Showing posts with label calculations. Show all posts
Showing posts with label calculations. Show all posts

Wednesday, 12 October 2016

Wheel of a deal

That Tug Concept

I haven't posted in a while primarily because that 15 foot tug took my fancy so I decided to work it up to a complete design. I haven't finished it yet but I wanted to talk about propulsion, which is part of boat design, and the Kitchen Rudder.

The Kitchen rudder is the familiar name for "Kitchen's Patent Reversing Rudders", a combination rudder and directional propulsion delivery system for relatively slow speed displacement boats which was invented in the early 20th century by John G.A.Kitchen of Lancashire, England. It turns the rudder into a directional thruster, and allows the engine to maintain constant revolutions and direction of drive shaft rotation while altering thrust by use of a control which directs thrust forward or aft. Only the rudder pivots; the propeller itself is on a fixed shaft and does not. (Wikipedia)

Because we're dealing with a tug, thrust and torque are important. The Kitchen rudder allows the engine to be run at maximum torque constantly and the thrust to be maximized. So this design utilizes a 23hp Honda horizontal shaft engine which develops maximum torque at 2500 RPM. The question is - how big a wheel?

There are a number of ways to calculate this all of which contain some guess work, none is truly scientific.

I propose working backwards from hull speed.

Most people think of a propeller as screwing its way through the water and this is a good concept for thinking about pitch but in fact a propeller is a pump and pushes the boat forward by pushing the water aft. And that is the principle behind the Kitchen rudder, it directs the flow of water to not only control speed but direction.

A tug needs thrust, a lot of it, Our hull is a displacement hull 13.8 feet on the waterline, hull speed for such a craft is the square root of 13.8 times 1.34ish which gives about 5 kts. 5Kts is 500 feet per minute, (6000 feet in a nautical mile x 5/60).

Westlawn has prepared curves of speed versus lbs/hp, using those curves determines that our proposed 23hp is about right for this little tug. Using the curves you can determine that the tug requires 1 hp for every 100lbs of displacement for a hull speed of 5kts. Our displacement is approximately 2300lbs divided by 100 is 23.

The next question is the pitch, that's the bit that pushes the water aft, since we don't want to run the engine at top RPM but at the speed that will maximize torque we will use 2500 RPM with a 5 to 1 reduction (500RPM at the shaft) to further maximize torque. Hull speed is 5kts, that works out to 500 feet per minute. So we need to move a foot per RPM so the pitch is 12”.

Now we switch to Dave Gerr's ideas on prop diameter, see chapter 32 of his book, The Nature of Boats. He has prepared a handy nomograph for determining diameter, using that nomograph we find we need a 26” diameter prop. Well that won't work the tug isn't that deep.

So we'll have to work backwards yet again.

The maximum diameter that the little tug can handle is 12”, lets reduce the reduction gearing to 2 to 1 and the RPM to 2400, that's 1200 revolutions at the shaft which gives us a recommend diameter of 16” and a pitch of 5”. But we can only use a 12” prop. So we need to increase the pitch. Dave Gerr says for each inch reduction in diameter pitch must be increased by 2”. (16-12 = 4 x2=8+5 =13) look at that we're back to nearly our 12” pitch so lets go with a square prop 12x12, that will reduce our top speed but we don't care as a tug works a slow speeds anyway. We might even increase the RPM reduction to 3 to 1.

Next time further exposition on the Kitchen rudder.

Friday, 27 May 2016

Stability at last

The End of Stability

Work, work, work! No time for blogging until now.

Let's look at a really round bottom boat first.


So first we'll join the chines which leaves us with a trapezoid, and finding the centre of that is described here (centre already marked). If we join the centre of that line with the centre of the curve we essentially have two almost triangles and finding the centre of those is described here.

Once we have the centre of each almost triangle



We can join those centres with a line.



Where that line crosses the line join the center of the curve and the chine line is the centre of the area as both almost triangles are the same size.



We then join the two centres of area and do the math set out here and that gives us the centre of buoyancy



Again if you overlay this hull with the other two the centres of buoyancy are almost the same.



Well what about a boat with no parallel sides. That's even easier than our square boat.

You can divide the underwater area into two triangles and we already know how to find the centers there so I won't go into detail. What is most amazing is that an overlay of this dory type hull onto the other three puts the CB in almost the same place as all the others.



The only thing that is the same about the four hulls is their waterline at the beam. The dory shape is very much smaller displacement although the other three are about the same. I'm going to investigate this further and will comment on it at some later date.

Next time aesthetics or does it look good?

Saturday, 2 April 2016

Stability One

Staying upright or at least afloat

Here's the real deal on stability in small boats, modern sail boat design http://www.wavetrain.net/boats-a-gear/471-modern-sailboat-design-quantifying-stability. Which is perfect for larger boats with decks and a mostly fixed centre of gravity. But what about small open boats such as the one we've just been working on. Well here is the stability curve for RMSQ&D assuming a fixed centre of gravity.



So degrees of heel are on the X axis and righting arm, in inches, on the y axis. The reason we've only gone to 45 degrees is because beyond that water is coming in over the gunwale and you're going down.

You can see that this boat has a pretty good level of stability up to 45 degrees which is great. However the fact is that you, the person in the boat, has a huge influence on the stability through your ability to move the centre of gravity by moving yourself about.

The question is how did I calculate the data for this curve? It is mind numbing work involving drawing and redrawing waterlines at various degrees of heel and then calculating the centre of buoyancy using stations and Simpson's rule. It is not for the faint of heart. Information on the process is here, www.mi.mun.ca/media/mi/boatrace/files/shipcalculations2.pdf , and here, http://koti.kapsi.fi/hvartial/stab/stab.htm.

The one thing to remember is when you draw in the new waterline at a different angle of heel the displacement must remain the same. With the boat dead level the displacement of station 5 is 109.118 cubic inches, or .7578 cu ft or 48 lbs However when you heel the boat 10 degrees without altering the waterline the displacement is 136.706 cu in, or .9493 cu ft. So we must reduce that displacement by .1915 cu ft, so the waterline must go down but by how much?

If we measure the new waterline it is 3.4 ft, 3.4 into .1915 is .056 ft or .675 inches so we draw in the new waterline .675 inches below the old water line and measure the difference in volume which works out to 28.642 cu in which brings our displaced volume down to 108.064 which is close enough.

We then divide the new waterline into 10 sections, making sure one station line passes through the centre of gravity, giving us the measures for applying Simpsons rule and calculate the transverse centre of bouyancy for station 5.

And then we do it all again for different angles of heel.

Westlawn recommends using the trapezoidal rule instead of Simpson's I don't think there is much difference in the end result.

The thing to remember is that beam is directly proportional to initial stability. But too much beam can create problems with dynamic stability.

We'll talk more about stability next time and about a discovery I have made whilst working on this.

Sunday, 20 March 2016

Numbers

BY THE NUMBERS

I ran the numbers on these two versions, here they are,

Version
RMSQ&D
RMS
Displacement
304.89 lbs
266 lbs
Block Coefficient
0.18
0.16
Prismatic Coefficient
0.48
0.53
Area of the waterplane
25.55 sqft
27.78 sqft
Centre of flotation (aft or forward of Station 5)
.4381 ft aft
.4772 ft Aft
Lbs per inch immersion
152.29 lbs
137.49 lbs

So what does that mean exactly?

Well Q&D can carry more weight at the designed waterline by about 40 lbs and it takes more weight to sink it any further into the water.

Skene's sets out that a prismatic coefficient between .49 and .55 is best for sailing vessels, any more than .55 and you have a tub, any less than .49 the vessels is so fine it drags a huge quarter wave. So Q&D is on the fine side and RMS is within the parameters set out by Skene's. However the block coefficient tells us another story, by that coefficient RMS is the finer vessel.

Skene's also sets out that the center of flotation should be between 54 – 59% of the LWL aft of station 0 or in our case, between .48 ft aft of station 5 to 1 ft aft. So Q&D is a bit too far forward and RMS is just about right.

The LWL is 12ft for both these vessels and the beam at the WL is 5ft 4in which is a beam to length ratio of 2.5 which is a little beamy, anything from 3 to 5 is better, but the beamyness in such a small vessel adds to the initial stability.

Next time we'll look at stability.