MARITIME & COASTGUARD AGENCY Research Project 427 - Final Report Capsize and Stability of Sailing Multihulls Phase 1 Report No. 1441/1 Mareh, 1999WOLFSON UNIT Report No. 1441/1 Mareh, 1999 MARITIME & COASTGUARD AGENCY Research Project 427 - Final Report Capsize and Stability of Sailing Multihulls ~ Phase 1 1. INTRODUCTION The following report describes the work conducted and the findings of Research Contract 427 - An Investigation Into the Capsize & Stability of Sailing Multihulls - Phase II. Phase I of this research was conducted by the Wolfson Unit in 1995 and is described in Ref.1, ‘The work in Phase 2 comprised wind tunnel tests to study wind heeling moments, and towing tank tests to study roll responses to waves and vulnerability to pitchpoling. The study also included an assessment of various methods of determining the vertical centre of gravity. 2, WIND TUNNEL TESTS ‘These tests followed a similar format to those conducted on monohull sailing yachts in 1989 as part of a programme of work on sailing vessel stability which was conducted for the Department of Transport. Details of those tests are described in full in Ref.2. 2.1 Model A 1:12 scale model was constructed of a 13.6 metre catamaran, which had been designed for the charter industry by Alexander Simonis Naval Architects, The design of this yacht is described fully in Ref.3. As the model was intended to be representative of cruising catamarans, rather than an accurate model of a specific design, small details were neglectedcr WOLFSON UNIT ‘The model was constructed in sections to facilitate testing of the various configurations required, The sections comprised port and starboard hull and bridge deck sections, an additional bridge deck section to give a beam increase of 25%, a further flat deck panel to fit between the hulls forward in way of the yyacht's trampoline, and the coachroof. ‘The rig was constructed in accordance with the design drawings, and sails were manufactured to represent the mainsail, the full headsail, and the headsail furled to 70% of its area. 2.2 Test Arrangements ‘The tests were conducted at the University of Southampton in the low speed section of the No.1 Wind ‘Tunnel, which has dimensions 4.6 metres wide by 3.7 metres high. ‘The model was mounted on a six component balance which was attached to a turntable, Forces from individual load cells were resolved into six components by the data acquisition system. ‘The model was suspended from the balance in a tank of water, fitted into the turntable, which provided a seal between the model and the turntable and permitted the measurement of the model forces independent of the turntable. ‘The starboard hull of the model was connected to the dynamometer using a horizontal rod on the hull centraline at the bow, and a bar athwartships near the stern. ‘The bar incorporated pivot on the starboard hull centreline, and a mechanism to enable the model to be fixed at a range of heel angles from 10° to 90°. The model could not be mounted at 0° of heel because the port hull would foul the turntable. For each test configuration, the model was fixed at a heel angle of 10°, and measurements were made of the forces and moments at selected apparent wind angles in the range 20° to 140°. This procedure was repeated with the model fixed at heel angles of 20, 30, 50, 70 and 90°. Tests were carried out at a dynamic head of 3 mm water gauge, which corresponds to a dynamic pressure of 30 Pascals and a wind speed of approximately 7 m/s. The facility is an aeronautical wind tunnel rather than a boundary layer wind tunnel, and so the wind gradient and large scale turbulence properties of the atmospheric boundary layer were not modelled. Woven screens placed upstream of the working section provide nominally uniform flow across the section, and introduce small scale turbulence which increases the effective Reynolds number. With model Reynolds numbers necessarily less than those at full scale, the wereased effective Reynolds number minimises any scaling effects on the flow characteristics.WOLFSON UNIT Wool tufts were fitted to the upper surface of the hulls, deck and coachroof to enable some visualisation of the local flow direction and to reveal arcas of separated flow. 2.3. Test Configurations ‘The model was tested in the following configurations 1, Hulls and bridge deck at the design beam, with a flat deck. 2. Hulls and bridge deck with the beam increased by 25%, with a flat deck. 3. Hulls and bridge deck at the design beam, with a flat deck, and a solid forward trampoline. ‘This gave a 30% increase in the bridge deck area. 4, Hulls, bridge deck, and coachroof, 2s designed. ‘As designed, with the full mainsail and headsail sheeted to obtain the maximum driving force at an apparent wind angle of 30°. 6. As designed, with the full mainsail and headsail eased to reduce the heeling moment by 50%, while maintaining a high driving force/heeling force ratio. 7. As designed, with the mainsail reefed to 80% of its area, and the headsail furled to 70%. ‘The reofed sails were sheeted to obtain the maximum driving foree. Photographs of each configuration are presented in Figures 1 to 7. Figures 8, 9 and 10 show further photographs of the model in test configuration 5, to illustrate the range of heel angles tested, 24 Data Analysis and Presentation ‘The measured forces were transformed to lift and drag with boundary corrections applied. Maskell wake blockage factors were then derived, based on the drag attributable to separated flow, and these factors were used to adjust the forces and moments. It is convenient to present and compare the aerodynamic forces and moments independent of wind speed, and so they are presented herein as force/NWP or moment/NWP, where NWP is the nominal wind pressure, The corrected model data were divided by the dynamic pressure as measured in the wind tunnel, and scaled to represent the full size yacht. Thus a moment presented as Heeling Moment/NWP, if multiplied by the dynamic pressure, 0.5 x air density x(wind speed)’, will correspond to the heeling moment in that wind speed For a typical air density of 1.23 kg/m’, the dynamic pressure is 0.163(wind speed in knots)”WOLFSON UNIT Figures 11 to 17 present the heeling moments for each test configuration. The data are presented as curves of heeling moment variation with apparent wind angle for each heel angle. A common feature of these curves is that the maximum heeling moment occurs at an apparent wind angle of around 50 degrees or 110 degrees, rather than at 90 degrees where the area of the model presented to the wind is, greatest. Figures 18 to 20 show the variation of heeling moment with heel angle for the various test ‘configurations, at three selected apparent wind angles of 50, 90 and 110 degrees. ‘The data for the model without sails indicate that the heeling moment is dependent on the deck area, since the wide model gave the highest moments, and with the solid foredeck the moments were higher than for the open foredeck, The addition of the coachroof had no effect with the wind on the beam, and resulted in a small reduction in the moments with the apparent wind at 50 and 110 degrees, In all cases the heeling moment tends to increase with increasing heel angle, reaching a maximum at around 30 degrees, and then remains roughly constant up to 90 degrees. With the sails fitted the moments reached a maximum at 10 or 20 degrees of heel, then reduced with increasing heel angle in a similar manner to the wind heeling moments generated by monohull yachts, Ref.2, but with a greater moment at 90 degrees due to the windage of the hull and deck structure. With test configuration 5 at 50 degrees apparent there appears to be an anomaly in that the moment increased substantially between 10 and 20 degrees of heel. Inspection of Figure 15 reveals that at a heel angle of 10 degrees the moment at 50 degrees apparent is a local minimum. At 40 degrees apparent the moment increases to a value of 2000. If this value is used in place of the anomalous value of 1650 then this gives a curve similar to those for the other cases presented. ‘These large changes in moment associated with small changes in heading are consistent with previous findings described in Ref.2, where it was concluded that subtle changes in sail sheeting and camber could result in significant changes in heeling moment. Since the primary concern is to identify the maximum likely heeling moments, the low value for configuration 5 at 10 degrees of heel and 50 degrees apparent may be ignored. In configuration 6, with the sails eased to reduce the heeling moment by 50% at 30 degrees apparent, the heeling moments at other headings showed much smaller reductions from the values of configuration 5. Even with a small heading change to 50 degrees the heeling moment reduces fromWOLFSON UNIT about 2000 to 1500, that is only 25% reduction, and at 90 degrees apparent there is only a 13% difference between them. With the sails set for high efficiency, as they were at 30 degrees, small changes in the sheeting bring substantial changes in the forces, however, with sail settings off optimum, changes in their settings or heading result in smaller changes in the forces. ast experience has shown that the resultant sail force tends to be approximately normal to the mast AA detailed analysis of the forces on the hull and deck structure was undertaken to investigate the nature of its resultant aerodynamic force. Figure 21 presents data for test configuration 4, the hulls deck and coachroof, and shows the vertical and horizontal components of force. At low angles of heel the vertical and horizontal forces are equal, while at high angles of heel the horizontal force is greater. ‘The vertical force is generated by acceleration of the flow over the structure, which results in low pressure on its upper surface. Also presented on Figure 21 are the contributions to the heeling moment due to each component of the force. At low angles of heel the vertical force dominates the heeling moment because it acts nearly normal to the deck and has a large lever, whereas the horizontal force acts parallel to the deck with a small lever, The moment due to the vertical force is maximised at about 23 degrees and thereafter it reduces. ‘The moment due to the horizontal force reaches a maximum at 70 degrees and is dominant at hheel angles greater than 50 degrees. At a heel angle of 90 degrees the horizontal force has a large lever, whereas the lever associated with the vertical force reduces to zero. ‘Through this analysis it can be shown that the resultant force on the structure remains approximately normal to the deck at all angles. The total heeling moments acting on the vessel in the sailing configuration therefore were considered to be comprised of two orthogonal components, one due to the lift on the deck structure aligned roughly perpendicular to the deck, and the other due to the lift on the sails aligned roughly perpendicular to the mast, In order to quantify the relative contributions of the hulls, deck, coachroof and rig, the areas and centroids of each portion of the model were measured. Table 1 presents the full scale values of area and lever for the portions used. ‘The sail areas are total areas of each sail, and the others are projected plan areas. ‘The mainsail area includes the mast and boom. ‘The lever is the distance from the centroid of the area to the centreline of the leeward hull at the waterline, as this line corresponds roughly to theWOLFSON UNIT axis of rotation of a capsizing catamaran, The levers associated with sail areas are vertical distances, and those associated with the hull and deck areas are horizontal distances measured transversely across the deck, ‘Table 2 presents the total profile and plan areas, and moments of area, for each of the model configurations tested. ‘The total plan area of the hull and deck structure of the yacht as designed is more than 50% of the sail area, but its lever about the leeward hull is considerably smaller and so the moment of the deck area is only 15% of that of the sail area moment. 2.8 Derivation of a Formula to Estimate Heeling Moments In order to enable prediction of the maximum likely wind heeling moments for other multihulls, attempts were made to fit curves to the measured data, The data for an apparent wind angle of 50 degrees were used for this exercise since, in general, they represent the maximum hecling moments. Various formulae were considered, and the proposed formula was derived bearing in mind dual requirements for a reasonable fit to the data, and ease of application, Figure 22 presents selected data derived from the tests for comparison with estimated heeling moments using the proposed formula, ‘The formula used was: Heeling Moment/NWP = 1.3 [Sh Cos(heel angle) + Db] where: $ is the total sail area hn is the height of the centroid of the sails above the waterline D is the plan area of the hulls and deck is the distance from the centroid of the deck area to the centreline of the leeward hull. ‘The contribution of the hulls, deck and coachroof is assumed to remain constant at all angles of heel. ‘This may appear to be an over-simplification but, as can be seen in Figure 22, the errors involved represent a small percentage of the total moment with sails set. ‘The profile areas of the hull and coachroof have not been used in this analysis since they have litte influence on the heeling moment, Evidence of this is contained in Figures 18 to 20, where it can be seen that the results with the coachroof fitted compare closely with those for the flat deck.mr WOLFSON UNIT ‘This formula represents a refinement of that currently used in the Code of Practice, which takes no account of the deck area but includes the profile area of the hull structure, and assumes a force coefficient of 1.2 rather than 1.3 as suggested here. For the yacht modelled, the proposed formula gives a heeling moment estimate 15% greater than that given by the formula in the Code of Practice. If the proposed formula is used to predict the wind speed required to generate the heeling moment required to capsize the yacht, it results in a value 7% lower than the formula in the Code, for the same yacht. ‘The wind heeling moment reduces with heel angle at a lower rate than the righting moment of a typical multihull. ‘Their range of stability normally is about 60 to 80 degrees, and the wind heeling moment remains significant at 90 degrees. The wind heeling moment is therefore greater than the righting ‘moment at large angles of heel, even at low wind speeds, and this fact may have implications for multihulls heeled to large angles by wave action. In this respect multihulls differ from ballasted monohulls which, when at 90 degrees, have positive righting moments but negligible wind heeling ‘moments, 3. ROLL TESTS Rolling tests were conducted to study the response of multihulls to beam seas, and four types of test were employed: 1, Roll decrement tests were used to determine the natural roll period, by allowing the model to roll freely in calm water. 2. Linear roll response tests were used to determine the roll response amplitude operators, or RAOs, by measuring the roll angles over a range of wave frequencies in small regular waves. 3. Non linear roll response tests were conducted in large regular waves to identify any tendency for the waves to induce extreme roll angles. 4, Tests in breaking waves were conducted to study the vulneral ity to capsize. 3.1 Models A simple catamaran model, comprising hulls, bridge deck and mast, was based on the same design as used for the wind tunnel tests, modelled at a scale of 1:15. ‘The model length overall was 0.9 metres, with hulls of lightweight foam sheathed with GRP, and a thin plywood bridge deck with cross beams. For the standard configuration each component of the model was ballasted to a representative weight of its counterpart at full scale. ‘This ensured that the model was representative in terms of its centre of gravity and inertia, The requirement to carty a small gyroscope on deck to measure roll angles forcedWOLFSON UNIT the model displacement up to represent the maximum displacement of the full scale yacht. The overall beam was made adjustable by a joint in the bridge deck, and various ballast locations were used to enable variation of the vertical centre of gravity and roll inertia, ‘Table 3 presents the weights, vertical centres of gravity, and roll inertias of the standard catamaran model and its components. ‘A simple trimaran model comprised a main hull the same as those of the catamaran, with floats connected by two alloy cross beams and the same mast as used for the catamaran, ‘Two pairs of floats, were constructed, one pair each had a volume equal to 100%, and the other 200%, of the standard displacement, As with the catamaran, the model component weights were adjusted to be representative of a sample trimaran, For the tests in breaking waves, two additional trimaran conditions were tested with the displacement increased, so that the float volumes no longer represented 100% and 200% of the test displacement. ‘The various model configurations tested are listed in Table 4. The stability curves of the catamaran models are presented in Figure 23 to illustrate the variation in maximum GZ, and range of stability ‘The GZ values presented are for full scale yachts, assuming a model scale of 1:15. 3.2 Roll Angle Measurement For the roll decrement and the RAO tests the models were fitted with vertical accelerometers, on the port and starboard hull or float centrelines. A technique of determining the roll acceleration, and then the roll angle, from these accelerometers was used for the first time in these tests. In the past, such tests have been conducted using a small roll gyro, but the low displacement of the trimaran prevented installation of a gyro. For the catamaran tests, where displacement was less of a problem, a gyro was installed to measure the roll angle in addition to the accelerometers. This enabled the accuracy of the technique to be assessed. ‘The catamaran tests indicated that data derived from the accelerometers duplicated those from the gyro, as illustrated in Figure 24, and the accelerometers gave a better signal:noise ratio which enabled higher resolution, particularly at small angles. ‘The accelerometers therefore were used ‘confidence on the trimaran, and the roll data presented in this report were derived from them. For the tests in breaking waves, where swamping or capsize was a regular feature, and any umbilical cables would have introduced unacceptable interference, instrumentation could not be incorporated inWOLFSON UNIT the model, For these tests the roll responses were derived through careful analysis of the video records. 3.3. Test Facility ‘The tests were conducted in the towing tank at Southampton Institute, which is 60 metres long by 3.7 metres wide by 1.8 metres deep. It is equipped with a manned carriage with a maximum speed of 4.5 metres/second, and computer controlled wavemakers capable of producing regular waves, representative sea spectra, and breaking waves. 3.4 Roll Decrement Tests ‘The model was released from a heel angle of around 20 degrees in calm water. ‘The resulting motion appeared to be rather irregular, and very heavily damped, particularly with the trimaran models. ‘The roll motion is complicated in comparison with a monohull because the motion of each hull propagates ‘waves to which the other hull responds. Fourier analysis of the roll angle time histories was used to reveal the natural roll frequency. ‘The results are presented in terms of the natural roll period in Table 4. ‘The roll period,T, of a vessel may be determined from the formula: where k is the radius of gyration in roll, and C is a factor which is largely due to the added inertia of water entrained with the rolling vessel. For example, if the entrained water increases the roll inertia by 10%, C will be 1.1, For monohull ships the factor C is affected by hull shape, and on the keel, keel and appendage arrangement. For a catamaran, the motion may be thought of as heave of the individual hulls rather than rotation, and the beam and displacement might be expected to govern the added inertia. By comparing the measured values of roll period for the catamaran model with the values predicted from known parameters in the above equation, the experimental values of C were derived, ‘These are included in Table 4, and inspection of the values reveals a range of values from 1.05 to 1.56. ‘The higher values correspond to configurations with slow natural roll motion, but there appear to be inconsistencies, for example in the three beam variations, The reason for this is not clear, but the results suggest an inaccuracy in the natural roll period measurement for the model in the standard configuration, but the test was conducted three times with good repeatability.WOLFSON UNIT 3.5 Determination of Roll Response Amplitude Operators ‘The roll RAO is a non-dimensional measure of the roll response, defined as the roll angle divided by the maximum slope of the wave surface. ‘The model was positioned across the tank near to the wavemakers, linked to the carriage only by the accelerometer cables, and gyro cable if fitted. The cables were held loosely above the model to minimise their interference with the motion. Small regular waves were produced and the model response was measured for a period of about 30 seconds, Inspection of the time histories enabled selection of an appropriate portion of the data without irregularities resulting from model misalignment or wave reflection. Wave frequencies ranging from 3 to 9.5 radians/second were used, the upper limit being due to the wavemaker frequency response, and the lower limit to the restrictions associated with reflection of the waves from the far end of the tank, ‘The variations of RAO with frequency are presented graphically in Figures 25 and 26. For a ‘monohull these curves have a characteristic form with an ordinate of unity at very low frequencies, rising to a peak RAO of perhaps 5 to 10 at the natural roll frequency, and then reducing to zero at high frequencies. ‘The multihull models’ natural frequencies, as determined from the roll decrement tests, are near or above the maximum frequency of the wavemakers, and so the peak response was not exhibited by all of the models. ‘The exceptions are the catamaran models with high VCG and narrow beam, configurations 4 and 5. Their natural frequencies are 7.5 and 8.4 radians/second respectively, and their peak RAOs of 2.2 and 1.8 occurred near these frequencies, ‘The other catamaran models’ natural frequencies are between 13 and 16 rad/s, and the trimarans’ between I1 and 15 rad/s. Below the natural frequency the RAO curves for the catamarans approach unity as expected, albeit with some scatter, but the trimaran models behaved rather differently, with responses increasing at low frequencies, and a smaller local peak at around 7 rad/s. For the trimaran with 100% floats the two peaks in the RAO curve occur at half and a quarter of the natural frequency, suggesting that the model was responding in a harmonic way, but this was not the case for the model with 200% floats. The motions of the trimaran are particularly complex because the floats alternately submerged and lifted from the water, The motions are not linear because the floats repeatedly slam on the surface, and the RAOs cannot be expected to conform to the usual 10WOLFSON UNIT pattern. Furthermore, when one float is dry, the trimaran behaves like a catamaran with unequal floats. ‘These results are complex and difficult to interpret in detail, but the principal conclusion of interest here is that the peak responses are significantly less than those for typical monohulls. Response to unbroken waves therefore is not likely to result in heeling to large angles. Where the natural frequencies are above the scope of the test facility, they would correspond to full scale wave frequencies at which there is little energy. For example, the standard catamaran model has @ natural frequency of 14 rad/s, which represents 3.6 rad/s for a 13 metre yacht, and this corresponds to @ period of 1.75 seconds. A wave of this period has a length of less than 5 metres, and a maximum height without breaking of 0.7 metres. Such a wave would not be of sufficient size to endanger the yacht and, with the wavelength similar to the hull separation, it would excite the yacht in heave rather than roll, 3.6 Non-Linear Roll Tests in Steep Waves ‘The five catamaran configurations and two trimaran configurations used for the RAO tests were also placed beam on to larger, steep regular waves to confirm that their roll response did not result in extreme heel angles. For these tests the models were not instrumented, and so were totally free from restraint or interference from cables. The tests were recorded on video to enable careful observation of the roll angles in each case. The models exhi the waves with no ed no extreme responses, the catamarans generally contou evidence of a hull emerging from the water. The motions of the trimaran models was more complex, as one, or sometimes both, of the floats was out of the water, and the model flopped from port to starboard or vice versa with the passage of each wave. ‘These observations support the results of the RAO tests and suggest that these yachts are not vulnerable to capsize or heeling to large angles under the action of non-breaking waves alone. 3.7 Roll Tests in Breaking Waves To investigate the vulnerability to capsize in large breaking waves, the models were projected into the wave using a simple catapult mechanism, This enabled the encounter to be carefully controlled in terms of the model orientation and location with respect to the breaking wave. The models were fitted with fixed rudders to improve their directional stability, and were projected forward by a loop of iWOLFSON UNIT string around the mast, This string was led over a series of pulleys and tensioned with a suspended weight. Prior to the test the model was tethered by an aft painter, and this was released by a solenoid operated by a signal from the wavemaker control computer, following some preset delay. When the painter was released, the suspended weight towed the model forward until the mast passed beneath the forward pulleys, at which point the string cleared the mast allowing the model to travel forward unrestrained, The variables of catapult location along the tank and solenoid trigger delay were adjusted to obtain the desired encounter with the breaking wave, and the catapult orientation was rotated to enable the wave encounter on the beam, or the bow or stern quarter. In all cases the waves approached ftom starboard. ‘The breaking waves were produced by programming the wavemakers to generate a series of waves with progressively increasing length. ‘The longer waves travel faster and become superimposed on the shorter waves, resulting in a wave height which cannot be sustained without breaking. Photographs of a typical test are presented in Figure 27, and the video record of selected tests accompanies this report. ‘The model configurations tested included those used for the RAO tests, and some additional configurations to enable further investigation of certain aspects of the design. The model configurations included in Table 4 and Figure 23 were all tested in breaking waves. Table 5 contains a summary of the successful tests in breaking waves, and should be referred to when viewing the video. The tests have been sorted into the various model configurations rather than their original order, ‘The table presents the initial heading of the model, where 090 is beam on to the encounter, 065 is a bow sea and 115 is a stern quartering sea, ‘The positions 0, 1 and 2 are release positions relative to the position of the break. Position 0 is furthest to leeward, that is to port, and positions 1 & 2 were 0.6 and 1.2 metres closer to the wavemakers. The height referred to is the height of the breaking wave above mean water level in mm. Whilst the wavemakers were programmed to produce the same size waves for all runs, the actual wave height was affected by the wavemakers. With a residual disturbance from the previous run and mechanical problems few exceptions the wave height was within 5% of the mean, and may be assumed to be constant for analysis purposes. Heel is the estimated maximum heel angle of the model. Observations of the tests supported the findings of previous studies of behaviour in breaking waves. A ‘vessel heels in response to the wave slope ahead of the breaking crest and is then struck by the crest. ‘The energy principally is in the broken water which travels along with the wave, There is little 12WOLFSON UNIT rotation in the wave to turn the vessel and it is pushed ahead of the crest by the broken water. Any rotation of the vessel is brought about by its resistance to movement through the water. Typically these models heeled with the wave slope, then heeled further as a result of the wave impact on the windward hull of float which was reacted by the resistance of the leeward hull or float in the unbroken water. On some occasions the breaking crest subsequently struck the leeward hull, rotating the model back to windward. It is interesting to note that in several cases the maximum heel angle was greater than the range of positive stability, but the model did not capsize. It appeared that the models were being carried sideways by the breaking crest, sometimes at a steady heel angle, and this force provided an additional righting moment. No capsizes occurred when the model was deployed slightly head to the waves, that is at a heading of 065, but presentation slightly stern to the seas appeared to make little difference to the response in general, This may be because the models, particularly the catamarans, tended to yaw beam on to the ‘wave when it struck on the quarter. OF the catamaran configurations tested, the higher VCG conditions and the narrow beam configuration proved most vulnerable, The standard configuration was based on a real yacht of 13.6 metres, and the YCG increases represent increments of about 0.65 metres on that size of craft. With the first VCG increase there were no capsizes, with the second increase there were 2 capsizes in 10 tests, and the ‘model capsized on the two tests with the high VCG. With the second VCG increase, on two occasions the mode! was heeled to an angle of around 60° and it remained at that angle for some time before capsizing. The range of stability in that condition was about 54°, and it appeared that the lower range of stability was the controlling factor in the period following wave impact, rather than the capsize being determined during the more dynamic early phase of the incident. ‘The VCG increments of 0.65 metre are very large, bearing in mind that the depth of the canoe body is about 2.2 metres, and the depth to the top of the coachroof is about 3.3 metres. If the weight of the rig were to be increased by a factor of 2, the VCG would rise by about 0.5 metre. It is inconceivable therefore that, for a conventional cruising catamaran, the VCG could be as high as that represented by the second increase ‘The range of stability of the narrow model was greater than that of the standard beam model with the first VCG increase, and so the range did not appear to be the sole governing factor. 13WOLFSON UNIT Although the narrow beam model was 20% narrower than the reference design, it is by no means unrepresentative, ‘Table 10 presents dimensions for a number of UK charter yachts for which some data have been obtained. ‘The length:hull separation ratio of the narrow model was 3.1 compared with ‘examples in the table of 3.05, 3.04, and 2.9. Previous tests with monohull models, Ref.4, indicated that, in general, they could be capsized by a breaking wave of a height equal to or greater than the beam of the yacht. ‘The narrow model had a hull separation of 293 mm which corresponded to the height of the breaking wave at impact The add narrow model capsized once in 7 tests without keels, and 3 times in 5 tests with keels, ‘The standard n of the keels appeared to result in a slight increase in the vulnerability to capsize. The beam model following the second VCG increase capsized once with and once without keels, With the lower VCGs there were no capsizes, but in both cases the maximum angle of heel was greater with keols fitted than without. ‘These results support the theory that it is the resistance to sideways motion that provides the couple to convert the breaking wave energy into rotation. Only one reliable account has been found of a catamaran capsize due to a beam encounter with a breaking wave. This was a9 metre yacht which encountered a wave about 9 metres high with a breaking crest. ‘The yacht took the wave on the quarter, broached and capsized. ‘The yacht had a length:hull separation ratio of 3.28 and had heen modified by the owner with the addition of keels to improve windward performance, The casualty therefore correlates well with the model test data ‘The low incidence of such casualties is perhaps due to the low probability of encountering a wave of sufficient size, on the beam, at the critical time when it breaks, ‘The much greater incidence of monohull capsizes may be because they are of narrower beam and therefore require proportionately smaller waves. Of the trimaran configurations, those with the smaller floats were most vulnerable, with a 29% capsize rate for the standard displacement and a 38% capsize rate for the higher displacement. In these two configurations the float volumes were 100% and 75% of the displacement respectively. With the larger floats, only one capsize was recorded, and that with the standard displacement, that is with 200% floats. With large floats and heavy displacement, that is with 150% floats, no capsizes occurred. At the standard displacement the floats were located such that only one was immersed in calm water but at the higher displacements both floats penetrated the surface. Their behaviour mayWOLFSON UNIT have been affected by this, and caution must be exercised when interpreting the data with respect to float volume. ‘The tests confirmed the common opinion that small floats tend to become fully immersed if the yacht is struck by a breaking wave. ‘Their high resistance to sideways motion then encourages rotation, The ‘wave height was equal to the separation of the float from the hull centreline and, since the windward float frequently rose above the surface after the initial strike, the model behaved rather like a catamaran with a beam equal to the wave height, and with the centre of gravity offset to windward. 4, PITCHPOLING TESTS Pitchpoling is a type of incident which affects catamarans and trimarans, and occurs when the yacht is sailing with the wind and waves. ‘The high sailing speeds attained by multihulls may enable them to surf or overtake the waves, and the fine bows may become submerged as the yacht sails into a wave trough or the back of a wave. The speed drops with the increased resistance and this causes an increase in the apparent wind speed which may overturn the yacht. Capsize may be purely longitudinal if the bows submerge symmetrically, but more frequently is about a diagonal axis. 44 Test Facility ‘The tests were conducted in the towing tank at Southampton Institute, as used for the roll tests. 4.2 Models ‘The models constructed for the roll tests were also used to investigate pitchpoling. Further variations of the catamaran were studied with the aid of additional models. ‘These were constructed with plywood panels on the hull centrelines and the bridge deck to provide a rigid structure, and to this was attached foam blocks shaped to the required hull form. ‘The mast was fitted and the model ballasted with weights bolted to the bridge deck to provide the required displacement and centre of gravity. ‘The standard catamaran model was tested with bow trim. ‘Two new models were constructed with the LCB moved aft by 5% LWL, resulting in much finer forward sections, Above the waterline one of the models incorporated flared topsides with a deck plan similar to that of the standard form. ‘These were tested with bow and stern trim, and at two displacements, The properties of the pitchpoling models are presented in Table 6. 15WOLFSON UNIT 4.3 Test Technique ‘Attempts to simulate pitchpoling incidents in the towing tank, using the models constructed for the roll tests, included experimentation with various techniques. The catapult used for the tests in breaking waves was used to project the model in following seas. This was not satisfactory because the models tended to broach on the carly waves in the sequence, and there was no force to represent the aerodynamic force on the rig. A second method used a tow line attached to the mast and led over a pulley at the far end of the towing tank. A suitable weight was attached to the line via a multiple pulley system, to tow the model at a representative speed over a substantial distance in steep following seas. A number of runs were conducted in this way but again the tendency of the models to broach, despite the addition of large fixed rudders, caused problems and the models typically collided with the tank walls before a pitchpoling incident occurred. Active rudders under radio control were considered, but the limited tank width precluded this. ‘The selected technique was to tow the model in following seas using a tow line on a wand. The line was attached to the mast, and the wand held by a person on the moving carriage, ‘The model was rigged with twin forestays with the tow line led between them, ‘This enabled a horizontal tow with the tow point located at the required vertical location to represent the aerodynamic force, and gave reasonable directional control, If the model began to pitchpole the force on the tow line increased, as the aerodynamic force would, until the wand was released. On some occasions the model broached towards the tank wall, and the tow line tension applied in an attempt to pull out of the broach was suffic nt to capsize the model A range of tow line heights, wave sizes, and carriage speeds were experimented with until it was decided that, with a constant wave size and tow Tine height, varying the carriage speed enabled the ‘vulnerability of each model to be compared. With the model moving more slowly than the waves, pitchpoling is not a problem. With the speeds equal the yacht tends to surf on the face of a wave and may remain in control or broach, depending on its directional stability and control characteristics. With further increases in speed the vulnerability to pitchpoling increases, and so a model which survived tests at relatively high speeds was considered to be less vulnerable, 4.4 Test Results ‘A summary of the tests is presented in Table 7, and photographs of three representative tests are presented in Figures 28, 29 and 30, Selected tests are included on the video recording which 16WOLFSON UNIT accompanies this report, The table lists the tests grouped into the various configurations tested rather than in run number order. ‘The speed ratio is the carriage speed divided by the wave celerity, that is the speed of the waves. All of the tests described were conducted in the same regular waves which were 175 mm high with a period of 0.9 seconds and a celerity of 1.405 metres/second. Unless indicated otherwise, the tow line was attached to the mast at a height of 300 mm above the deck. The other heights used were 370 mm, representing one third of the mast height above the deck, and 470 mm, representing one third of the mainsail luff length above the deck. ‘The table contains a brief description of the model behaviour during the test, whether it rode over a wave successfully, and whether the test ended with the model OK or pitchpoling. The absence of such a concluding comment implies an unrepresentative end to the test, pethaps because the model was capsized in an attempt to correct a broach, or it struck the tank side. Inspection of the table shows that all of the catamaran configurations with the higher displacement could be induced to pitchpole. When the LCG was moved forward it made the model more vulnerable, for example both of the fine bow models pitchpoled at a model speed:wave speed ratio of 1,47 with the aft LCG and at a ratio of 1,15 with the forward LCG. Early tests with the standard model ballasted to a forward LCG did not result in a pitchpole but only three brief tests were caution, conducted and this result should be used ‘The models with the fine bows appeared to be more prone to immersing their bows, and sometimes this caused the model to broach and/or capsize, Whilst these incidents were not pitchpoles in the purest sense, in some cases the capsize was caused by increased load on the tow line as a result of burying the bow in a broach, and the vulnerability to bow immersion was significant. ‘The increase in bow flare did not appear to have a large effect on the pitchpoling behaviour, and both of the fine bow models suffered bow immersions even at the light displacement aft LCG condition. ‘The model with increased flare suffered fewer capsizes than the fine bow model. 7WOLFSON UNIT Tests using the trimaran with small floats, and with a high tow point, confirmed that, although the ‘model surfed on some waves and was prone to broaching, pitchpoling was not a problem at speed ratios of up to 1 Further tests on the trimaran were conducted with the large floats fitted. ‘The model pitchpoled at a speed ratio of 1.15 with the tow point at 370 mm, and at a speed ratio of 1.47 with the tow point at 300 mm. Attempts were made to correlate the incidence of pitehpoling with the model type, LCG location and tow height, Figure 31 presents the results of the tests graphically, using the speed ratio and the ratio of tow line height to LCG location aft of the mast, The latter ratio is a simple expression relating the pitching moment of the sails and the moment of the yacht's weight about the base of the mast, One ing, and might expect a forward LCG or a high centre of effort to increase the vulnerability to pitchp so a high value of this ratio should increase it. With a forward LCG the freeboard forward is reduced, and it is clear from the pitehpoling was induced by immersion of one or more bows. This may be the reason for the increased leo records that the vulnerability with LCG moved forward, rather than the reduced longitudinal righting moment. ‘The highly variable behaviour and the large number of design variables which might have an influence make pitchpoling a complex problem. While this limited test programme has shown trends, and supported some contemporary theories, it has not provided sufficient data to identify boundaries of design variables which will ensure safety from pitchpoling. It has reinforced some aspects of seamanship however, which knowledge might benefit crews unfamiliar with sailing multihulls. 5. METHODS OF DETERMINING THE VERTICAL CENTRE OF GRAVITY ‘The conventional method of determining the VCG of a vessel has been found to be inaccurate on a number of occasions, and the aim of this part of the study was to compare the potential accuracy of the alternative methods. 5.1 Conventional Inclining Experiment In a carefully conducted inclining experiment the weights and their shifts will be measured to a high level of accuracy. ‘The most likely sources of error are the displacement and the pendulum deflections. Although hydrostatic calculations should define the displacement to within 0.5%, it is prone to errorWOLFSON UNIT because of difficulty in measuring draughts and freeboards accurately, differences between drawings and construction, and interference of those making the measurements with the draughts. ‘The latter is a particular problem in small craft, where the movement of a man around the deck to measure freeboards may reduce the local freeboard significantly. The effect on a yacht of about 10 tonnes displacement may be a freeboard reduction of 20 mm which represents a displacement error of over 0.5 tonne. In disturbed water it may be difficult to measure the waterline surface with more accuracy than this, whilst in smooth conditions the waterline may be defined to within 5 mm. Because of the large difference in accuracy between a carefully conducted experiment and one where only moderate care has been taken, it is difficult to generalise on the overall accuracy achieved in practice, Whilst it is possible to work to an acceptable level of accuracy on a small monohull yacht, there is evidence that the accuracy achieved is often poor. To make an assessment of the relative errors involved, two example 10 tonne yachts, a monohull and a catamaran, were used and the errors which might arise in both a poor and a carefully conducted experiment were considered. ‘The values presented represent the maximum likely inaccuracies, but do not take into account large errors generated by mistakes in the experiment, ‘The errors are presented in Table 8 as a percentage of the values of each parameter involved. ‘The examples are hypothetical ones, with representative values of the various parameters, It was assumed that each weight shift resulted in a heel angle of about 1 degree. Inclining weights frequently are old, uncertificated weights which may be dirty or damaged, and they should be certificated or weighed individually to improve accuracy. On yachts it is rarely possible to measure the weight shift distance directly across the deck because of the presence of the coachroof. ‘The most accurate method may be to refer the weight positions to the deck edge and determine the shift from drawings. ‘These errors are increased on small craft by movement of the experimenters Only one person should be on board a small craft, but frequently three are present and their weight may be 5 to 10 times that moved for each shift. If they are not in exactly the same position for each measurement the scatter in the data will be considerable. ‘The pendulum length is relatively simple to measure, but errors sometimes arise because of uncertainty about the point of suspension. ‘The pendulum deflection may be marked to within a etre given ideal conditions, but often swinging of the pendulum will result in +/- 3 mm scatter, Taking a least square fit of the data will reduce this error to about 2 mm, but it remains a significant percentage of the typical deflection which is assumed here to be 35 mm. 19WOLFSON UNIT Since these parameters are multiplied or divided to obtain GM, their percentage errors may be summed, ‘The GM is then subtracted from KB + BM to determine the KG and, in the worst case, the ‘actual errors in these values may be summed. ‘The errors in measurement of flotation will result in errors in KB and BM as well as displacement, ‘These errors in the results are listed in Table 8 For the sample monohull the error which may arise in GM varies between 3% and 14% on a value of 1 metre, ‘This represents errors in KG of between 40 and 160 mm, For the catamaran the errors in GM may be a similar percentage, but with such a large GM the actual errors may be large. This causes very large percentage errors in KG, indeed the error may exceed the value of KG. The errors in this example are between 1 and 5 metres. Even in a carefully conducted experiment, it is not possible to increase the level of accuracy sufficiently to guarantee a reliable measurement of KG. To obtain the same level of accuracy as for the monohull, the percentage ertor in GM would need to be reduced to well below 1%. This would require precise measurement of all parameters, with ‘measurement of the waterline to within about 1 mm, and the pendulum deflection to within 0.3 mm. Such figures are not attainable under normal circumstances, but the displacement may be determined by suspending the yacht from a load cell, typically accurate to within 0.5%, in which case the angular measurement would become the largest error. 52 With accurate computer calculation of the righting moment curve, inclining a vessel to larger angles than the conventional 1 or 2 degrees offers the possi of increasing the accuracy. This is a viable ment would be option for some monohull vessels, but for multihulls the extreme weight req impractical, For example, to heel the example catamaran of Table 8 to the usual 2 degrees would require 2 tonnes of weights, and to increase the angle to 10 degrees would require 8 tonnes. ‘The increase is not proportional to the angular increase because of the reduction in GM with displacement. ‘The incli 1g weights would impose structural problems, and may not be stacked safely in the available deck space. The increased displacement would be likely to immerse the bridge deck, and so careful definition of that part of the yacht would be required to obtain the correct hydrostatic data 1 in most cases. ‘The option dismissed as being impracti 5.3. Inclining Longitudinally ‘An alternative method of increasing the angle of inclination may be to move the weights longitudinally and measure the trim angle change, The length to beam ratio of catamarans typically is greater than 2, whilst the longitudinal GM is about the same as the transverse GM. The errors in the experiment 20WOLFSON UNIT therefore would be reduced by around 50%, because use of the same weights would enable the angles to be increased by a factor of 2. Alone, this would not reduce the errors to a satisfactory level. 5.4 Use of an Electronic Clinometer ‘The errors associated with the pendulum deflection result from oscillations of the pendulum and the limit of resolution which is about 1 mm, It was considered that an electronic clinometer might enable ‘an increase in the level of accuracy by enabling an average heel angle measurement to be made over a time period of perhaps several minutes. This would increase the resolution and provide a reliable average. Bench tests with an accelerometer in a simple circuit indicated that the nominal resolution would be equivalent to that of a2 metre pendulum, and the averaging facility would enhance that to a fraction of a millimetre. The errors probably would be reduced by a factor of around 4 compared with the carefully read pendulum, ‘A simple device could be manufactured for purchase or hire by surveyors, and cost would not be high. Care would need to be exercised in use because pendulum swings often result from gusts of wind, and interference with the dock wall or mooring lines, and whilst these swings are discarded by the experienced experimenter, an electronic device would include them. 55 ‘An alternative method of inclining small vessels, which eliminates the measurement of flotation and the use of hydrostatic data, is to incline the vessel whilst it is suspended from a crane or some other support. The principle is the same as for conventional inclining, but the craft rotates about the point of suspension rather than the metacentre. The height of the suspension point above the centre of gravity therefore takes the place of GM in the analysis. "The weight of the vessel may be determined by a certificated load cell, and the angle of heel may be measured by clinometer or pendulum, As for the conventional experiment, accuracy depends largely on the precision of the angular measurement and on the distance between the point of suspension and the centre of gravity being kept small. aWOLFSON UNIT In practice it may be difficult to suspend a sailing multihull with the mast stepped, in such a way that it is free to heel about an axis a few metres above the deck. 5.6 Builder's Weight Estimate Designers’ and builders’ weight estimates frequently are unreliable, perhaps being more than 20% below the final displacement. Modern building techniques, quality control and computer facilities have encouraged great improvements in this area however, and some yacht builders now achieve a high level of accuracy in their weight estimates. Two builders of cruising catamarans reported final weights within 2% of design predictions, but a target of 5% might be a more realistic general figure. For a ballasted monohull sailing yacht, where the VCG is around the level of the waterline, errors in tho weight estimate typically will result in an underestimate of the VCG, since most neglected or underestimated items will be centred above that level. Reliance on builders’ estimates therefore would normally result in an optimistic prediction of the stability. Table 9 presents a designer's weight estimate for the catamaran described in Ref.3, It represents a typical breakdown of weights, and reveals dominance of the rig on the vertical moment. Few other items are centred above the VCG and, of these, only the deck moulding and the deck gear have substantial vertical moments. Most of the items which might be vulnerable to poor estimates, that is the structure, cabin outfit, and services, are centred well below the VCG. For a multihull without ballast the VCG typically is above deck level, because the rig is a dominant item in terms of its vertical moment. Any underestimate in the weights of structure or outfit result in an overestimate of the VCG. Only an underestimate in the rig weight, or additional items aloft, will result in a significant underestimate of the VCG, and these items may be predicted with reasonable accuracy from manufacturers’ data. Rig weight amounts to about 6% of the lightship weight of a multihull, and in the example presented, a 20% ease in rig weight would result in an increase in the VCG of 106 mm, In terms of the percentage errors presented in Table 8, that equates to a reduction in GM of 0.6% and an increase in KG of 5% Such a level of accuracy will not be attainable by any of the methods described above, and it appears hhat measurement of the VCG is unlikely to be as accurate as an efficient weight estimate. 2WOLFSON UNIT 6. SURVEY OF TRIMARAN FLOAT YOLUMES Requests for information on trimaran designs were sent to designers and builders, A small number of very helpful responses were received, but the response generally was poor. There may have been some reluctance on the part of designers to assist, and the low number of production trimarans on the market was a principal factor. ‘Whilst trimarans remain popular for some ocean races, and new designs continue to be built, their popularity as cruising yachts appears to have decreased. ‘The majority of the production cruising trimarans are supplied by very small number of builders, and most yachts are in the range 7 to 10 metres. ‘The most numerous are designed for ease of trailing by road, with floats pivoting close to the hull, Both the racing and small cruising designs are considered to be unlikely candidates for the charter market, Only one trimaran has been certificated under the Code of Practice, and it is believed that this yacht is no longer being used commercially. ‘Table 11 presents the principal dimensions of the charter trimaran, two popular production trimarans, and two trimarans which have capsized, one a production yacht and the other a racing yacht. Where the float volumes are known they are in the range 110 to 120%, and it is believed that the other two production yachts have similar float volumes. The float volumes are not quoted on sales literature, and it must be borne in mind that the ratios are highly dependent on loading of the yacht with additional equipment or stores 7 CONCLUSIONS 7.1 The wind heeling moment is dependent upon the sail area and the plan area of the multihull structure, It reduces with increasing heel angle, The shape of the coachroof has little influence on the heeling moment. The magnitude of the maximum likely moment may be estimated using the formula: 1.3 Wind Pressure [Sh Cos(heel angle) + Db] Heeling Moment where: S is the total sail area his the height of the centroid of the sails above the waterline Dis the plan area of the hulls and deck b is the distance from the centroid of the deck area to the centreline of the leeward hull. ‘This represents a refinement of the formula in the Code of Practice. 7.2. The wind heeling moment is dependent upon the apparent wind angle and the sheeting of the sails. Generally it is maximised with the apparent wind forward of the beam, and with the sails sheeted in. 23WOLFSON UNIT 7.3. The wind heeling moment is greater than the righting moment at large angles of heel. 7.4 In non-breaking waves multihulls have lower roll responses than monohulls, and no dynamic behaviour was found which might affect their safety. Catamarans generally follow the wave profile with motions of a linear nature. ‘Trimarans exhibit non-linear behaviour with one or both floats emerging from the water with the passage of a wave. 7.5 Breaking waves with a height equivalent to the beam of a catamaran, or half the beam of a trimaran, may be sufficient to cause capsize. Smaller or narrower yachts therefore are more vulnerable. 7.6 ‘The vulnerability of a catamaran to capsize by a breaking wave is related to its range of stability. If a breaking wave heels the yacht to its range of stability its recovery is not assured, 7.7 Catamarans with narrow beam or high VCG have @ relatively low range of stability and are more vulnerable to breaking wave capsize. 7.8 Trimarans with small floats are more vulnerable to breaking wave capsize, because the floats are susceptible to total immersion when their resistance to sideways motion results in rolling to a large angle. 79 The addition of keels increases the vulnerability to breaking wave capsize. 7.10 Vulnerability to breaking wave capsize is reduced if the wave is encountered from ahead. 7.11 Multihulls are vulnerable to pitchpoling, or broaching, when overtaking large, steep following seas, Vulnerability increases with increasing speed relative to the wave speed. 7.12. Pitehpoling is induced by immersion of the bow, and vulnerability is increased with low freeboard forward. 7.13. Vulnerability to pitchpoling is increased with a high centre of effort. 7.14 Itis not possible to rely on a VCG value determined by an inclining experiment on a multihull 24WOLFSON UNIT 7.15 Itis practical for builders to estimate the VCG of a multihull to a reasonable degree of accuracy. 8. RECOMMENDATIONS 8.1 The revised formula for estimation of the wind heeling moment should be incorporated into the Code of Practice. The inclusion of a gust factor of 1.5 on the maximum recommended wind speed should be retained in the calculation, 8.2. If an accurate VCG is required for the purposes of the Code of Practice it should be derived from a builder's estimate, Builders should be encouraged to compile a breakdown of the weights and centres, the validity of which can be confirmed by weighing the yacht, or by hydrostatic calculation with reference to draughts or freeboards 8.3. The advice to charter crews should include warnings regarding the hazards of sailing in large steep or breaking waves. Sailing in such following seas at speeds greater than the speed of the waves should be avoided, When sailing in such following seas the sail area should be reduced to maintain ed. appropriate speed, and the centre of effort height should be 8.4. In severe breaking waves of height similar to or greater than the beam of the yacht, such as may be encountered in categories 0 and 1, encounters on the beam or from astern should be avoided. This ‘may require deployment of a drag device bridled from the bows of the yacht. Commercial yachts operating in such categories should be equipped with a suitable device and appropriate equipment for its deployment. 8.5. Trimarans should not be certificated for commercial use in categories 0 or 1. 8.6 Trimarans should incorporate floats each with a volume equivalent to at least 150% of the fully laden displacement. In some cases these recommendations refine those made in Phase 1 of this work, Ref.1, but all other recommendations made in that report remain val ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ‘We are grateful for the assistance of Alexander Simonis Naval Architects and Prout Catamarans who provided advice and design data for use in this study. 25WOLFSON UNIT REFERENCES 1. Capsize and Stability of Sailing Multihulls, Phase 1. Wolfson Unit Report No, 1238 to The Department of Transport, August 1995. 2. Sail Training Vessel Stability Research, Phase I. Wolfson Unit Report No.908 to The Department of Transport, February 1989. 3. Sailing Yacht Design Practice, Claughton, Wellicome & Shenoi, Addison Wesley Longman Ltd. 1998. ISBN 0-582-36857-X. 4. An Investigation into the Stability of Sailing Yachts in Large Breaking Waves. Claughton & Handley, University of Southampton, 1984, TABLE 1 SAIL AND DECK AREAS AS MODELLED, ‘Moment of Area metres? Leeward Hull 0.0 ‘Windward Hull (as designed) 95.1 ‘Windward Hull (wide) 55 Bridge Deck (as designed) 113.6 Bridge Deck (wide) 220.5 Foredeck 349 Mainsail 961.3 Reefed Mainsail 718.3 Genoa 416.6 | Furled Genoa 211.0 26WOLFSON UNIT TABLE 2 TOTAL PROFILE AND PLAN AREAS AND MOMENTS FOR: EACH TEST CONFIGURATION ‘Test Configuration ‘Total Moment Total Moment Profile of Area. Plan of Area Area Area metres? metres? metres* metres* 1, Flat Deck 0,00 0.00 15.9 208.7 2. Wide, Flat Deck _ [0.00 0.00 94.6 3417 3. Flat Deck + Foredeck | 0.00 0.00 88.6 243.7 | 4. Coachroof Fitted [0.00 0.00 75.9 208.7 ; 5. Full Rig 143.2 1377.9 75.9 208.7 FF 6. Full Rig, Eased 143.2 1377.9 75.9 208.7 7. Reefed Rig 111.6 989.3 15.9 208.7 TABLE 3 WEIGHTS, CENTRES AND INERTIAS OF THE STANDARD CATAMARAN | ROLL TEST MODEL COMPONENTS tem | Weight | VCG — | V.Mom Roll above deck Iner kg mm kgamm | mm | kg.mm* Hulls 1.05 -60 -3| 196| 40450 Deck 0.30 -10 3] 2 1580 Gyro 1.35 50 os] 40 2197 Mast 0.20 565 13] 645 | _83152 \ Ballast 1.45 -50 -73| 193 | __ 53985, Total | 4.35 10 42| 204] _ 181365 | 2TAB) LE 4 WOLFSON UNIT ROLL TEST MODEL CONFIGURATIONS AND THEIR PROPERTIES ‘Configuration Hull or | Disp. | VCG | GM Roll Roll Roll 7) Float above Gyradius | Inertia | Period Separation deck k mm kg | mm | mm | mm_ | kg.mm’ | seconds ei Catamarans 1. Standard” 367| 4.35] 10] 907 204) 181365] 0.45] 1.05] 2. VCG Increase 1” 367| 4.35] 53] 864 oi} 175211 3. VCG Increase 2" 367| 4.35] 98] _ 819 216| 203404] 4. High VCG 367| 4.35] 131] 787 238| 247004] 0.84! 1.56} IS. Narrow Beam” 293| 4.35] 10) S41 186] 150081] _0.75| 1.48 6. Wide Beam 440] 4.35] 10] 1346] 224 219201] _0.48| 1.24 |7. Light Displ. 367] 3.00 9} 1236 244) 178178) 8, Low Inertia 367] 4.35 10} 907 152] 100175) 0.41} 1.28] |Trimarans 1, Small Floats 606} 2.20} 9 247) 134663 0.43 12, Small Floats, 605] 2.90] 9} 241| 134663 High Displ. 3. Large Floats 606] 2.20} a 258) 146519 0.55 4. Large Floats, 606] 2.90} 9 258) 146519 High Displ * These configurations were also tested with keels fitted. 28TABLE 5 WOLFSON UNIT SUMMARY OF THE ROLL TESTS IN BREAKING WAVES Standard catamaran 60 | 090 | 1 | 290 | 41 |Sthd thro’ crest, break over port 61 | 090 | 0 | 290 | 57 [Break on stbd yaw to port, break over port yaw to stbd a 2 | 280 | 30 |Up face bow down, yaw to stbd, over crest Standard catamaran - keels fitted 102} 090 | 1 | 300 | 44 |Up face, thro’ crest, yaw to stbd 104] 090 | 0 | 290 | 60 [Break on stbd, then break over port 105} 090 | 2 | 290 | 32 [Up face, over crest Standard catamaran - VCG increase 1 - aft LCG 90 | 090 | 1 | 290 | 27 |Up face, thro’ crest 91} 090 | 0 | 290 | 49 [Break on stbd, yaw to stbd after crest 92 | 090 | 2 | 300 | 43 [Up face, thro’ crest Standard catamaran - VCG increase 1 - keels fitted 106} 090 | 1 | 290 | 50 |Up face, thro’ crest 107| 090 | 0 | 290 | 56 |Up face, thro’ crest, yaw to stbd down by bow 108] 090 | 2 | 290 | 25 |Up tace bow down, yaw to sthd, over crest Standard catamaran - ¥CG increase 2 - aft LCG 84| 090 | 1 | 300 | 52 |Up face, thro’ crest, 85 | 090 0 | 300 | CAP|Break on stbd heel to port, hovered @ 60° thro’ wave 86 | 090 | 2 | 290 | 43 |Up face, thro’ crest, yaw to stbd 87] 115 | 2 | 280 | 42 |Up face, thro’ crest, yaw to stbd 88] 115 | 2 | 270 | 48 [Up face, thro’ crest, yaw to stbd 89 | 115 | 2 | 280 | 40 [Up face, thro’ crest, yaw to stbd Standard catamaran - VCG increase 2 - keels fitted 109| 090 | 1 | 290 | 29 |Up face, thro’ crest bow down, yaw to stbd 110] 090 | 0 | 300 |CAP|Break on stbd, hovered on point of capsize @ 65° in} 090 | 2 | 280 | 30 [Up face, over crest 112] us | 2 | 290 | 58 [Up face beam on, thro’ crest 29WOLFSON UNIT [Run | Heading [Posn eight] Heet Comment | ‘Standard eatamaran - high VCG 82| 090 | 1 | 290 |CAP|Up face, thro" crest, capsize over port bow Standard catamaran - high CG - aft LCG 83} 090 | 1 | 300 |CAP|Up face, thro’ crest, yaw to stbd during capsize Narrow catamaran 66 | 090 | 1 | 300 | 60 |sthe thro" crest, break over port, yaw to stbd 67| 090 | 0 | 300 | 50 [Break before stbd & still upright, breaker over all 68 | 090 | 2 | 290 | 56 Jup fave, uuo* crest, yaw to stbd | 115 | 2 | 280 | 65 |Up face, thro’ crest, down by head after crest 70 | 065 | 0 | 290 | 65 [Break on stbd, thro crest 118} 090 | 0 | 2? | OK |***No video ** 19] 115 | 1 | 290 | CAP [Break on stbd, and ca Narrow catamaran - keels fitted 113] 090 | 1 | 290 | 50 [Up face, thro’ crest, yaw to stbd 114{ 090 | 0 | 290 | CAP [Break on stbd, and capsize 115] 115 | 1 | 290 | CAP|Up face, thro’ crest, and capsize yawing to stbd 116] 065 | 0 | 300 | 55 |Up face, thro’ crest, then beam on 117] 090 | 0 | 290 [CAP [Break on stbd, capsize immediately Wide catamaran 74| 090 | 1 | 280 | 35 |Up face, thro’ crest 75 | 090 | 0 | 300 | 31 [Break on stbd 76| 090 | 2 | 300 | 35 [Up face, thro’ crest bow down 73| 115 | 2 | 290 | 36 [Up face, thro’ crest Standard catamaran - light displacement 99 | 090 | 1 | 280 | 48 [Up face, thro’ crest 100| 090 | 0 | 280 | 39 |Up face, thro" crest 1o1] 090 | 2 | 280 | 28 [Up face, over crest Standard catamaran ~ aft LCG - low inertia 93| 090 | 1 | 2 | 47 |Up face, thro’ crest 04} 090 | 0 | 290 | 45 |Up face, thro’ crest 95} 090 | 2 | 290 | 47 {Break on stbd 30