac.uk/~shipsci SAILP.DOG 60126Prediction of aredynamic sal foes for upwind yacht velocity prediction programs. Saling Scionce Conference shape of the sails and the aerodynamic and structural models would be coupled and iterated to obtain the actual loads generated by the sails in their flying shape. ‘An even more accurate model would include the effects of the unsteady nature of the wind, modelling gust loading etc. However, this is probably beyond the scope of even the most sophisticated technologies currently available. Ideally the full sail aero-elastic model would be directly integrated to the VPP so that at each stage in the calculation the VPP has accurate sail force predictions available. Further the VPP would adjust the trim controls of the sail, sheet tension, lead positions, vang, etc. in order to achieve the highest speed at each true wind heading. This type of optimisation would require many iterations and sophisticated optimisation techniques. Unfortunately the vision proposed above is currently not achievable, whilst there are computational techniques under development by a number of researchers that include the effects of aero-elastic coupling, (Smith and Shyy 1997, Fukasawa and Masanobu 1993; Atkinson and Szantyr 1992; ‘Atkinson 1987, 1988; Jackson 1982; Richelsen 1981) these methods are too computationally intensive to link directly to a VPP. Viscous models are also under development but theses are generally limited to two dimensional analysis (Smith and Shyy 1996, 1995; Matteis and Socio 1986). Thus to make this problem tractable, some simplifying assumption and additional compromises are required. These will be explored below. (As has been noted in the introduction, the simplifications made here are for the analysis of sails for the calculation of aerodynamic loads for VPP purposes, not sail design. Some of the compromises discussed below, though required for a VPP, should be addressed in a sail design package.) 3.5.2 Effects of structural deformation of the sail The aero-elastic problem need not be solved since this level of refinement is not required by the VPP and the structural loads are of no interest in this phase of the design. Thus the sail will be assumed to be a “tin” sail — ice. the sail and rigging do not deform under load This can be rationalised by assuming that the operator is sufficiently skilled that (s)he is able to estimate the flying shape to a reasonable degree of accuracy. Alternatively the flying geometry of the sail could be measured from sail stripe analysis of a real sal 3.5.3 Effects of viscosity The effects of viscosity can be taken into account using empirical formulae, This is the same approach as used for scaling the hull resistance from model test. Several components of viscous resistance may be identified: the form drag or windage of the above water portion of the yacht and rigging (noting that typically the drag of a mast without a sail attached is greater than when a sail is attached); the parasitic drag (friction drag) of the sail, and a component of viscous drag which is proportional to the square of the lift. Further, if separation form the leech ocours there will be an additional separation drag component. The prediction of separation is particularly difficult, the interested reader is directed to the following sources: Campbell (1997), and Horstmann (1993). 3.5.4 Optimum geometry and trim As has been mentioned above, in the ideal case the VPP would act as sail trimmer and have control over all available sail controls to achieve the best boat speed for a given wind angle. This area has received attention by investigating the optimum spanwise sail loading and is quite a large problem in its own right, see Day (1994, 1992), Buerle and Greeley (1993). The inclusions of this type of SAIP.DOS Tat36Prediction of aerodynamic sal forces for upwind yacht velocy prediction programs: Salling Science Conference analysis is not really feasible, not only because of the difficult optimisation required but also because a structural model would be required to predict the effects on sail shape of changing the vang tension or lead positions. The problem with simply optimising the spanwise loading is that this loading may not be achievable using current sail technologies, also the sail plan will normally be limited by class rules. : In order to determine the optimum sail geometry some quantitative description of the optimisation criteria is required. The simplest optimisation criterion would be: the sail shape that makes the yacht g0 as fast as possible for a given true wind speed and direction, Unfortunately even this description is not complete since the issue of controllability and others (crew comfort, hull and rig strength, realistic and feasible sail shape, etc.) are not addressed, There is another drawback to this optimisation criterion: the sail force prediction method must be integrated into the VPP and the VPP must be able to control the geometry in an attempt to find the optimum. To simplify the calculations, it is usual to isolate the sail force prediction method from the VPP (whether it is a computational model, wind tunnel experiments or full scale measurements). To achieve this it is necessary to define an optimisation criterion applicable to the sail mode! in isolation Such a criterion might be: the sail shape which provides the greatest forward thrust with a limit on the maximum allowable hee! moment (for any given heel moment, the sail shape which produces the maximum thrust will normally be the optimum). This statement has the implicit assumption that heel moment is a greater limit on overall performance than heel force. However, for most typical yacht sail plans the vertical centre of effort of the sail is relatively constant so the statement above covers both criteria, It is important to note the difference in optimising for thrust rather than lift. Since depending on the point of sail it is beneficial to have a sail with high lift:drag ratio, high lift or high lift and drag; see Section 3.5.5 for a more detailed discussion of this topic. ‘The method by which most VPPs account for the effects of changes in sail shape on the sail force coefficients is described below: 3.5.4.1 IMS sail model method The International Measurement System (IMS) VPP uses sail coefficients determined from fall scale experiments and two-dimensional section data, According to Kerwin (1976) ‘[the sail coefficients] were developed from data taken principally in light and ‘moderate winds with the maximum sail area set and trimmed optimally for these conditions. In actual practice, once the wind velocity increases above some minimum value, sail force coefficients are continually reduced with increasing wind strength through sai shape control, reefing and sail changes.” These changes are idealised by two parameters reef and flat, The details of this approach are fully described by Hazen (1980). The simplicity of this method is that all attainable (and desirable) lift and drag coefficients may be derived from a polar plot of the sails maximum achievable lift coefficient and associated drag coefficient under the same conditions, Such a polar plot is given in Figure 4. These coefficients are then modified by two parameters — reef and flat: The reef parameter accounts for a reduction in sail area, This parameter differs from changing sails since it is continuous and not discrete. The reef parameter has the same effect on both lift and drag coefficients (the windage drag of the rigging is unaffected) and this is described in Equation ( 5) ‘SALPDOC BofaePredletion of aerodynamio tal forces for upwind yacht vlocty prediction programs ‘Salling Science Conference 20 Sail coefis —+— Kerwin (1978) | ~a~ Campbell (1997) ‘ 1 Figure 4: Typical polar plot of sail coefficients subtly different in that it is basically equivalent to flattening the foil of the sail and leads to a reduction in lift coefficient. The induced drag coefficient is proportional to the square of the lift coefficient and so reduces faster than the lift coefficient, see Equation ( 5 ). This may lead to an increase of the lift:drag ratio of the sail Thus a wide range of sail adjustments (trim, vang, outhaul, sail changes etc.) may be accounted for by the reef and flat parameters, and as we have already seen (Section 2.1) the VPP may optimise these parameters to find the maximum yacht speed. (Ban) = F?Crouc (Bae) a4 Coy (Bar) = $77? Crane(Bon)Coro(Bon) (sy 3.5.5 High performance yachts — What data is required from the sail model? Cy, max, C1/Cp max or C;/Heel moment max In this section we will attempt to establish whether the IMS sail coefficient model, described above, is sufficiently accurate and versatile to account for the performance of modern sail and rig designs. Figure 5 to Figure 7 demonstrate that the requirements of the sails change; as the yacht bears away from the apparent wind, the requirement for high Ci/Cp changes to a requirement for high C and then high C. and Cp SAIP DOS etaPrediction of aerodynamic ssl forces for upwind yacht velety prediction programs Saling Science Conference + Figure 5: Close hauled condition Figure 6: Reaching condition Figure 7; Downwind condition Sailing close hauled, at small apparent wind angles requires high lif:drag ratio, This is the condition experienced by all yachts sailing upwind and by high performance yachts and windsurfers on all points of sail. As the yacht bears away the apparent wind angle increases, When the apparent wind is on the beam it is necessary to maximise the lift. The drag is not of primary concern since it produces only a side force which must be counteracted by the keel. It is true that the greater the lift generated from the Keel the greater the induced drag but this will probably be relatively small compared with the total drag of the yacht. ‘As the yacht bears away even further the apparent wind may come over the stern of the vessel. As in the case when the yacht is sailing down wind at less than the true wind speed. Under these conditions, both the lift and the drag generated by the sails produce a force which has a component in the direction of travel; thus both contribute to the thrust, It is beneficial to increase both lift and drag, of the sail. Further benefit can be obtained if the transverse component of lift and drag are equal, they will cancel and reduce the induced drag of the keel since it is not required to produce lif. The three situations described above have been reflected in the results from a prototype AME VPP which trims the sail for optimum performance by adjusting the sheeting angle, For maximum performance upwind, the sail was operated at an angle of attack which gave an improved lift:drag SAP DOC ToraePrediction of seredyramic sal forces for upwind yacht velecty preditin programs Saling Science Conference ratio. Bearing away, the angle of attack was increased for the sail to deliver maximum lift. Further off the wind, the angle of attack was maintained, even to the point of sheeting out the boom beyond 90°, until it became more effective to utilise the drag component and the sail was sheeted back to approximately 90°, Figure 8 shows the sail angle of attack required to produce the best boat speed for different headings relative to the true wind’ speed. The characteristics of the sail are given in Figure 9. These data are plotted against angle of attack. The lift and drag coefficients were assumed to remain constant above 50° angle of attack. Figure 8 demonstrates that lower angles of attack are more efficient in the close hauled condition. The optimum angle of attack then increases to 32°, the point at which the sail generates maximum lift, as the boat bears away. This angle of attack is then maintained as long as possible as the boat bears away further. 120 —o— Sail alpha —4- Sail sheet ang. —+ Boat speed 8 6 Baot speed [rns] Sail angle of attack [deg] 8 ° 30 80 130 | ‘True wind direction [deg] 0 10 20 30 40 50 Angle of attack [deg] Figure 9: Sail characteristics for una-rig boat High performance yachts will tend to sail in the conditions shown in Figure 5 and Figure 6. This is especially true for windsurfers and planing dinghies. Due to the speeds of the vessels the apparent wind is normally well forward of the beam, These effects have been highlighted in the design trends of windsurfers and their rigs over the last few years: the performance of the boards and particularly the fins have improved dramatically over the last 5 years or so, and this has been reflected in the changes in sail design. The sails are now designed for high lift;drag ratios rather than high lift SAILPDOS tetasFredkction of aerodynamic eal forces for upwind yacht vlocty prediction programs Saling Science Conference coefficients, with much flatter sections, giving better top-end performance. The sails are also more controllable allowing the sailor to carry a larger sail to maintain performance in the lulls, The distinction between sail trim for most power and least drag is also discussed by Bethwaite (1993, 296) Another important consideration is the drive force:heel moment ratio. As a yacht heels its resistance tends to increase and its lifting devices (both sails and keel, rudder) become less efficient, Thus it may be advantageous to run at a non-optimum lift coefficient which reduces the heeling moment and hence the drag of the hull and enables the lifting devices to operate more efficiently. These aspects may only be investigated fully by using a VPP and allowing it to chose the “optimum” sail setting, In the ideal situation, for each apparent wind profile’, the VPP would have access to the sail driving force and heeling force data for a range of sail settings. This data would cover the range of sail settings which produced a) the maximum drive force; b) the maximum drive force:heel force ratio and ©) the maximum drive force:heel moment ratio. From this data the VPP would be able to select the value which would give the maximum boat speed. Figure 10 demonstrates the range of sail data required to fulfil the three optimisation criteria listed above. The figure presents the variation in drive force with both heel force and heel moment. Thus for given limits of heel force and moment, the VPP is able to select the maximum available drive force Drive force Heel force Figure 10: Example of range of sail data required In general there will be non-optimal sail settings and trim which will produce less drive force for a given heel force or moment. “ If wind velocity shear is included then the apparent wind profile is dependent on the boat speed, true wind speed and angle. If wind velocity shear is ignored, then for potential low calculations, only the apparent wind direction is important, since the results can be scaled with velocity squared. The issue of wind velocity shear is discussed in areater detail in the next section SALPDOS Taahd6Prediction of aerodynamic sal forces for upwind yacht volelly prediction programs Salling Science Conference In practice, it is probably not feasible to produce this quantity of data. To overcome this it may be practical to assume that the vertical centre of effort of the sail remains constant, hence the maximum drive force:heel force and maximum drive force:heel moment ratios will occur at the same point. A further simplification would be to follow the. work of Euerle and Greeley (1993) and to use a power parameter (like the IMS flaf) to obtain the sail coefficients from only the data at the maximum drive force, see Figure 11. This is effectively a slice from the data presented in Figure 10, parallel to either the heel force or hee! moment axes. Drive force Max. Drive force:Heel force Heel force or Heel moment Figure 11: Drive force ys. Heel moment Figure 11 shows the variation of maximum drive force that may be achieved from the sails and the corresponding heel force or heel moment that will be produced under the same conditions, The power parameter reflects the amount of drive force generated relative to the maximum available. It is possible that the drive force:heel force ratio may be increased by reducing the power parameter, as shown in the figure. This figure also demonstrates that there is a maximum heeling moment beyond which the drive force does not increase. Euerle and Greeley (1993) have shown that the same result may be obtained using simple aerodynamic theory. They have shown that for an elliptically loaded sail, the maximum driving force, Fea» is given by Equation (6) mV 35" 1 1 (6) From = cof B,.) 4 where s is the span of the rig ‘One of the main conclusions that Euerle and Greeley (1993) draw, from Equation ( 6 ), is that the maximum attainable driving force is dependent on the span and that this should be reflected in the VPP sail model; this is not currently taken into account in most VPPs (Kerwin 1978, Hazen 1980). 3.5.6 Wind shear model (to shear or not to shear ...) A serious complication and a point which has provoked some interesting discussion is the phenomenon of wind shear (See the discussions by Wellicome and Jackson to Day (1992) and Day (1994) respectively). This is a gradient in the velocity of the wind as one moves away from the sea’s surface and is in fact the atmospheric boundary layer. SALPDOG 13of28Prediction of aerodynamic sal forces for upwind yeeht velclty prediction programs: Saling Science Conference In this section the advantages and disadvantages of ignoring the wind velocity gradient are discussed It is argued that the wind gradient should be ignored for the purposes of calculating the sail forces using potential flow methods. The VPP may, on the other hand, include the velocity gradient in some way. (For instance the sail forces and moments may be modified by calculating a sail area which is weighted according to the wind gradient being used.) It should be noted that the IMS model uses sail coefficients measured in a fixed wind gradient. Measurements were carried out for a small number of yachts and averaged. This means that the effects of wind gradient are not accounted for explicitly in the evaluation of the sail force coefficients, There are several advantages in neglecting the wind gradient when predicting the sail forces using potential flow theory. Firstly consider the case where wind shear is included, In this case, for virtually every combination of yacht speed, true wind speed and true wind angle there will be a different apparent wind gradient (in terms of speed and direction). Thus, potentially, for each likely operating condition it is necessary to predict the sail forces. Also the effect of the gradient is different for geometrically similar rigs of different sizes. However, if the wind gradient is neglected and the usual force coefficients are used (see Equation ( 7 )) then the results become independent of rig size (for geometrically similar rigs) and apparent wind speed, All that is needed is to compute the sail coefficients for a range of apparent wind angles, oe ® force (7) $s where pis the density of the fluid, S is a characteristic area and V a characteristic velocity. Another effect of including a sheared apparent wind in potential flow calculations is that it violates the assumption of an irrational flow made in the potential flow model (Day 1994). However, it is stated that for realistic wind gradients the error is less that that caused by the sail discretisation and numerical modelling. The velocity gradient is often expressed in the form of Equation (8 ). Veyp(2) = 0.108 ry (Feu¢) (304 82) (8) where Vy (z)is the velocity at height 2, given in feet, and Vy (Za.c) is the wind speed a the reference height z,.,, usually 10m, Despite the seemingly simple model described by Equation ( 8 ), the wind gradient is a complex atmospheric phenomenon and the shape for the gradient is greatly affected by turbulence, as is shown in Figure 12, which has been reproduced from the data given in Vredenburg 1987. The model used by Vredenburg (1987) is given in Equation (9 ). (9) Vee) = Haein) where a is dependent on the flow regime, low turbulence: a = 0.74; standard a = 0.167; high turbulence a = 0.05. Fay (1993) suggests a= 0.083. SAILP DOG 140f6rection of asrodynamic sll forces for upwind yacht velocity prediction programs Saling Science Conference + Kerwin (1978) / IMS a Fay (1993) —a— Vredenburg (1987) Standard Height above sea surface [m] —B-Vreedenburg (1987) High Turbulence —¥— Vredenburg (1987) Low Turbulence 0 5 10 15 20 2 Thue wind speed [m/s] Figure 12: Wind gradients for different levels of atmospheric boundary layer turbulence, after Vredenburg (1987) | 20 bs _ | _18 2 Ets Eis 2 g 4 =e E14} | —e-Vaweeyvewctom Se F124 | —-WaweWaw(tomy2 na —o-Vew 3 10 —a—Baw(z)/Baw(10m) 3 —=-Baw & # g38 8 a - Btw 2, a z z e B4 B4 z 2 * 2 ° 0 hc o 20 40 60 0% == 50% = 100% © 150% Ture and apparent wind speed [m/s], Percent of values at 10m true and apparent wind angle [deg] Figure 13: True and apparent wind profiles Figure 14: Difference in apparent wind speed including wind shear and direction, compared with apparent wind at 10m Bethwaite (1993, p10) states that there are two regimes of wind flow in the atmosphere of interest to sailors. The first has characteristics of laminar flow and under such conditions there may be a significant wind gradient in the first 10m or so of the air (Vreedenburg’s low turbulence model). However, this flow regime only exists in wind strengths below about Skts. Above this speed, which SAILP.DOC (SoSPrediction of aerodynamic eal forces for upwind yacht veloctyoredton programs. Saling Science Conference depends a little on temperature and other atmospheric conditions, the air flow is turbulent. The mixing effects of the turbulent flow cause a much steeper wind gradient with most of the variation ‘occurring in the first 1m-2m above the sea surface. Tt has also been suggested that the presence cf the above portion of the hull will increase the apparent wind speed locally in this region. This will tend to reduce the wind gradient by increasing the apparent wind speed in the first Im-2m above the sea. It is likely that the effects of incidence twist rather than wind speed shear are the more important. It is interesting to note that researchers and sail designers’ have felt this issue important enough to develop a wind tunnel which is capable of producing a velocity gradient and incidence twist (Fay et al. 1996, Flay 1996, 1993), Results from Fay (1993) indicate that for upwind performance, the effect of the apparent wind velocity gradient is small. However, in these experiments there was no variation in apparent wind angle with height and itis likely that this parameter will have a greater influence. The effects of wind shear are most apparent at low wind speeds whilst sailing downwind, The effects of including or omitting wind shear on the predictions of the Wolfson Unit VPP are shown in Figure 15. It can be seen that in the upwind regime the effects of wind shear are relatively small, especially at the higher wind speeds. Note that it is understood that these differences are due to differences in the corrections made to account for the sheared velocity gradient not to differences in the basis sail force coefficients. Experiments with a potential CFD method have shown differences in sail forces of less than 10% for cases with and without a velocity gradient, these would translate to boat speed changes of around 2%. However, it is likely that most of this difference could be accounted for by matching the wind speeds in a better manner, rather than simply taking the same true wind speed at 10m. 3.5.7 Summary of requirements from sail model The accuracy of the sail force mode! should be comparable to the accuracy of the other components of the VPP model and should enable yachts with around 0.3% difference in attainable speed to be ranked in the correct order, As with most numerical techniques and models, whilst it is desirable to obtain good correlation with real life, (as a starting point) emphasis should be placed on predi the correct relative differences between yachts and correctly predicting the trends due to changes in design and operating parameters. For comparable accuracy with the resistance model, the sail model should be able to predict the relative differences between rigs to within 1%-2% of the sail force generated, It is perhaps optimistic to expect a CFD method to predict results to within 1%-2% of the actual results, However, it seems reasonable to assume that the relative difference in rig performance would be predicted with a greater degree of accuracy. Work to determine the validity of this hypothesis is underway. (Indeed altering the form factor by 20% will result in a change in the extrapolated total resistance of 2%.) * The author would like to suggest that yacht sails are designed with twist for several reasons that are not related to the twist in the apparent wind direction. These are: because it virtually impossible to build a sail without twist, the twist reduces the angle of attack of the sections in the head area, thus reducing the loading and reducing the likelihood of separation and stall, this is especially important for fractional rigs, where the presence of the genoa allows the lower sections of the main to operate at high incidence; and lastly because the yacht is not sailing in a steady wind field, the wind velocity and direction are constanily changing. A sail with a relatively loose leach in the head area will be able to de-power by twisting off in gusts. This enhances the controllability of the sail — which is often the limiting criterion, for high speed sailing. It should be noted that under normal (design wind speeds) the twist is small; it is only when the ‘wind speed increases significantly (e.g. during a gust) that the sail wists open. SALPOOC 160f26Prediction of aredyramic sal forces for upwind yacht velocity predietion programs Salling Science Conference 10.0% Percent difference in yacht speed for standard wind gradient, 9.0% compared with no wind gradient 12 kts, true eo + tai, Ditferece in speed [%] g a 0 100 150 200 True wind angle [deg] Figure 15: Effect of wind shear on VPP results ‘The sail model should be flexible enough for the VPP to be able to select the optimum sail forces in order for the yacht to sail as fast as possible, The optimum sail forces will depend on the apparent wind speed, direction and twist and the available righting moment and side force. ‘Although the IMS reef, flat model is elegant in its simplicity, it is perhaps worth exploring a more detailed model since the requirements from the sails will vary with the performance of the hull and its appendages. In order to simplify the analysis it is appropriate to ignore the wind velocity shear with height for calculation of the sail force coefficients in the upwind condition, The effect of wind shear could be included in the VPP e.g. by modifying the sail area to account for the increased velocity higher up the sail, thus the non-dimensionalising term would be given by Equation ( 10 ). This would have several benefits for a potential flow sail model since the non-dimensional sail forces would depend only on the apparent wind angle and the trim of sails. If the velocity profile of the wind were included then the calculations would also depend on the apparent velocity profile, adding the apparent wind speed, true wind speed, true wind heading and scale factor to the list of variables for which the sail coefficients should be calculated. All of these parameters would affect the viscous corrections which would have to be applied but these would be much easier to compute using empirical methods. $f. chord). U2. ds 10) 3.6 What Sail data is available and how does this match the requirements? 3.6.1. Wind tunnel data Wind tunnel data is very useful for analysis of a particular yacht with a limited number of sails, and the VPP described by Oliver and Claughton (1995) provides the facility to specify wind tunnel sail force coefficients. However, for a generally applicable VPP which should be able to accurately ‘SAILP.DOC 17 0f26Prediction of aerodynamic sal forces for upwind yacht velo) rection programs Saling Science Conference account for changes of rig parameters and sail settings this would require a very large amount of testing. This fact is also noted by Kerwin (1976) While a yacht has one hull of fixed and precisely known geometry, itis likely to have twenty or more sails set in various conibinations, each with infinitely varying and, generally unknown shape. These sails cannot be reproduced by deformable fabric models, nor is it practical to measure and reproduce as a rigid model the large number of geometries necessary to characterize an ocean racing yacht. In summary, the use of wind tunnel data is excellent for the analysis of a specific sail plan, The wind tunnel mode! must be “sailed” by experienced sailors in order to achieve the optimum relationships between driving force, heel force and heel moment. This is facilitated if direct readouts of these forces and moments are available to the trimmer. However, for a general purpose VPP which can acourately predict the sail forces of a variety of sail plans, there is insufficient data available. 3.6.2 Existing IMS sail coefficients The existing sail force model in the IMS VPP is based on data obtained from the yacht Bay Bee during the 1974 SORC and the yacht Standjast during the 1974 racing season in Europe. These data suffer a similar drawback to the wind tunnel data — the range of rig parameters is relatively small They are also averaged which is good in thet the errors are reduced but so is the sensitivity of the sail model. 3.6.3 Numerical methods As an alternative to the experimental methods discussed above, there are a variety of numerical techniques which may be used to model the flow over interacting sails. Depending on the fluid model used, they offer the possibility of increasingly accurate results but at the expense of increased computational effort (normally orders of magnitude) As with most CFD models these may be divided into two distinct groups — those which ignore the effects of viscosity (or perhaps use some relatively crude modifications based on experimental data), these are potential flow solutions; and those which include the effects of viscosity. The second group include Navier Stokes models and are really still at the development stage for the type of application being discussed here. They require vast computational resource and are more orientated towards detailed sail design rather than implementation in a VPP where the emphasis is on yacht design. Of the potential flow models, the simplest is the lifting line. Here the sail is represented by a distribution of horseshoe vortices along the span (mast) of the sail. This technique is able to model the spanwise distribution of lift on the sail and the far filed interaction between multiple sails. Further details of the lifting line method are given by Euerle and Greeley (1993) and Milgram (1968). Second in complexity is the vortex lattice model. In addition to modelling the spanwise lift distribution, this technique also distributes vortices along the chord of the sail. Since the full three dimensional nature of the sail is included, the near field interaction of the sails may be modelled with a certain degree of accuracy. Depending on the exact form of the singularity distribution (discrete or ‘smeared’) the solution may break down very close to the vortex elements. The vortex lattice technique has been around for a number of years and the interested reader is directed to the following papers for more information: Fiddes and Gaydon (1996), Greeley et al. (1989), Register and Irey (1983), Greeley and Kerwin (1982), Thrasher et al, (1979). SAILP DOG 180f25Praciction of aerodynamic sai forces for upwind yacht velocy prediction programs Saling Seionee Conference The vortex lattice method has now been sufficiently researched and refined so as to be able to produce high quality predictions of sail force. Also the manifold increase in computational power in the last few years has enabled these computations to be completed in seconds rather than hours. The computations may be automated to some degree enabling the performance of a wide range of sail parameters to be computed in a relatively short period ¢ The lifting line method, being faster, could be integrated directly into the VPP, so that at each stage of the computation the VPP solves the lifting line aerodynamic problem. Integrating the aerodynamic calculations in this manner may lead the way to enabling the computer to trim the sails to obtain the best yacht performance. Such methods have been investigated to some extent by Day (1994, 1992) and Euerle and Greeley (1993). In summary the vortex lattice method offers the potential of being able to compute the sail force coefficients for a wide range of rig parameters. However, this method may only be used as the upwind sail model, Modifications for viscous effects should be added using empirical data such as Milgram (1978) or simple boundary layer integral methods. 3.7 Modifications to sail model: AME approach This section describes some of the work carried out at the AME under the Yacht Technology Research Program. The aim of this research is to improve the sail force model used in the AME/IMA VPP. At present the sail force model is being updated and the rest of the VPP follows a similar method to that of the IMS VPP. At a later stage the VPP will be improved with regard to the topics discussed in Section 3 An initial sensitivity analysis with respect to the convergence of the code with panel density and wake iteration scheme has been completed. A detailed validation of the vortex lattice code is currently under way. The results of the CFD are being compared with wind tunnel data for an [ACC yacht rig, 3.7.1 Database of sail coefficients It is initially planned to improve the sail force model by providing the VPP with data for a wider range of rig parameters than that currently used. This would enable the effects of overall rig geometry and aspect ratio to be examined in greater detail. (The IMS VPP currently uses a relative rig efficiency parameter to account for changes in aspect ratio.) ‘A database has been created with a range of rig parameters and sailing conditions. The list of parameters for the initial database is given in Table 1. A vortex lattice program is used to compute the sail forces, moments and centre of effort, Due to the limitations of available computing power, the VPP will interrogate this database rather than calling the vortex lattice program directly. This will also enable the yacht designer to investigate the effects of small changes in hull design without having to re-compute many sail forces using the vortex lattice code. The VPP would perhaps need to call the sail model 10 times to compute the yacht speed for a specific true wind direction and speed. This would take approximately 7 minutes on an average workstation. Multiply this by 5 wind speeds and 18 wind directions and the computational time increases significantly to 10 hours! Thus it is not feasible to directly link the vortex lattice code to the VPP. This issue is discussed in greater detail in Section 5.3 ‘The initial database uses 11 parameters to describe the sail geometry and a further 3 parameters to define the sailing condition, Each parameter may have several values. Table 1 lists the parameters and the number of values used in the initial database, This represents 15552 vortex lattice SALP.DOC 180126Prediction of aerodynamic sl forces for upwind yactt valeity prediction programs Saling Science Conference calculations which took about a week to compute on a relatively fast DEC-alpha workstation {approximately 40s per calculation), Table 1: Database parameters Parameter ‘No. Values Heel HBI Mast length Mast rake BAS Main boom length Roach profile Fore triangle height J Jib foot length Sail trim and shape (setting) Apparent wind angle ‘Apparent wind speed Boat speed NYYUNnvuUae Yee eee The current model uses a sheared wind profile, hence the parameters: apparent wind speed, boat speed and mast height. These three parameters could be removed if a uniform true wind velocity were used. This would reduce the computation time by a factor of 16. Initially a linear interpolation method will be used by the VPP. The VPP will first interpolate a sub- database for the specific overall rig geometry. This sub-database will contain the sail forces for the different sail trims (settings), apparent wind speeds and directions and boat speed, When the VPP is executing it will, for a given apparent wind speed, angle and boat speed, select the sail settings which gives the greatest yacht speed. It should be pointed out that this procedure is still under revision and some of the suggestions for further work made in Section 5 may be implemented. It is also planned to investigate the feasibility of using a neural network method to provide multi-parameter non-linear interpolation. 3.7.2. Modelling viscous forces As has been noted above the vortex lattice code computes the potential flow over the sails; ie. no account of fluid viscosity is made. For the sail force model to be accurate, these viscous forces must be accounted for in some way. There are three principal areas for which fluid viscosity is important: friction drag on the body of the sail; separation of the flow behind the mast on the main sail; and leech separation, particularly on the main sail when the sail is operating near its maximum lift coefficient. The windage drag of the rig and above water portion of the yacht should also be accounted for. SAILP.DOG 20028Predletion of aerodynamic sai forces for upwind yacht velocity prediction programs Saling Science Conference The first two viscous components are relatively easily accounted for: the friction drag may be computed using a standard skin friction formulation and the effects of masts are reasonably well documented, see for example Milgram (1978) The issue of leech separation is less easily accounted for. Investigations by Horstmann (1993) have demonstrated a possible approach, However, for upwind sailing the sails are more likely to be set so as to produce the maximum drive force'heel force ratio rather than the maximum drive force. In general main sail leech separation will not be significant at the setting for maximum drive force:heel force ratio. The separation only occurs when the sails are being pushed hard to produce the maximum drive force, e.g. when sailing more off the wind It should be noted that Campbell (1997) reports that: ... for apparent wind angles associated with windward sailing and close reaching, the induced drag is the major component of drag produced by a rig and it becomes increasingly dominant as the sails are sheeted in to produce the maximum driving force. This is somewhat at odds with the findings of Euerle and Greeley (1993) who state that: The addition of the mast makes the viscous drag of the same order of magnitude as the induced drag. Itis not clear why these discrepancies arise. 3.7.3 Initial results from sensitivity analysis - have we chosen the correct parameters / ranges? Initial results from the database show that a larger number of settings are required in order to verify that the sail forces for the optimum sail settings are being found. ‘The optimum conditions discussed in Section 3.5.5, are: a) the maximum drive force; b) the maximum drive force:heel force ratio and ¢) the maximum drive force:heel moment ratio. Plots of drive force against heel force are given in Figure 16 and Figure 17 for two mast heights — 20m and 25m. In these figures the forces have been non-dimensionalised with respect to the square of the mast length. It can be seen that the forces are slightly larger for the taller mast indicating that the shear in the wind profile had some effect. This difference was approximately 6% for the drive force and 12% for the heel force. The trends with apparent wind direction reflect the findings of Campbell (1997). However the need to increase the number of sail settings in order to find the optimum is apparent. It is reasonable to suggest that greater benefit could be achieved by removing the wind gradient from the vortex lattice model, This would reduce the number of conditions in the initial database by a factor of 24, This would allow 48 sail settings to be computed instead of the current 2. BAILP.DOS 2 ot28Prediction f aerodynamic sai forces for upwind yacht veleily prediction programs Saling Science Conference Drive force 10.5 pVA2LA2 0.15 5 Dive force vs Heel force Mast = 20m 013+ a | ont . 0.08 0.07 0.08 | 0.28 03 0.38 04 Heel force / 0.5 pVA2 LX2 Figure 16: Drive force vs. Heel force, 20m Mast Drive force /0.5 pvr2 LA2 0.15 Drive force vs Heel force Mast = 25m 0.13 ott os 0.09 4 Baw = 20 07 | 0.07 si Baw= 25 —e—Baw = 30 0.05 0.25 03 0.35 04 Heel force /0.5 pV"2.L'2 Figure 17: Drive force vs. Heel force, 25m Mast Table 2 presents a summary of the cost/benefit analysis of including different parameters into the vortex lattice sail force coefficient calculations. Table 2: Cost/benefit estimate for sail model Item Effect on accuracy Cost Wind velocity small, approximately 10% of force. _ | large, necessitates additional gradient parameters: mast length, velocity profile shape, true wind speed, boat speed. Uniform wind profile requires only apparent wind direction. SALE DOC RaePrediction of aercdynamic sail forces for upwind yacht velocity prediction programs Salting Science Conference Sail settings large, impossible to determine optimum drive force: heel force ratio without sufficient trim conditions. less than abovel only one parameter varied, not 3 or 4 Viscous model large, but achievable with simple empirical formulations at low computational cost. large if full analysis (e.g. separation prediction) required using non- empirical methods. Aero elastic model large, may be reduced if guestimate moderate, of flying shape is provided 4. Conclusions 4.1 VPP There is scope for the improvement of the AME/IMA VPP. One of the main areas for improvement would be to include a yaw moment and possibly pitch moment balance with the aim of making the ‘VPP applicable to a wider range of yacht types — e.g. multihulls, high performance dinghies, etc. A vertical force balance might also be necessary for planing craft. A second issue would be to investigate approaches for assessing the controllability of the yacht and the sensitivity of the yacht to small changes in wind strength and direction. For high performance yachts these factors will tend to govern the maximum speed more than a simple force balance. There is also a need to accurately benchmark the VPP against real yacht performance 4.2 Sail model Detailed validation of the AME sail model must be made against experimental sail data. Work in this area is underway but is not sufficiently advanced to report in this paper. The issue of including viscous effects has not yet been fully addressed; there is scope for improving the viscous model particularly with regard to leech separation. The wind gradient should be ignored for calculations of sail coefficients for upwind conditions. This would allow a greater number of values of the remaining parameters to be investigated; particularly the number of sail settings. 4.3 Database approach Considering the limitations of the computational power available to the average yacht designer, the database approach is fundamentally sound. As the technique is refined the range of the parameters will be increased. However there are several points which require further refinement: A greater number of sail settings should be included during the calculation of the database and the database calculation program should search for the optimum sail trim which will produce the maximum drive force; the maximum drive force:heel force ratio and the maximum drive force:heel moment ratio. This is similar to the way a wind tunnel model is “sailed” to find the optimum sail settings for a given apparent wind angle There is scope for integrating the vortex lattice program more directly to the VPP. One possible method would be to calculate a “custom” database for a specific sail geometry thus alleviating the need to interpolate between geometries. This should be investigated further — see Section 5.3. ‘SAILP.DOC BotaPradletion of aerodynamic sal forces for upwind yacht velocity prediction programs Saling Science Conference 5. Further work 5.1 Improvements to VPP It is possibly appropriate to overhaul the VPP and move away from the IMS style VPP which has been the basis for the majority of VPPs for the last 20 years. Due to the manifold incuease in computer power it would be appropriate to at least include a yaw moment and pitch moment balance but also possibly a full 6 degree of freedom balance module. This would enhance the scope VPP and enable it to be used on high performance dinghies, windsurfers and multihulls. It would also be appropriate to investigate methods for the analysis of the stability of the yacht. As a first approximation, this may be achieved by investigating magnitudes and signs of the out-of-balance forces and moments produced by small changes in true wind speed and direction, crew position, control surface positions and sail trim, 5.2 Improvements to sail model The simplification of isolating the sail trim conditions for optimum sail performance from the VPP should be re-addressed, This is particularly true if a computerised sail model is used to predict the sail forces, since itis fairly easily integrated into the VPP. Areas for enhancement of the viscous model, particularly with respect to leech separation should be investigated. 5.3 Improvements to database There are several improvements which can be made to the data base. A neural network would be a better method for interpolating data from the database. The use of a neural network would reduce the need to have systematic data, It would be possible to produce a mini, customised database for a specific sail plan, A neural network would be able to make use of this data whereas a linear interpolation scheme may have difficulty. ‘A further refinement would be to partially incorporate the sail force prediction method into the VPP. This would involve the VPP directly calling the vortex lattice sail model initially whilst keeping a record of the apparent wind speeds and directions for which the sail forces have been calculated (and the forces themselves), Thus in subsequent iterations, if sufficient data were available, the VPP ‘would interpolate using the pre-calculated data. ‘The number of different settings/trims (sheeting angles, twist distributions, camber distributions, etc.) should be increased so that the optimum is found. The database calculation program could be ‘modified so that it can “search” for the optimum sail settings by changing these settings within certain limits. 6. Acknowledgements ‘The author would like to thank and recognise the support and contributions to this research made by the staff of Iain Murray and Associates and to thank Curtin University of Technology for the use of their computer facilities. 7. References Atkinson, P. (1987). The structural analysis of mast-sail systems using a finite element approach. Conference on Yachting Technology. University of Western Australia. 28-30 January, SAILPDOS wardsPrediction of aerodynamic sll forces for upwind yacht veloty preston programs: Solng Selence Conference Atkinson, P. (1988), On the structural response .of a mast-sail system using a finite element approach. Proc. International Conference on CAD for small craft ~ Sail and Power. Southampton UK. May 25-26, Atkinson, P. and Szantyr, J.A. (1992). An integrated approach to the analysis of mast-sail systems. Trans. Royal Institution of Naval Architects. Part A,134, p73. Bethwaite, F. (1993), High performance sailing. Waterline Books, Shrewsbury, England Campbell, LM.C. (1997). Optimisation of a sailing rig using wind tunnel data. Proc. 13th SNAME Chesapeake Sailing Yacht Symposium. Annapolis, Maryland, U.S.A. Day, AH. (1992), The optimisation of aerodynamic lift distribution for a heeled yacht in a wind gradient. Trans, Royal Institution of Naval Architects, Part A, 134, pp91-108 Day, AH. (1994). Steps towards an optimal yacht sail plan, Trans. Royal Institution of Naval Architects, Part B, 136, p155-174 Euerle, S.E. and Greeley, D.S. (1993) Towards a rational upwind sail model for VPPs. Proc. 11th SNAME Chesapeake Sailing Yacht Symposium. Annapolis, Maryland, U.S.A. Fiddes, S.P. and Gaydon, JH. (1996). A new vortex lattice method for calculating the flow past yacht sails. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics. 63 pp35-60 Flay, R.G.J,, Locke, N.J. and Mallinson, G.D. (1996). Model tests of twisted flow wind tunnel designs for testing yacht sails. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 63 pp155- 170. Flay, R.G.J. (1996). A twisted flow wind tunnel for testing yacht sails. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 63 pp171-182 Flay, R.G.J. (1992). Wind tunnel tests on a 1/16th-scale laser model, Ship Science Report 55. Department of Ship Science, University of Southampton, U.K. Fukasawa, T. and Masanobu, K., (1993). Numerical approach to aeroelastic response of three- dimensional flexible sails. 11th SNAME Chesapeake Sailing Yacht Symposium. Annapolis, Maryland, USA Greeley, D.S., and Kerwin, JE., (1982), Numerical methods for propeller design and analysis in steady flow. Trans. Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers. 90, pp415-453. Greeley, D.S., Kirkman, K.L., Drew, A.L., and Cross-Whiter, J. (1989). Scientific sail shape design Proc, 9th SNAME Chesapeake Sailing Yacht Symposium, Annapolis, Maryland, U.S.A. Hazen, GS. (1980). A model of sail aerodynamics for diverse rig types. Proc. SNAME New England Sailing Yacht Symposium. New London, Connecticut, U.S.A. March 22 Horstmann, C, (1993), Adaption of @ potential method to model the flow interaction between a yacht mast and sail. Thesis for Diplom Ingenieur, Department of Ship Science, University of Southampton, UK. February. Jackson, P.S. (1996), Modelling the aerodynamics of upwind sails. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics. 63 pp171-182 SAILP.BOG oia8Prediction of aerodynamic sal forces for upwind yacht velocity prediction programs Salling Science Conference Jackson, P.S. (1982). A 3-D aeroelastic sail model. Proc. The Science of Sail Design. London, Canada. pp55-66, Kerwin, J.E. (1976). A velocity prediction program for ocean racing yachts, Proc, SNAME New England Sailing Yacht Symposium. New London, Connecticut, U.S.A. January 24. Kerwin, J.E. (1978). A velocity prediction program for ocean racing yachts revised to June 1978. H. Irving Pratt Ocean Race Handicapping Project, MIT Report 78-11 Matteis, G. de, and Socio, L. de (1986) Nonlinear aerodynamics of a two-dimensional membrane airfoil with separation. Journal of Aircraft, 23, 11. November. Milgram, J,H., (1978), Effects of masts on the aerodynamics of sail sections. Marine Technology. 15, 1, pp35-42, January. Milgram, J.H. (1968). The analytical design of yacht sails. Trans. Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers. 76, pp118-160, Oliver, J.C, and Claughton, A.R. (1995). Development of a mulit-function velocity prediction program (VPP) for sailing yachts. Proc, RINA Conference on Computer Aided Design and Production for Small Craft (CADAP’95). Southampton, U.K. September 26,27. Pedrick, D, (1994), (AJIMS — an Almost Ideal Measurement System. Proc, Yacht Vision *94 Symposium. Auckland, New Zealand. February 16-20. Poor, C.L, and Sironi, N, (1990). The International Measurement System, a description of the new international rating system. Proc. 11th Intemational Symposium on Yacht Design and Yacht Construction, Amsterdam, Netherlands. November 13,14. Register, D.S. and Irey, RK. (1983) Analysis of steady flow over interacting sails. Proc. 6th SNAME Chesapeake Sailing Yacht Symposium. Annapolis, Maryland, U.S.A. Richelsen, M. (1981). An analysis of the deformation of sails, Thesis in Solid Mechanics, Department of Ocean Engineering, Technical University of Denmark. Smith, R. and Shyy, W. (1997): An incremental potential flow-base membrane wing element. Accepted for publication AIAA Journal. January. See also http://confucius.aero.ufl, edu/~rws/ Smith, R. and Shy, W. (1996). Computation of aerodynamic coefficients for a flexible membrane airfoil in turbulent flow: A comparison with classical theory. Physics of Fluids 8 (12). December. Smith, R. and Shyy, W. (1995). Computation of unsteady laminar flow over a flexible two- dimensional membrane wing. Physics of Fluids 7 (9). September. Strong, S.L. (1990) USYRU Velocity prediction program transliterated to MS-BASIC. Offshore Racing Council IMS regulations, Plus accompanying source code for 1989 USYRU IMS VPP. Thrasher, D.F., Mook, D.T. and Nayfeh, AH. (1979). A computer based method for analysing the flow over sails. Proc, 4th SNAME Chesapeake Sailing Yacht Symposium. Annapolis, Maryland, USA. Vredenburg, H. (1987), Sails and simple aerodynamics. Trans. Royal Institution of Naval Architects ‘SAILP.OOC Baws