WEBB INSTITUTE OF NAVAL ARCHITECTURE 

  

SAILING MERCHANT: THE DESIGN OF A FREIGHT­CARRYING CRUISING SAILING YACHT 

by  

Stefan T. Wolczko                   

____________________________________ Stefan T. Wolczko 

SNAME Member Number 25404  

18 June 2009  

Professor George L. Petrie (Principal Advisor)  

Glen Cove, NY

i

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS  The author would sincerely like to thank all of the individuals that contributed time and expertise to the successful completion of this project. Professor George Petrie, the project’s principal advisor, was invaluable for his guidance, suggestions and support throughout the project. He would also like to thank Professors Matthew Werner, Richard Royce, Neil Gallagher, Richard Harris, John Lutz and Dean Roger Compton for their support and effort to promote the technical validity and quality of this project. The project would have suffered immensely were it not for these individuals. The author would also like to thank Professor Paul Miller at the United States Naval Academy for his continued interest and assistance with the project, as well as for the impact he had on the project with his insight. Mr. James Moran of Sparkman & Stephens provided the project with valuable parametric data that greatly improved the validity of the design and the author extends his gratitude to him. Mr. Timothy Graul proved an excellent SNAME mentor. His input and the materials he provided are very much appreciated and a great help. The author would like to thank the incredible group of friends that is the Webb Institute Class of 2009 for their unending support, humor, and good-nature. He would also like to thank his family for their support. Finally, Mr. William H. Webb deserves great thanks for his generosity that provided the education necessary to complete this project successfully.

ii

ABSTRACT The principal objective of this thesis was to produce a design for a freight-carrying

cruising sailing yacht for entrance into the 2009 SNAME Student Workboat/Small Craft/Yacht Design Competition (ISWSCYDC). The goal of this project was to perform a preliminary business analysis and to execute a preliminary design that supports the assumptions made in the business model. The design focused on the implementation of proven traditional design characteristics drawn from the lumber scow concept that was popular at the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th, updated with modern design attributes drawn from contemporary racing and cruising sailing designs in all areas of design. The design combines the positive aspects of both old and new designs in order to be effective at the mission of bluewater cruising while generating a positive cash flow for the owner-operator of the design. Keywords: Sail; Merchant; Bluewater; Cruising; Wood

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...................................................................................................................................... i ABSTRACT ....................................................................................................................................................... ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................................... iii LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................................... vi LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................................................. vi NOMENCLATURE .......................................................................................................................................... vii ACRONYMS ..................................................................................................................................................... vii PHYSICAL CONSTANTS ................................................................................................................................. viii SYMBOLS ........................................................................................................................................................ viii INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................... 1 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................................. 1 HISTORY ........................................................................................................................................................... 1 CRUISING SAILING YACHTS ............................................................................................................................ 2 MOTIVATION AND BUSINESS BACKGROUND ............................................................................................... 3 SNAME INTERNATIONAL STUDENT WORKBOAT/SMALL CRAFT/YACHT DESIGN COMPETITION (ISWSCYDC) ................................................................................................................................................. 5 SCOPE OF BUSINESS ANALYSIS AND DESIGN WORK .................................................................................. 5 PRINCIPLES AND THEORY OF YACHT DESIGN ............................................................................................. 6 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................... 6 DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................................................. 6 

DESIGN METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................................... 8 PRELIMINARY WORK ...................................................................................................................................... 8 DESIGN REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................................................................ 8 PARAMETRIC ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................................. 9 

VIABILITY AND BUSINESS ANALYSIS .......................................................................................................... 10 VESSEL FAMILY DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................................. 10 REVENUE PREDICTION ............................................................................................................................ 10 CAPITAL AND RECURRING COSTS........................................................................................................... 12 MODEL SENSITIVITY ................................................................................................................................ 12 DESIGN POINT .......................................................................................................................................... 12 ACTUAL DESIGN POINT SELECTION ...................................................................................................... 13 

DESIGN WORK .............................................................................................................................................. 14 DESIGN SPIRAL .............................................................................................................................................. 14 

iv

VESSEL MISSION ............................................................................................................................................ 15 HULL FORM DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................................................................ 15 INFLUENCES .............................................................................................................................................. 15 HULL FORM DESIGN WORK .................................................................................................................... 17 

SAIL AND RIG DESIGN ................................................................................................................................... 18 APPENDAGE DESIGN ..................................................................................................................................... 20 RUDDER DESIGN ....................................................................................................................................... 20 KEEL DESIGN ............................................................................................................................................ 22 BALANCE ................................................................................................................................................... 23 

GENERAL ARRANGEMENT ............................................................................................................................ 24 PROPELLER AND ENGINE ............................................................................................................................. 27 ELECTRICAL AND ENERGY ANALYSIS ......................................................................................................... 29 ELECTRICAL SYSTEM ............................................................................................................................... 29 ENERGY ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................................... 31 

HULL AND DECK SCANTLINGS ..................................................................................................................... 31 SYSTEMS DESIGN.......................................................................................................................................... 32 SAILING SYSTEMS .......................................................................................................................................... 32 SAIL HANDLING ........................................................................................................................................ 32 CENTERBOARD .......................................................................................................................................... 32 

AUXILIARY PROPULSION AND MANEUVERING SYSTEMS ......................................................................... 33 BOW THRUSTER ....................................................................................................................................... 33 STEERING ................................................................................................................................................... 34 DIESEL FUEL ............................................................................................................................................. 34 

AUXILIARY SYSTEMS ..................................................................................................................................... 34 CARGO HANDLING .................................................................................................................................... 34 WATER BALLAST ...................................................................................................................................... 36 BILGE WATER SYSTEM ............................................................................................................................ 36 REFRIGERATION ....................................................................................................................................... 37 NAVIGATION .............................................................................................................................................. 37 COMMUNICATIONS ................................................................................................................................... 37 GROUND TACKLE ...................................................................................................................................... 38 POTABLE WATER ..................................................................................................................................... 38 GRAY WATER ............................................................................................................................................ 39 BLACK WATER .......................................................................................................................................... 39 

v

LIQUEFIED PROPANE GAS ....................................................................................................................... 39 HVAC ........................................................................................................................................................ 40 WEIGHT ESTIMATE .................................................................................................................................. 40 

HYDROSTATICS AND STABILITY .................................................................................................................. 40 CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................................................ 41 DESIGN EVALUATION .................................................................................................................................... 41 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE WORK ................................................................................................. 42 WORKS CITED .............................................................................................................................................. 44 WORKS CONSULTED .................................................................................................................................... 45 APPENDICES .................................................................................................................................................. 46 APPENDIX A:  ISWSCYDC RULES PUBLICATION ......................................................................... A APPENDIX B:  DESIGN REQUIREMENTS ........................................................................................... B APPENDIX C:  BUSINESS MODEL ....................................................................................................... C APPENDIX D:  LINES DRAWING WITH MAJOR APPENDAGES ...................................................... D APPENDIX E:  APPENDAGE CALCULATIONS .................................................................................... E APPENDIX F:  SAIL PLAN & SAIL CALCULATIONS .......................................................................... F APPENDIX G:  GENERAL ARRANGEMENT DRAWING ..................................................................... G APPENDIX H:  PROPELLER & ENGINE CALCULATIONS ................................................................. H APPENDIX I:  HULL & DECK SCANTLING CALCULATIONS ............................................................. I APPENDIX J:  ELECTRICAL LOAD ANALYSIS & ONE­LINE DIAGRAM ......................................... J APPENDIX K:  WEIGHT ANALYSIS .................................................................................................... K APPENDIX L:  HYDROSTATICS, TRIM AND STABILITY .................................................................. L APPENDIX M:        WATER BALLAST PUMP CALCULATIONS ................................................................. M APPENDIX N:         ENGINE AND GENERATOR SPECIFICATIONS ............................................................. N 

vi

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Timothy Graul sailing vessel design with cargo hold ..................................................... 3 Figure 2: Balance of sailing forces ................................................................................................. 7 Figure 3: Present value of lifetime cash flow with LWL & design points ................................... 13 Figure 4: The design spiral ........................................................................................................... 15 Figure 5: Scow midship section and stern sections ...................................................................... 16 Figure 6: Scow bow shape ............................................................................................................ 17 Figure 7: Half-hull shape: perspective view ................................................................................. 17 Figure 8: Wolczko 30 sail plan ..................................................................................................... 19 Figure 9: Rudders: perspective view from starboard quarter ........................................................ 21 Figure 10: Keel configuration, centerboard down, with rudders .................................................. 22 Figure 11: Perspective inboard profile showing interior layout ................................................... 24 Figure 12: Accommodation spaces plan view .............................................................................. 25 Figure 13: Propeller shaft “vee” configuration ............................................................................. 27 Figure 14: Required EkW with vessel speed by several methods ................................................ 28 Figure 15: Centerboard lifting system .......................................................................................... 33 Figure 16: Burton and fall cargo handling method plan view ...................................................... 35 

LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Yearly fuel consumption comparison ............................................................................. 31 

vii

NOMENCLATURE 

ACRONYMS ABS American Bureau of Shipping (classification society) AC Alternating Current Electrical Power B Beam BkW Brake Power, in kW BV Bureau Veritas (classification society) CB Block Coefficient CD Drag Coefficient CE Center of Effort CFD Computational Fluid Dynamics CG Center of Gravity CLR Center of Lateral Resistance CPP Controllable-Pitch Propeller DC Direct Current Electrical Power EkW Effective Power, in kW EMS Electrical Management System F Denotes a force quantity Fn Froude Number ft Feet Genset Generator unit, e.g. a Generator and Engine as a Set GZ Righting Moment Arm HVAC Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning in Inches ISWSCYDC International Student Workboat / Small Craft / Yacht Design Competition kgf Kilo-gram Force kN Kilo-Newton (Unit of Force) kW Kilo-Watts (Unit of Power) LED Light Emitting Diode L Length L Liters lbf Pounds-Force (BG Unit of Force) LPG Liquefied Propane Gas LWL Length on the Waterline m Meter NM Nautical Miles NSMBREG Netherlands Ship Model Basin Regression Resistance Method RIB Rigid Bottom Inflatable boat RPM Revolutions per Minute SA Sail Area sec Seconds SNAME Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers SSB Single-Side Band Radio T Draft t Tonne—metric tonne: 1,000 kg or approx. 2,200 lbs TVC Total Vessel Cost

viii

US United States V Denotes a velocity quantity V Volts VBA Visual Basic for Applications (programming language) VHF Very High Frequency (Short-Range) Marine Radio W Watt (Unit of Power)

PHYSICAL CONSTANTS g Acceleration due to gravity: 9.807

ρsw Density of seawater: 1025.9

νsw Kinematic viscosity (seawater) 1.17 · 10

SYMBOLS  Displaced volume (in units of m3 for this project)

1

INTRODUCTION 

OBJECTIVES 1. To develop a set of design requirements and to produce a design for a sailing

vessel equipped to carry a cargo payload that can be operated by non-professional cruising sailors in a bluewater cruising setting.

2. To enter this design in the 2009 Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers’ (SNAME) Student Workboat/Small Craft/Yacht Design Competition (ISWSCYDC).

SCOPE This project consisted of two parts: the business analysis, and the preliminary design.

The business model developed in this project served to analyze the finances of a business that would operate a vessel such as that described above in the Objectives section. This in turn led to an initial design point for the design phase of the project based on profitability of the business model and the design requirements produced for the ISWSCYDC. The design was then produced to the requirements of the competition as set forth in the SNAME guidelines, which can be found in Appendix A.

BACKGROUND 

HISTORY The idea of transporting goods with sailing craft is obviously not a new one. Sailing

merchant ships were once the grandest sight on the world’s oceans and were also quite lucrative, but during the 19th century the advent of steam ships ended their dominance of the shipping market. The shipping industry was evolving, first with the “China Trade” and the great “clipper” ships, and then by taking advantage of new technology in the form of steam power, to be a business founded upon schedule, speed, and tonnage. As a result, it has become virtually postulate that sailing vessels, because of their reliance upon the ever-changing and unpredictable meteorology of the oceans, are an impractical solution to the issue of shipping goods.

This may seem a valid point. Time has indeed become an essential factor in the shipping industry; many types of cargo have an extremely high time value and must be delivered from port to port within a strict timeline. The days when the vast majority of shipping was performed by sailing ships may indeed be over, but this study sees a niche for small-scale shipping to be performed by sailing vessels.

The fact that the shipping industry is dependent upon reliable speed and meeting schedules forces shipping companies to utilize petroleum-based fuels for propulsion. These fuels constitute a significant portion of a ship’s operating expenses, and history has shown that the price of petroleum can increase substantially in a short period of time, which interferes with a shipping company’s ability to make a profit.

The desire to eliminate this factor from the business model, along with environmental concerns, leads to the conclusion that a possibility exists that the carriage of cargoes (that have a relatively low time value) could be performed by a sail-powered vessel. The use of low time-value cargo allows for a business venture less dependent on scheduling than a conventional

2

shipping operation. Conveniently, the framework necessary for such a niche industry to establish itself already exists—cruising sailing yachts are ideal for this sort of operation.

CRUISING SAILING YACHTS Sailing yachtsmen aboard a wide variety of vessel types and hailing from all over the

developed world ply our planet’s oceans by the hundreds every year. Their goals vary: some are sailing for world circumnavigation time records, others simply want to sail one great family adventure through the South Pacific islands, and others still try to find ways to make cruising their permanent way of life.

Many people who decide to cruise long-term are required to stop for extended periods of time to work temporary jobs in order to support their lifestyle. There are also those who do not have even this option, due to restrictions on some foreign nationals’ employment in different regions, which may be force them to abandon the sailing lifestyle and return to their home country.

Situations such as this could be averted with some entrepreneurial spirit. These cruiser sailors comprise a plentiful stream of people sailing the oceans on yachts that serve to transport only the operators and their belongings. If yachtsmen wishing to cruise indefinitely were equipped to carry a payload along with them, there could potentially be a profitable business venture inherent in the cruising lifestyle. There are many poorly accessible cruising destinations, such as the many remote island groups of the Pacific, which could allow for sailing vessels to occupy the inter-island merchant niche. In addition to this, there is also potential for long-distance trade to be facilitated by such sailing vessels along routes that are already traveled by yachtsmen at their own expense. This is especially true if cargo with a low time value can be carried, as this could level the playing field between small sailing merchant operations and relatively large, well established shipping companies. All of these possibilities indicate potential for a profitable business venture stemming from sailing merchant craft.

This idea is not new. Since the decline of mainstream sailing merchant vessels—even quite recently—several notable designs along these lines have been produced. A yacht designer named Mr. Dudley Dix has produced a design called the Hout 70, which is a 70-foot, hard-chine steel gaff-rigged schooner that is marketed as a charter or excursion boat as well as a cargo carrier (Dix). There is also a 100-foot traditional trading schooner design that has operated principally as a passenger/charter boat (but was built in wood as an island trader in 1990) for sale in Dominica at the time of writing (Escape Artist).

Mr. Timothy Graul, an esteemed naval architect who has worked for many years on the Great Lakes, has designed a wooden-hulled, 50-foot ketch-rigged sailboat with a 21-foot cargo hold for inter-island or coastal trade (Graul, Profile and Midship Section). The design, which can be seen below in Figure 1, was never built due to difficulties with the builder, but demand for such a vessel was demonstrated by this and the aforementioned vessels. Although this demand is important, however, the possibility of generating a profit with the operation must be considered in the proposed project, and thus possible markets should be explored.

3

Figure 1: Timothy Graul sailing vessel design with cargo hold

Source: Timothy Graul

MOTIVATION AND BUSINESS BACKGROUND Webb Institute has an excellent and well-rounded academic program, which is tailored to

an industry that is predominantly composed of work with ships and large commercial craft with a brief emphasis on small craft design. Naturally, the Webb education is oriented in this way and not toward yacht design, which is a small niche in the field. This thesis project was largely motivated by an inclination toward more education in the field of yacht design. Familiarity with the tools of yacht designers and the concepts involved with the design of sailboats were significant factors in choosing this topic. Additionally, this project was an opportunity to explore the idea of a sailing yacht that is more than an instrument of recreation; the idea of working with sailing yachts that also fulfill a productive function was very appealing.

The original motivation for this project, however, began when the author sailed offshore with his family for sixteen months during 2001 and 2002. During the journey through the South Pacific, some unexpected rig maintenance alerted the family to the presence of exotic hardwood products that were priced at retail values roughly one-twentieth the price of the same product in the United States at the time (Wolczko). The discovery of such a large difference in cost between regions led to the obvious conclusion that this type of cargo represented a business possibility that merited investigation.

After conducting preliminary research into the concept, it became clear that the potential for business niches of the nature described in the Cruising Sailing Yachts section is real and pronounced in underdeveloped areas (such as the island groups of the South Pacific) more than it

4

is in urban regions. This is largely attributable to the fact that competition with large, well established shipping companies would be greater in urban areas than in those that are less developed, namely because of the inherent smaller demand for the transportation of goods in the less developed areas. This fact is highly beneficial for this type of project, both because it limits competition, and because it supports the small cargo carrying capacity available on a typical cruising-size yacht.

The appeal of underdeveloped areas coupled with the desire to have a multi-functional cruising/merchant vessel makes the island groups of the Pacific Ocean a logical choice of exemplary regions to consider for the project—though many other areas worldwide are equally valid for consideration. A consultation regarding trade statistics from the United States (US) Department of Commerce has indicated that trade with an interesting candidate island group, French Polynesia (an overseas collective of France relatively near Hawaii and North America), operates in both directions. There is a heavy deficit sustained by French Polynesia in the current trade arrangement, as is the case with most other similar island groups and nations, which indicates that many products are already transported to these regions and hence it would be wise to consider the importation of goods to somewhere like French Polynesia from the US or another industrialized state, such as New Zealand, which is one of the collective’s other main trade partners aside from France (United States Department of Commerce).

It is natural and reasonable to operate a transport venture that strives to supply a group of islands with products that it is not be able to produce on its own, such as in one of the long-distance trade arrangements described above. However, there may be import regulations that could hinder such action. A dialogue with a customs official at the French Embassy in Washington, DC, raised the issue that importation of foreign goods into French Polynesia may be difficult for a small operation due to regulations against non-French imports (Sanford). This could present problems with the ability to carry a payload on all legs of a cruise. This fact, coupled with the goal of maximizing the vessel’s potential income, leads to the conclusion that consideration of multiple locations in the Pacific (namely those with less stringent import regulations) would be prudent, and also that exportation of goods from regions like French Polynesia would be a logical course of action.

Although the resources available to the island groups obviously include many perishable items such as fish, aquaculture and agricultural foodstuffs, these items would be inappropriate for this venture, because a sailing transport operation would stand little chance competing with the containerized sector for such products, because of their high time value. There are non-perishable items such as precious stones and metals, as well as processed food products which are imported to the US in quantities on the order of US$55 million per year (United States Department of Commerce). This is the major part of French Polynesia’s exports to the US. Included in this number are also wood products, including exotic hardwoods, which are imported to the US in quantities up to the order of $100,000 per year, according to the Department of Commerce. Assuming that the large working capital required to transport these goods would not be a prohibitive issue, these high-value products are an ideal cargo for use in this project, as they are farmed in some relatively inaccessible island groups, such as the Marquesas (Îles Marquises) in French Polynesia—the location of the author’s discovery mentioned above. In 2001, this particular archipelago had one inter-island merchant ship, based in Tahiti, which operated on a monthly schedule and transported goods to and from the islands. A conversation with a former importer of exotic hardwoods in Seattle, Washington, indicated that importation of wood products into the United States would be quite feasible, providing the operation did not attempt

5

to import any species listed as endangered or otherwise restricted by United States or international regulations (Roberts).

The issue of payload on a southbound route from the United States (or equivalent “outbound” route) can be investigated further and probably with more success if the area of consideration includes more island groups. The Cook Islands are in free association with New Zealand, from whom they import extensively, and they have several remote outlying islands with small populations. The Samoan islands, slightly farther west, include both American and independent territories, and are also potential markets to investigate, as are nations like the Marshall Islands, which is heavily dependent on its ties to the United States. Some research, including email correspondence with an associate that sells wood in Fiji, indicates that there is currently a premature forestry industry in the island nation that is beginning to produce mahogany and other potentially profitable wood products (Baldwin). Including island groups such as these could minimize the time when the vessel is not carrying a payload, and it could also provide opportunities for the expansion of markets served and greater income.

SNAME  INTERNATIONAL  STUDENT WORKBOAT  /  SMALL  CRAFT  /  YACHT  DESIGN  COMPETITION (ISWSCYDC) 

The International Student Workboat / Small Craft / Yacht Design Competition (ISWSCYDC) is a competition sponsored by SNAME. The competition encourages students who are members of SNAME and enrolled in naval architecture, marine engineering, or ocean engineering (or an accredited yacht design program) to submit designs of virtually any kind of vessel smaller than 500 tonnes of displacement.

The competition begins with each competitor or group of competitors submitting a set of design requirements for their design. Upon return of these requirements with comments from the judges, the design can commence. At the end of the design, the submissions are narrowed down to the top five contenders based on stated criteria. Once these designs have been selected, the winning designs will be selected based on the following:

• Technical Content (40%) • Documentation (15%) • Originality (10%) • Practicality (10%) • Compliance with Design Requirements (25%)

The full rules, list of required deliverables, and judging criteria can be found in the Rules Publication for the competition to be judged in 2009 in Appendix A.

SCOPE OF BUSINESS ANALYSIS AND DESIGN WORK In order to keep this project at a manageable level of detail, a specific business plan that

serves as an example case to study has been selected for further analysis. This case involves a round trip that begins in Seattle, Washington, traveling next to the Îles Marquises and then on to the Fijian Islands before traveling back to Seattle. The two cargoes considered are teak and mahogany, because the dimensional lumber nature of these cargoes would be ideal for this project and because research has indicated the existence of at least small or developing markets for both types of wood on the South Pacific route described.

While more cargoes and ports of call would be considered in reality, the case described above is considered to be adequate for this project. It has been assumed that the maximum amount of cargo can be carried by the vessel on the maximum number of trips possible as determined in the Viability and Business Analysis section.

6

The Viability and Business Analysis section describes work completed to determine that there is a possibility of a profitable business venture inherent in the idea of a merchant cruising sailing yacht. It then goes on to present an optimum design based on profitability. The work completed in this project is intended to be a preliminary design as is outlined in the list of submittals provided in the Rules Publication (Appendix A).

PRINCIPLES AND THEORY OF YACHT DESIGN 

Introduction The issue of using wind power to propel a boat through the water is rather complex, but

like many engineering problems of this nature, it can be broken down and simplified to be better understood. The problem of harnessing the power of the wind is a very dynamic one in which the forces involved and their reactions to each other are constantly changing due to the variation in their magnitude and direction and the motions of the vessel being acted upon by these forces.

The use of forces broken down into components and the assumption that static analysis can be used are helpful to produce a problem simple enough to be solved without complex computation to determine the forces and reactions involved in the problem.

Discussion Ideally, the problem of sailing can be described as the interaction between the

aerodynamic forces on the vessel and the hydrodynamic forces on the vessel. These forces are simplified to be a single aerodynamic force, acting at the “center of effort” (CE) on the sails, and a single hydrodynamic force, acting at the “center of lateral resistance” (CLR) on the submerged portion of the hull. These forces and their components can be seen below in Figure 2.

7

Figure 2: Balance of sailing forces

Source: Larsson & Eliasson

As can be seen above in Figure 2, the forces acting on the vessel make more sense once they are broken up. The aerodynamic force is broken up into a driving force, acting in the direction of the vessel’s travel, and a heeling force, which acts to heel the vessel over on its side. Similarly, the hydrodynamic force is broken up into a resistance force, acting in the opposite direction to the vessels travel, and a hydrodynamic side force, which acts in a direction to oppose the vessel’s leeway, which is defined as the travel in the same general direction as the wind perpendicular to the forward travel of the vessel.

The aerodynamic forces most significantly act upon the sails. The density of the medium in which these airfoils act, air, is relatively low, and thus the sails are much larger than their hydrofoil counterparts, which operate in water, a much denser fluid. In the conditions in which the vessel is traveling with the wind, the sails work to produce drag in order to drive the vessel; this is a condition often referred to as “barn door sailing,” and the defining characteristic of these conditions is that the sails are simply being pushed upon by the wind rather than generating lift as foils.

CE

CLR

8

The conditions in which the vessel is traveling against the wind (as well as perpendicular to the wind direction, in general terms), are different in that the sails are used as airfoils to produce lift in a direction roughly normal to the axis of the boom.

The underwater portion of the hull, along with the appendages, serves to resist the component of the aerodynamic force normal to the direction of travel. This reaction is quantified by the side component of the hydrodynamic force. The other component is the resistance force, which is quantified by the frictional resistance and the residuary resistance, which is primarily dependent on the shape of the hull. Additionally, the rudder is a moveable control surface that usually serves to vary the amount of side force produced near the stern. This effectively changes the longitudinal location of the CLR and produces a turning moment.

The primary goal in the design of a sailing vessel is to produce a vessel that can balance all of the components of these aerodynamic and hydrodynamic forces with a minimal amount of user adjustment of controls (such as sail control lines or the rudder) at any given point of sail. A vessel capable of sailing as such would be an efficient sailing craft and is the goal of the sailing craft design process.

DESIGN METHODOLOGY The preparatory and design work completed in this project is detailed in the succeeding

sections. The preliminary work sections describe the development of the design requirements, the parametric analysis, the viability and business analysis, and the determination of the vessel’s design point. The design work sections describe the design work completed to satisfy the requirements for submission to the ISWSCYDC.

PRELIMINARY WORK 

Design Requirements In order to compete in the ISWSCYDC, a set of design requirements was developed and

submitted to the competition’s judges. This served as the entry into the competition and was returned by the head judge with positive remarks about the nature of the project and the development of the requirements. The full document submitted to the judges is available in Appendix B.

The requirements developed strove to produce a preliminary design for a bluewater sailing cruiser that has a capability to carry a cargo of hardwood. Emphasis is placed on the design’s safety, seaworthiness and efficiency in terms of ergonomics, cost and energy. Another important factor in the design requirements is that the design should avoid classification as a commercial vessel wherever possible, which is to say that the design will be classified as a “functional yacht”—not as a merchant vessel—with regard to regulation and operation.

The requirements state that the operation of this functional yacht must be possible by a small crew of non-professional but experienced sailors (the requirements specify three). As such, the requirements stipulate that the design be made comfortable for three people while maximizing the design’s ability to carry payload. As in any design, the vessel’s attractiveness to the target owners (bluewater cruising sailors, in this case) is also a primary concern.

The requirements also mention ascertaining that the vessel can operate in the United States and abroad with regard to regulations. This leads to the requirement that the design be suitable for classification by a major classification society, such as the American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) Aluminum Vessel Rules. The concern with regulation also leads to the

9

requirement that the vessel be able to manage the cargo in such a way that importation into the US will be possible, should any special treatment be required. Additionally, it is required to make accommodations in the design to maintain the quality of the product during transit. Provisions for the design to be able to load and unload its cargo are also made in the design requirements.

Finally, the design requirements state that the design should work to rely on renewable energy sources as much as possible, within reason. The idea behind this is that the operation can save on costs, as it does with fuel by the use of sails, by utilizing renewable energy with items like solar panels, wind generators and others perhaps coupled with a hybrid auxiliary drive system. Emphasis is placed, of course, on making the design profitable, and therefore, prohibitively high capital costs for any of these items (such as for highly customized systems not commercially widely available) would preclude their use.

Parametric Analysis At the beginning of the project, design data for different vessels exhibiting desirable traits

were collected to create a parametric database. The usefulness of this database is somewhat limited in the context of this project, as few boats, if any, have the characteristics of a cargo-capable sailboat with a modern hull form. Efforts were made to include vessels of various sizes and types over an initial range of lengths from 13 m to approximately 60 m even though it was anticipated that the vessel would be in the 30 m length range, based on the design requirements and as such the majority of the designs collected were in this size range.

The design database includes a number of vessels generously provided by Mr. James Moran of the yacht design office of Sparkman & Stephens in New York as well as some large-yacht data from the website of Dutch mega yacht builder Royal Huisman. The database also includes more classical designs, largely drawn from Chappelle’s work with American fishing schooners (Chappelle). The initial assessment of the “scow” type schooners used in the United States lumber trade on the West Coast (among other applications) found that the designs of these vessels were too outdated and too heavily oriented toward cargo volume to be considered for this project.

The parametric database of designs developed for this project was used to determine non-dimensional coefficients by regression to dictate the characteristics of the family of vessels considered in the Viability and Business Analysis as a function of waterline length and displacement.

These coefficients were developed using linear regressions and, in some cases, margins on the slope and intercepts of the regression lines. This was done as a means of compensation for the shortcomings of the parametric database regarding the matching of the database constituents to the mission of the design. While some characteristics were determined to correlate well between the goal design and the vessels in the database, others did not, and thus, regressions corresponding to such characteristics were given a margin to compensate and cause the regressions to make more intuitive sense.

One example of characteristics that were thought to correlate fairly well in the parametric analysis phase was the ratio of sail area to displaced volume. It is logical that these characteristics should correlate well, as the sail area correlates directly to the amount of driving force required to drive a hull through the water, which is largely dependent on displaced volume. This is also related to the wetted surface area (frictional drag) and the underwater profile (form drag) of a vessel. As such, no margin was applied to this regression.

10

An example of a characteristic that was determined to correlate poorly was the length-to-beam ratio, which was assumed too large due to the fact that both the design’s beam and draft (draft was determined by the beam to draft ratio) were going to be greater for a given length than the vessels in the database given the assumption that the target vessel would have a larger displacement-to-length ratio than the database constituents. The regression value for beam was thus inflated by adding a negative value to the intercept of the length to beam line, which increased the regression value for beam and in turn also increased the value found for draft. This alteration effectively gave the design a greater displacement and thus cargo carrying capacity than the “average” vessel in the database, which was partly based upon a number of Sparkman & Stephens’ yachts. The designs in the business model were thus better suited to their stated mission.

The use of these regressions can be seen in the business model. They are shown as unitless fractions and there is an example section of the model shown in Appendix C.

VIABILITY AND BUSINESS ANALYSIS 

Vessel Family Development This project included a study of the viability of the design and its associated business

venture. The analysis was conducted in a spreadsheet and strove to determine the optimum vessel size and characteristics for maximized profits for the business venture. The analysis began with the implementation of the non-dimensional coefficients described in the Parametric Analysis section to create a table containing the principal characteristics of each individual entity in the family of vessels considered in the analysis. The family under consideration consisted of vessels ranging in length from 10 m to 35 m at increments of 1 m, and each vessel was related to the other members of the family in that they were developed from the same regressions, but differed in that they varied over a range of vessel length and displacement.

Within the family of vessels, there was a variation in block coefficient (CB) for each vessel along the range of lengths between CB = 0.50 to 0.80 in increments of 0.05 to account for displacement. Block coefficient is defined as follows:

· · Eq. 1

where is displaced volume, L is length, B is beam, and T is draft. Thus, the entire range of lengths along the entire range of block coefficients stated above was considered in the analysis to determine the optimum. This translated to an optimal displacement, since the other elements of the equation (beam and draft) remained constant for a given length across the range of block coefficients. The case of the 0.60 block coefficient section of the vessel family has been followed through the length of the model to the cost curve and can be found in Appendix C.

Revenue Prediction With these data, each vessel in the family had the necessary characteristics defined to

perform a comparative study of the vessels’ cargo capacities. It was initially attempted to determine a vessel’s cargo capacity by volume, on the assumption that the relatively low density wood or similar cargo would be “volume limited” by the vessel size. This is to say that the required space for accommodations, mechanical compartments, tanks, and other volume elements of the design would infringe upon the cargo capacity more than any other factor. While this may be a valid assumption for smaller vessels, a check with the larger vessels in the family showed that, in fact, the cargo capacity was limited by the cargo weight in order to keep the vessel floating at the design waterline. It was thus decided to assume a cargo weight in exotic

11

hardwood equivalent to the difference between the values for full-load displacement and lightship displacement determined in the model. Thus each vessel would possess a cargo space large enough to accommodate a relatively full load of lighter cargo than the hardwood in situations where that was the going fare (after accounting for the other components of deadweight, such as fuel, water ballast, and others).

Using the data determined for the family of vessels in the model, it was also possible to make a comparison of the vessels in the model based on operating speed. In order to achieve this end, sail area was determined by regression with displacement. With this information and the assumption that a single trip is equivalent to a straight line course on a broad reach in a breeze of 15 knots, we can estimate the average thrust to be expected from the sails using an experimentally derived equation for the force on a sail, which is shown below: 0.00119 · · · Eq. 2 where F is the aerodynamic force on the sail (in lbf), VA is the velocity of the apparent wind (in ft/sec), SA is the sail area (in ft2), and CD is the aerodynamic drag coefficient for the sails, which is unitless (Marchaj). Once thrust had been determined, the analysis utilized some original and borrowed code in Visual Basic for Applications (VBA) embedded in the model spreadsheet to approximate the Froude number (Fn) at which each vessel’s thrust is equal to the resistance it encounters by moving through the water. Froude number is defined as follows:

· Eq. 3

where V is defined as the vessel’s speed through the water, g is the acceleration due to the Earth’s gravitational pull, and L is the length of the vessel. The program developed utilized the Netherlands Ship Model Basin Regression (NSMBREG) prediction program originally developed by Professor Jacques Hadler and adapted to VBA by Peter Bryn (Webb Class of 2006). The original code written for this project input the characteristics for each vessel into the Hadler code, ran the Hadler code for a predetermined range of boat speeds, determined the closest resistance to the thrust value, and returned the resistance value and Froude number to the main analysis spreadsheet. With this Froude number, operating speed for each vessel was determined. This estimate returned a value for operating speed based solely on resistance in the upright position and the assumption of relatively constant favorable conditions—which is not wholly unreasonable for most tropical regions on the intended generic trade route, but it is an approximation for the entire scope of the intended operation. Using this estimation of speed and an estimate of distance along the journey (including a “distance margin” of 15% to account for the unlikelihood of absolute great circle routes in the vessel’s transit of the route), the number of trips possible per year could be estimated. This information, coupled with the cargo capacity for each vessel determined in the model and assumptions for the purchase and sale price of mahogany and teak, yielded estimations for revenue per trip and then yearly revenue. These values were determined assuming that the business venture would purchase the product, own it while in transit, and then possess the capability to store and sell it once the product was in the United States. The costs associated with these assumptions were accounted for with rough estimates in the model in the form of management, storage, insurance, and customs (federal importation) costs, but these amounts must be further researched to be fully reliable.

12

Capital and Recurring Costs  Capital costs were estimated primarily as a function of weight and material cost, as in the case of hull and structural material, or power required, as in the case of auxiliary power, or as percentages of a related cost such as material or auxiliary power. An example of this would be the electrical system cost, which was assumed a percentage of auxiliary power cost. Recurring costs, such as those seen in Appendix C, were determined as percentages of total vessel cost (TVC) in many cases, as recommended by Cyrus Hamlin (Hamlin), while others, such as sail and rigging maintenance, were instead based on sail cost (a function of sail area).

Costs were also determined based on the size of the crew. The capital cost of the accommodations was based on the required crew size, which varies with length, and provisioning cost was an example of recurring cost based on crew size. It was determined for the design requirements that a crew of three—which is the maximum expected volunteer crew size on a relevant cruising vessel—would be adequately able to manage a vessel of up to approximately 30 m in length. Any length greater than 30 m, which would involve at least one crew member above three, would thus incur the costs necessary to employ that crewmember as a professional mariner aboard the vessel. This could have an impact far greater than that mariner’s salary on the operation if one considers the possibility that hiring professional mariners could invalidate the non-commercial nature of the venture, and therefore hiring crew and bearing the associated costs was not considered as an option in this analysis.

The profitability of a design was determined after the analysis was complete by calculating the present value of the total cash flow each for vessel’s associated business over a twenty-year period, assuming an interest rate of 10%. This cash flow included the TVC as well as the yearly revenues and yearly expenditures for each of the twenty years.

Model Sensitivity It should be noted that the financial model sensitivity to alterations in the founding

assumptions was tested with interesting results. The most notable parameter changed was the difference between the purchase and sale costs for the cargo, which obviously changed the profitability of the operation, while the optimum design point remained relatively constant. When the price differential is greatly inflated, such as to the order of $20 (cost units) per board foot, the optimum point changes to favor the highest displacement vessel of the greatest length. This effect makes logical sense, because it corroborates the theory of economies of scale. At lower price differentials, the model showed that the higher speed of a lighter displacement vessel at a given length proved significantly beneficial over payload capacity by allowing a vessel to make a greater number of trips per year. The model thus indicates that greater overall payload capacity for a given year’s operations can be achieved by optimizing speed and displacement and further leads to the conclusion that the profit optimization in the business analysis and the determination of the design point was successful.

Design Point At the end of the Viability and Business Analysis, one set of characteristics from the

family of vessels under consideration was chosen to be the most profitable design based on the analysis. This set of characteristics helped to determine the starting point for the design work and can be seen below in Figure 3.

Am designis the 30 note thatand are n Tthe fact thThe reasbeginninhandled b30 m, ansalary for

Actual DIt

model w30 m len

Pconcentraability toleast effiability toand profi

Presen

t Value

 of Life

time Ca

shflo

w 

(Mon

etary Eq

uivalent Units)

Figure 3:

As can be seen with a bloc

m design wt the monetanot necessariThe 30 m ves

hat the curveon for this dg of the proby three peond since ther a boat larg

esign Point t is importanould have a gth. There aaramount amated more o

o perform efcient point o

o perform to fitability are

$1,000,000

$500,000

$0

$500,000

$1,000,000

$1,500,000

$2,000,000

$2,500,000

1

Present val

en in Figureck coefficienith a CB of 0

ary values deily related tossel charactees appear to decision waoject, it wasople or less. re is a peaker than 30 m

 Selection nt to note thCB = 0.70,

are several remong these aon internal vfficiently unof sail for anwindward iquite promi

0

CB =

CB =

CB =

CB =

CB =

CB =

lue of lifetim

e 3, the designt of 0.70. It0.60, and thienoting preso the US dolleristics werefollow a tre

as that in ords necessary

Since the sik in the curvm, this point w

hat while ththe actual veasons for thare safety anvolume and nder sail is cny vessel. Wis desirable finent. The a

15

= 0.50

= 0.55

= 0.60

= 0.65

= 0.70

= 0.75

13

me cash flow

gn point dett should be ns is discusseent value oflar or any othe selected asend of increader to fulfillto limit the ize limit impve at that powas selected

he optimal dvessel designhis decision.nd performan

payload thacompromisedWhile the vefor many reaability to po

Actu

20

Waterline Le

w with LWL

ermined by noted that theed at length bf lifetime casher currencys the design asing profit al the design size of the

posed for adeoint due to d.

design pointn point has a nce. The thean sail perfod—especiallessel is desigasons, amonosition the v

al Design Poin

25

ength (m)

L & design p

the businesse actual desibelow. It is sh flow are y. point for thi

as length increquiremenvessel to o

equate handlthe added p

t determineda block coeff

eme of this vormance, anly close haugned to sail ng which pruessel in favo

Desig

t

30

points

s model is thign point selalso importasimply cost

is project decreases past 3nts laid out aone that couling by three

professional

d in the busficient 0.60 a

vessel’s desind as a resululed, which i

off the windudent seamanorable condi

n Point

35

he 30 ected ant to units

espite 30 m. at the

uld be e was crew

siness at the

ign is lt, its is the d, the nship itions

14

and to avoid dangerous situations is imperative in an offshore sailing vessel; therefore, performance must not be overlooked.

The amount of sail area required to drive a vessel of the magnitude of displacement defined by the model (roughly 310 t at CB = 0.70 versus 260 t at CB = 0.60) is greatly increased, and this would likely be coupled with a potentially negligible increase in righting potential and resistance to heel because the operating region of the Pacific Islands restricts the design’s draft to the minimum possible since potential ports-of-call could lie within lagoons with shallow passes. While constituting a negative impact on safety for a shorthanded crew, this also results in an increased resistance component due to heel and loss of driving force not accounted for in the model. Additionally, there exists a possibility that the stability of the vessel would be negatively impacted by including the volume of the hull form for a CB = 0.70. This is attributable to the fact that the difference between these two values for CB would be accounted for almost entirely in the ends—or prismatic coefficient—for this type of hull form, because the midship section has nearly maximum area regardless of condition (as illustrated by the midship coefficient of roughly 0.95). This increased submerged volume fore and aft would lower the vertical center of buoyancy, which creates a potential for lowered transverse stability depending on the placement of weight (namely payload), and could therefore potentially increase the need for water or fixed ballast.

The larger volume of the 0.70 block vessel and the associated higher resistance and larger required sail area, coupled with potentially negligible increase in resistance to heel, would severely limit the vessel’s ability to perform at any point of sail other than a limited range of off-wind courses. While the winds along the course are assumed to be generally astern for this model, in reality there will be times when the desired course will lie closer to the wind, be it for the next port or to escape an encroaching cyclone or typhoon. At those times, the vessel with upwind capability will be on its way while the vessel without waits for more favorable conditions.

The differences in sailing capability and safety—due to differences in wetted surface area (frictional resistance), displaced volume (wave resistance), fineness of entry and exit (wave –making and –breaking resistance), and stability (resistance due to heel, diminished driving force due to heel, vulnerability to sudden loss of vessel manageability and knockdown)—have led to the decision to design for a smaller CB.

DESIGN WORK The design work performed in this project, along with the associated decision making

processes, is outlined in the following sections. The general outline of the design process is shown below. Supplementary calculations, drawings, and renderings can be found in the Appendices under related headings.

DESIGN SPIRAL The design process is an iterative exercise in which the design of a vessel is repeatedly

performed over an ongoing cycle, with each phase in the process building upon the last. A diagram of the process can be seen below in Figure 4. This diagram shows the spiral and the different aspects of design that occur over the course of a single iteration of the design.

15

Figure 4: The design spiral

As can be seen above, the design process has a clear set of issues to be dealt with, and there is also a clear order to follow in the design process. The design spiral is different for different types of vessels, but the version shown in Figure 4 represents the process used for the vessel designed herein. The following sections detail the approach taken for each of the design categories shown in the spiral.

VESSEL MISSION The mission and desired function of the vessel designed in this project were defined in

the design requirements and have already been described in the Design Requirements section of this paper. Any issues raised in the process of the design completed in this project were solved by consulting the requirements (shown in Appendix B) by using direct mandates set forth in the document, or by otherwise trying to adhere to the character of the document when explicit requirements were not present. The general themes set by the design requirements were safety, functionality, simplicity of design, shorthanded manageability, and versatility in function and route capability.

HULL FORM DEVELOPMENT 

Influences The hull form was developed with many considerations in mind. Quite important among

these were the proven concepts that have been used in designs of the past. It was intended for this design to draw upon influences from multiple sources, including the load-bearing hulls of traditional sailing work boats as well as the efficient, fast boats of more modern design.

It was initially intended to model the vessel after the traditional fishing schooners described in some of Howard Chapelle’s work, because they were relatively slender boats that still managed to carry a significant load. It was believed that this concept best represented what

16

should happen with the design of the subject vessel, largely because in some ways—such as the long, slender nature of these boats in particular—these seemed to have the characteristics of traditional load-bearing hull forms that could be most easily and effectively adapted to the modern concept desired for this design.

Interestingly, it was determined that, in fact, the fish cargoes carried by the fishing schooners were denser than the wood and other cargo intended to be carried by this design. It thus followed that the design would require more internal volume than the fishing schooners analyzed in the research for this project. This realization led to an expansion of the range of traditional sailing working craft types considered for the project’s influences.

The initial assessment of the scow schooners involved in the lumber trade (notably on the West Coast of the United States) for the design database and parametric study found that these vessels had too many undesirable and outdated design traits for inclusion in the database, but, after discussions about these vessels with Professor Paul Miller at the United States Naval Academy (who has been involved with design projects involving the scow hull form), it was determined that, in fact, there was much to be learned from the scow concept and that it is quite applicable for this project. This is attributable to the large internal volume afforded by the flat bottom, hard chine turn of the bilge, vertical side shell, and full ends, shown in Figure 5. There are other favorable features of the scow design, such as its shallow draft, which is desirable given the need for an ability to enter potentially shallow lagoons in the Pacific Islands. Ultimately, the scow hull form was the foundation of the concept for the hull form in the subject design.

Figure 5: Scow midship section and stern sections

Source: Olmsted

While the traditional design influence was quite specific once it had been narrowed down to the lumber scow, the modern influences on the design were less tangible. This fact was primarily due to the expectation—largely inspired by Professor Miller—that the more “modern” design attributes were going to be less significant than the traditional features. The design ultimately included some significant alterations to the traditional scow concept that will be discussed below, including modification of the traditional scow bow shape shown below in Figure 6.

17

Figure 6: Scow bow shape

Source: Latitude 38

Hull Form Design Work One of the primary concerns in the design of the hull form was to meet the size and shape

requirements set forth by the actual design point selection in the business analysis. It was determined that the preferred methodology was to design to the correct length (on the design waterline) within 1 m while designing to the correct displacement as closely as possible. This constraint helped to ensure that the design would have a high operating speed because speed is significantly dependent on Froude number—thus placing a high value on maximizing waterline length. Additionally, it also ensured that the projected cargo capacity determined in the business model for the selected vessel would be met, assuming the lightship displacement was not grossly underestimated.

The hull form produced in this design can be seen in perspective view below in Figure 7. A lines drawing showing the hull form and major appendages can also be found in Appendix D. The hull form was based upon the shape of a traditional lumber scow with several significant alterations to better fit the mission of the vessel, to better reflect the state of the art of hull design, and to better suit the hull for offshore operation.

Figure 7: Half-hull shape: perspective view

One of the most notable of these alterations is the tapering of the ends, which is a severe departure from the traditional scow hull form. This taper is quite pronounced at the bow and was included primarily to improve the vessel’s seakindliness and upwind sailing capability. There was some deliberation about the inclusion of flair and rake in the bow, and this was weighed against maximized waterline length within the overall length of the hull. Ultimately, it was

18

decided to include roughly 20° of rake in the bow, and the waterlines were faired between the base of the stem and the point of the bow to include the appropriate amount of flair. This decision was justified by the benefits afforded the vessel in heeled waterline length (which is improved by including overhangs) and in the ability of the crew to perform work on deck while in a seaway. This aspect of hull design translates to the amount of water expected to be on deck while sailing in rough conditions, because this is directly related to the overhang and flair of the bow—the more of each within reason, the drier the deck. These features are all visible in the Lines Drawing in Appendix D.

While the hull taper is much more pronounced for the bow than the stern, it does occur aft in the form of a rounding of the hull sections aft of the hard-chined midship sections to a transom defined by a series of arcs varying in radius from the sheer to the centerline. The goal of this feature is to promote smooth flow around the hull, reduce the possibility of flow separation from hard corners in the hull shape, and prevent the transom from becoming submerged at any angle of heel (which could cause significant base drag if allowed to occur at any operating condition). In the heeled condition, this configuration allows the vessel to take advantage of the hard corner of the bilge chine for directional stability and resistance to leeway while avoiding the potential of transom immersion, which would be more likely with a hard corner in the transom that would occur if the hard chine of the bilge were continued all the way aft.

The hull shape was developed using the latest version of Orca3D (developed by DRS Technologies), which is an add-on to Robert McNeel and Associates’ Rhinoceros. Orca3D uses the intuitive and efficient three-dimensional design environment inherent in the Rhino software and adds functionality that greatly expedites the creation of the desired hull surface by the designer. This software allowed for the successful completion of the hull form design for this project and integrated well with the other software used subsequently for the other elements of the vessel’s design, which included a significant amount of design in Rhino subsequent to the hull design.

SAIL AND RIG DESIGN The sail and rig plan for this design was developed with the constraint on sail area

developed in the business model. This figure was based upon the regression relating displaced volume to sail area, and as described above, sail area is directly related to the amount of driving force required to move a vessel of a given displacement through the water. Consequently, it was decided that the sail area determined by this regression should be matched in the design if possible.

It was expected that this large requirement would produce a sail plan that appeared to be too large for the vessel’s length when viewed in profile, and this expectation was founded in the fact that the vessel designed in this project has a significantly higher displacement than the norm for a vessel of similar length. High sail area was viewed as a necessity, and it was determined that high beam in the design inherited from the scow hull form, coupled with the use of seawater ballast in the design, would compensate for the added heeling moment in normal conditions. The addition of easily reefing with roller furling on all sails (including in-boom furling for the sails on booms) for more rough conditions justified the use of such a large sail plan within the restrictions from the design requirements.

To achieve the goal of so much sail area, it was decided early in the design process that a double-masted rig type would be utilized, making the vessel either a ketch or a schooner. While accommodating this vessel’s large requirement for sail area, this mast configuration also allows for a great deal of versatility in bluewater cruising that is preferred by many offshore sailors. An

19

initial attempt to use a ketch rig design with the mizzen luff length roughly 75% of the main luff length resulted in a requirement for the height of the main mast to exceed 40 m, which is approaching the air draft maximum for many large ships. In response to this, the mizzen mast was increased in height so that the two luff lengths were equal to each other, and, effectively, each mast carried the same sail on the boom.

This arrangement remained with the vessel labeled as a ketch until interference between the mizzen boom and the wheelhouse top forced the height of the aft mast upward to retain the original luff length on the aft mast. This change effectively made the vessel a schooner, though a much more modern version of the rig than the gaff-rigs carried by the scows of a century ago. The design sports a full roach on the fore sail, which could not be mimicked by the main sail because of restrictions on the available space in the sail triangle imposed by the back stays on the main mast. The sail plan in profile can be seen below in Figure 8.

Figure 8: Wolczko 30 sail plan

20

The target sail area from the business analysis was approximately 965 m2, which was effectively met in the initial drawing of the sail plan. This version of the sail plan had overly inflated the amount of roach in the main sail (with each sail at an aspect ratio of 3 and an area of 267 m2), and also had an unmanageably large genoa (432 m2). The aspect ratio of 3.0 was selected as an effective sail on all points of sail but slightly more optimized as an off-wind sail than as an upwind sail, as recommended by Larsson and Eliasson (Larsson and Eliasson). The use of a bowsprit was determined to be necessary to allow for the aspect ratio of 3.0 in the sails while retaining the necessary longitudinal configuration of the sail plan for proper operation of the sailing equipment.

The sizing of the sails was revisited with the design of the rig, and ultimately the sail area was decreased to allow for a more reasonable jib size (155% of the foretriangle area at 350 m2), and virtually no roach in the main sail to ensure no interference between the main sail and the backstays. The main boom was also slightly shortened to permit its passage outboard of the backstays. Ultimately, the main sail area was designed to be 200 m2 while the fore main sail was designed with extra roach to have an area of 300 m2. The calculations of areas, along with the determination of upwind sailing performance according to the sail force coefficient method developed by Professor Jerome Milgram at MIT (Milgram) and diagrams of the sail plan and rigging and spreader arrangements, can be found in Appendix F.

The rig was specified to be built of aluminum with stainless wire rigging for cost reasons. Calculations detailing the sections required for the vessel, as well as various other sizing and strength calculations for other aspects related to the vessel’s rigging, can also be found in Appendix F. Calculations were conducted in accordance with rule-of-thumb methods, such as those developed by Skene (Skene), as well as by guidelines from Bureau Veritas (BV) in their Yacht Rules (Bureau Veritas).

APPENDAGE DESIGN The appendage design for this vessel was strongly driven by the requirement for shallow

draft inferred from the design requirements, because the vessel needs to be operable in remote island settings. These likely would include lagoons of various tropical islands which are relatively shallow, and thus deep draft severely limits the vessel’s capability to enter these locations and engage in business activity, severely limiting the design’s viability. The business model of the vessel’s operation is partly based upon the ability of the vessel to exploit the relatively unmet need in remote regions for water-borne transport; therefore, the design cannot afford to have a deep draft.

Rudder Design As a result, the appendages used in the design of the subject vessel are somewhat peculiar

for a cruising sailing yacht. The most readily noticeable aspect of this is the vessel’s steering surfaces, which are manifested in the form of two low-aspect-ratio rudders, shown in Figure 9. In the conceptual or preliminary design phase of a sailing yacht, it is difficult to quantify the amount of turning capability necessary for the vessel to be safely operable in an offshore sailing situation. This is because the relationship between turning moment and the actual rate of turn is difficult to accurately determine without some form of model test. As a result, the amount of planform area required for the turning control surface(s) on a sailing yacht is generally determined as a percentage of sail area. In the case of this vessel, rudder area was determined to be approximately 1.5% of the vessel’s sail area, which is considered an average value in Principles of Yacht Design (Larsson and Eliasson). This value of rudder planform area was

21

assumed to be a minimum value due to the fact that this vessel’s rudders do not have the added benefit of increased lift force for high aspect ratio foils. Constrained by this value, the maximum average geometric aspect ratio of the rudder foils is 1.0 assuming that the rudders can extend a 1 m distance below the full-load canoebody baseline. This increases the draft of the fully laden yacht from approximately 1.8 m unappended to a minimum value of 2.8 m—a depth which restricts the vessel’s safe entry into some islands’ lagoon passes and limits business potential, but which reflects the outcome of the compromise between shallow draft and safe vessel management at sea.

Figure 9: Rudders: perspective view from starboard quarter

It was decided that a draft of 2.8 m was allowable in order to permit the placement of the rudders seen in the appended lines drawing in Appendix D and in Figure 9. These rudders have been determined by initial check with the empirical method shown in Principles of Yacht Design to provide the necessary turning moment to allow for the safe operation of the vessel in an offshore sailing situation.

The rudders were also angled slightly outward in the design, as can best be seen in the Lines Drawing (Appendix D. The angle of rudder flair was determined with the use of a Dellenbaugh Angle calculation, a preliminary method for the determination of vessel stiffness (Larsson and Eliasson). This calculation can be found in Appendix F. The benefit served in this context was that the equation uses a limited amount of information about the vessel to make a reasonable estimate of the approximate angle of heel in 15 knots of breeze. At this phase of design, this could be considered the effective optimum heel angle, and, as a result, it was used here to determine the angle to flair the rudders away from the vessel centerline. The Dellenbaugh calculation yielded a heel angle of approximately 5° in this breeze, and since that is the expected average wind speed for the vessel, the rudders were designed with the same angle of flair in order to ensure that one rudder remains vertical (the angle at which it is most effective) for as much time as possible.

22

Keel Design The vessel’s keel was sized vertically based on what was deemed the necessary draft and

is described above. This allowed for a keel that extended roughly as far below the lowest extent of the canoebody as the rudders or to a maximum draft of roughly 2.8 m below the fully laden waterline. This value was mandated by a need for ability to travel to islands with shallow navigational passages. This restriction, in effect only for the time when the vessel is transiting shallow water, led to the idea of a moving keel, or, more specifically, one that could be retracted to meet the draft restriction when necessary. The selected configuration of the keel for this design is shown below in Figure 10. This was ultimately done in order to generate enough side force in the upwind sailing condition for the vessel to be operable.

Figure 10: Keel configuration, centerboard down, with rudders

Using the values for side force on the sails calculated for the upwind sailing condition by the Milgram method, a design point for the necessary hydrodynamic side force could be established. Once this was done, a method needed to be found to predict the hydrodynamic side force produced by the vessel at a given speed and leeway angle, or angle of attack. Ultimately, it was determined that the slender body theory developed by J. M. Newman, as presented in Professor Richard Royce’s Sailing Yacht Design class, would provide a good basis for the estimation of lift.

This method operates on the principle that lift is generated both from the hull and from the keel and strives to quantify the lift coefficient of the system including both of the lift generating bodies and their interactions. The method is simple enough to implement for a design with a conventional keel type, but, when the system of lift-producing elements has a third element, the method breaks down to some extent. The solution to this problem was determined to revolve around approximating the system in different ways to simplify it enough to allow the slender body method to be used. The methodology involved determining the lift coefficient for the hull and the fixed keel as a system by the conventional method and then finding a different lift coefficient for the system. This combined system was represented by the centerboard planform extended to the hull profile as the keel and the hull profile area, corrected to include the area of the fixed keel with the actual profile area and with a corresponding effective canoebody draft as the hull, and then using the slender body method with this approximated system. Once this was done, the two different lift coefficients were used to determine the lift generated by the entire system—the first of these with the use of low-aspect-ratio theory, and the other with high-aspect-ratio theory.

23

The calculations for the lift generated by the keel system at various speeds and angles of attack (leeway angles) can be found in Appendix E. The fixed draft of the vessel remains at 2.8 m while the draft with the centerboard lowered is 7.8 m.

Balance The balance of the vessel is essentially its ability to sail at any point of sail with minimal

operator adjustment of either the sail controls or steering controls. In other words, a well-balanced vessel can be sailed on any given point of sail with the sails’ sheets and tiller or wheel lashed at a constant angle (which should be 0° rudder angle). A slight variation in the trim of the sails or in the rudder angle should be adequate to steer such a vessel.

The determination of a vessel’s balance is very complex. To accurately determine whether or not a vessel is balanced, a calculation must be made of the locations of the CE and the CLR at each potential point of sail and the turning moments caused by the longitudinal separation of these two points (which is effectively the turning couple moment arm that causes either weather or lee helm in an unbalanced design), also known as lead, at each of these points of sail. Obviously, a well-balanced vessel will have small values of lead, but the actual determination of the effect of the aerodynamic and hydrodynamic forces cannot be done accurately without some form of model test. As a result, the use of simplified methods has been employed in this project.

Larsson and Eliasson’s Principles of Yacht Design suggests a method utilizing the geometric centers of area for the planform shapes of the sails to determine the location of the CE. This was employed for this project. This method also determines the CLR by placing an intersection at the 0.4 design draft along the quarter-chord of the keel fin, which is an approximation of the center of load on the keel foil. While this method may be adequate for vessels with fin keels providing the vast majority of lift force for round-bilge hull forms with elliptical or circular hull sections, this method was determined to be inadequate for this project because of the wall-sidedness of the design, hard chines, and the depth of the canoebody relative to the vessel’s overall draft. As a result, the location of the CLR was determined while remaining mindful of the planform area of the canoebody hull, which is both more logical in the context of this design and more in line with the methods used to determine the vessel’s resistance to lateral motion described in the Appendage Design section. This was done by assuming that the CLR is located at the average point between the 40% span of the centerboard foil and the center of the planform area of the combined canoebody and the fixed keel and by assuming that each element delivers roughly half of the lifting force. The locations of the CE and the CLR can be seen in the Sail Plan in Appendix F.

This vessel was initially designed to have a value of lead within 10% of the vessel’s design load waterline length, as recommended by Larsson and Eliasson. At the outset of the rig design, the keel and centerboard were placed to allow for a slight margin of about 2.50 m of lead to account for alterations in the sail plan. Ultimately, at the end of the preliminary design iterations, the design settled at 3.07 m of lead, which is effectively the target of 10% of the DWL length. This value for lead essentially accounts for the increase in weather helm of a heeled vessel, and helps keep the CE forward in off-wind sailing conditions, thus having a positive effect on directional stability.

24

GENERAL ARRANGEMENT The arrangement of this design was carried out mindful of the design requirements,

synergy of design, and efficient operation. The manifestations of these design themes can be seen in Appendix G.

The primary issue to be reckoned with in the arrangement of this vessel was the maximization of cargo and working interior volume while maintaining a reasonable amount of accommodation space to make the design comfortable and workable as a cruising sailboat. The spaces were grouped as much as possible by related function, which is common practice in the arrangement of a vessel for the reason that it both increases the ease and efficiency of the vessel’s operation and prevents spillover from one space to another. In other words, it would prevent something like the management or stowage of cargo from infringing upon the accommodation space.

On the whole, this arrangement was quite successful. The spaces used for each function of the yacht are reasonably subdivided so that each function can be carried out, yet the spaces also overlap one another in such a way that the vessel has a minimum amount of wasted space and can be effectively operated in all of its intended capacities. The cargo stowage and management systems and their associated areas of operation were grouped quite easily, since these comprise the inside of the midship region of the vessel for the stowage of cargo along with the deck area immediately above this area of the interior space. This part of the deck includes the cargo hoist and the hatches through which cargo is loaded and unloaded. Cargo spaces and systems are thus concentrated at the midship and are relatively subdivided from the rest of the vessel by way of watertight bulkheads and deck divisions. In addition to the drawings available in Appendix G, the interior layout can be better understood from Figure 11.

Figure 11: Perspective inboard profile showing interior layout

The spaces required to operate the vessel in the underway condition were grouped effectively together. These primarily include the cockpit (also referred to as the wheelhouse), from which most of the underway functionality of the vessel is controlled, and the deck, which is where the sails and most of the sailing gear is actually located (along with the ground tackle and mooring gear for the anchoring and berthing of the vessel). These spaces also include the forecastle, which contains the spare and unused sails along with a workshop for sails and miscellaneous maintenance work for deck and sailing equipment.

The engine room should also be mentioned with these spaces. While intended to be fully unmanned, this space will be used to perform engine maintenance on the auxiliary propulsion engine and the generator engines. Any other dirty mechanical work could also be performed in this space, because it will be better equipped to handle such work and the associated cleanup than the forward work space in the forecastle. Because of the intentional inconsistent predicted

Cargo

Fore Castle

Accom. Spaces

Eng. Rm.

25

use of this space, its separation from the other underway working spaces, while perhaps unavoidable, was deemed to be of no real concern. Small equipment may be brought in or out of the space by way of the stairwells, while soft patches can accommodate large equipment where necessary.

The design also includes a compartment for the stowage of a Rigid Bottom Inflatable (RIB) tender as well as any associated gear and deck gear, such as mooring fenders, which is not intended to be accessed at any time other than when the gear inside is needed (such as prior to berthing). This compartment can be reached by way of a hatch in the transom, from which the RIB is launched, or by way of a watertight hatch located in the sole of the wheelhouse. This space also contains the vessel’s propane tanks, and is ventilated by two dorade-type vents aft of the wheelhouse.

The accommodation spaces, shown in Figure 12, were very successfully arranged in this design. The accommodations make efficient use of the transverse and vertical space afforded by this vessel’s hull form and size, and, as a result, the accommodation spaces comparable to that of a spacious boat half as long as this design or more, are fit into roughly one-third of the subject design’s length. The accommodation space includes two staterooms aft abutting the aft watertight bulkhead toward the steering gear compartment. Each stateroom can sleep up to two people; one is a master stateroom with a longitudinally oriented queen-size bunk, and the other is a crew stateroom opposite the master with two longitudinal twin-size bunks in case there are no two among the crew that would share a bunk. All bunks are equipped with lee-cloths for underway use while the vessel is heeled so that the bunks can be safely used.

Figure 12: Accommodation spaces plan view

In the vicinity of these staterooms is a common passageway area, which leads aft to access the steering gear room, and athwartships to the common head/shower and companionway to the pilothouse to starboard or to the engine room stair and a pantry space to port. This space, which makes up the central part of the accommodation block, also contains a diesel heater at the

26

forward end of the passageway on the centerline, which is intended to provide heat for the entire accommodation space while the vessel is operating in cooler climates. While this system may not be sufficient for polar operation, it will be adequate at the moderate climates at which the business plan operates.

Forward of the accommodation spaces and down a stairwell lies the engine room, which contains the bulk of the design’s mechanical components. Above this is the pilothouse, which houses the galley and mess space along with the compartments used for refrigeration and freezing. This space also contains a significant amount of pantry-style food provision stowage to ensure the vessel’s capability to support the crew for prolonged periods away from bulk sources of food. This is estimated to provide food for time on the order of double the anticipated trip time of three-and-a-half months for the crew. To port and aft in the pilothouse is the companionway to the wheelhouse, which is considered a living space since it is intended to be occupied at all times during the underway operation of the vessel.

As such, the wheelhouse has been equipped with a set of seats forward, which double as an athwartships pilot berth, a comfortable captain’s chair. A series of large Lexan windows provide ventilation. The space also houses the navigation equipment, with the computerized equipment mounted on the wheel pedestal, and the paper charts and plotting tools stored in and used on the chart table in the aft section of the space. Opposite the chart table is the communication station, which contains the VHF, Single Side Band (SSB) and Ham radio equipment along with the weatherfax equipment and any other communications equipment deemed necessary by the operator. Email communications will be managed with a Pactor-type SSB/Ham modem. While more reliable satellite communications and email would be desirable for the business operations, the added cost for satellite subscriptions and equipment was deemed not worth whatever financial gain they could facilitate.

The inclination to optimize the design for the sailing condition led to an interesting configuration of the auxiliary propulsion engine and propeller shafting. A common problem exists in many sailing yacht designs in which a propeller must be placed somewhere on the submerged portion of the hull for the conditions that require its use, while it will cause significant drag in the sailing condition, whether locked or freewheeling.

The subject design attempted to deal with this issue by a somewhat unconventional method. In order to avoid the added cost or added complication of a large folding or controllable-pitch propeller (CPP), the propeller was placed as close to the trailing edge of the keel as possible in order to mask the profile of the propeller, shaft and struts in the keel wake disturbance. This placement effectively reduces the propeller’s negative effect on the yacht’s sailing performance. To achieve this end, the engine was oriented such that the flywheel faced forward and led to a marine gear of the “vee” type configuration. This configuration can be seen in the profile view of the General Arrangement and below in Figure 13. The propeller was then placed as far forward as possible within the constraints of a 14° angle between the two shafts (ZF Gears), the propeller diameter, and a separation between the propeller blade tips and the hull of 10% of the propeller diameter.

27

Figure 13: Propeller shaft “vee” configuration

Ultimately, because of the propeller speed and gear problems described in the next section, this design placed the propeller farther aft than was desired. Because of this, further design iterations would select a smaller diameter propeller over a propeller of a less aggressive pitch angle, both because it would alleviate these problems and because it would be more likely to be an optimal design rather than a re-pitched propeller of otherwise similar character. With a smaller diameter propeller, the goal of masking the profile in the keel’s wake would be better achieved.

The arrangement consists of five watertight subdivisions, and the largest compartments—the cargo hold, accommodation block, and forecastle—are at least partially protected from puncture by integral double-bottom tanks. The engine space, which lies within the accommodation block, is the only space among these compartments not protected from below by a double-bottom, but it is protected by the fixed keel. In all, this arrangement, which includes a collision bulkhead 3 m aft of the forward perpendicular, enhances the vessel’s safety should a collision or grounding occur.

PROPELLER AND ENGINE The propeller and engine were selected by the determination of a desired speed under

power and a calculation of the necessary equipment to drive the yacht in the fully loaded condition. This speed was determined to be 9.0 knots, because at this speed, the vessel can operate reasonably on schedule when the engine is needed in times of too little wind to power the boat by sail. The calculations performed to the select these components can be found in Appendix H.

The process of selecting a propulsor and power plant began with a resistance analysis of the hull in the under-power configuration, which stipulated the centerboard be in the retracted position. This was performed in Hullspeed, which is a component of the Maxsurf suite. The results from this program, which can also be found in Appendix H, yielded the effective power (EkW) required to drive the vessel at a given speed. The effective power curves for each different regression method used by Hullspeed can be seen below in Figure 14.

Aspeeds becorrelatewith littlyacht hulbased ondiffered Ultimateto be thecondition

TcomputerThe first this time

Fdesign spof low psuch as dinitially dit was pr(the propavailablebe logicatrailing eimmersin

5

10

15

20

25

30Re

quired

 EkW

 [kW]

Figur

As can be seelow 10 knod well. Thele emphasis ll series. Th

n the vessels by roughlyly, the value

e most compn was determ

The propellerr programs dof these wato retrieve vrom this poipeed with a ropeller rev

during manedesigned operoper to selepeller selectee reduction gal to decreasedge of the kng the prope

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

re 14: Requi

een above inots. It is inteese were theon transom

hese methodwhose data

y 3%, whilee supplied bypatible methomined to be 7r designed wdesigned by s the same Nvalues for thint, a standarmaximum oolution spee

euvering situerates at a sp

ect a differened has a diamgears for the e the propel

keel, reducinller in the w

2

HoltropVan OortmeDelft I, IIDelft IIIFung

ired EkW w

n Figure 14, resting to no

e van Oortmm planing ands required t

comprise the another try van Oortmod for the p71.6 kW. was a simple

Professor JNSMB Regree Taylor ward B-Series

of 5% back ced and largeuations. Ultipeed too lownt propeller meter of 1.24power level

ller diameterng its negativwake disturba

4

Sp

eersen

28

with vessel s

most of theote that the m

meersen methd semi-planthe least extrhe regressionrawler meth

meersen’s meproject. The

e B-Series pacques Hadlession progr

ake fraction, propeller wacavitation. Ae blade area imately, it w

w to be effecof either a l4 m) in ordel necessary fr, because thve impact onance of the fi

6

peed [knots]

peed by sev

e methods cmethods besthod, which ining hulls, anrapolation anns underlyin

hod (Holtropethod was see required po

propeller desler and adapram used in tthrust deducas sized and A large diamto provide

was determintively pairedless aggressier to fit withifor this projehis could brinn the sailing ixed keel.

8

veral method

correlated qut suited for ths based on tnd the Delftnd also mad

ng the methop) differed elected becauower for the

signed with pted for Excethe businessction, and ropitched to b

meter was segreater thru

ned that, in fd with the enive pitch or in the range

ect. As notedng the propeperformance

10

ds

uite well forhe subject dtrawlers and

ft I and II sade the most sods. Their vby roughly use it was jue 9 knot pow

the assistanel by Peter Bs analysis, thtative efficie

be operated aelected in intst at low sp

fact, the propngine selectesmaller diamof commerc

d above, it weller closer te of the vess

12

r boat design d tugs ailing sense

values 8%.

udged wered

nce of Bryn. hough ency. at the terest

peeds, peller ed, so meter cially

would to the sel by

29

As can be seen in the calculations in Appendix H, the engine was selected, based on the power required by the propeller plus a sea and weather margin of 15%. These calculations yielded an engine with a brake power of at minimum 176 rated kW.

In the consideration of engines to be selected, the use of diesel-and-electric hybrid systems was considered and researched to remain consistent with the use of renewable energy and reduction of fuel consumption in the design. It was found that Steyr, a German engine manufacturer, produces hybrid marine engines, but at a power range far below that required by this project. The use of a custom system was considered, but quickly ruled out on the grounds that capital cost, increased battery bank size, and system complication paired with under qualified operators would greatly outweigh any benefit the system might provide. As a result, it was decided to purchase the necessary generator capacity and auxiliary propulsion from a well-established and reputable company known for its reliability and effectiveness in the commercial and pleasure sectors of the marine industry. The company selected as the power provider for this design is Northern Lights/Lugger. This uniformity in the equipment allows for the best potential for interchangeability of spare parts and consolidation of maintenance organization and manufacturer assistance with equipment.

The engine selected for this design is the Lugger L1066A High Output model with a rated BkW of 186.4 kW at 2400 RPM. The engine specifications can be found in Appendix N.

ELECTRICAL AND ENERGY ANALYSIS 

Electrical System The electrical load analysis for the design, along with the one-line diagram, can be found

in Appendix J. This vessel’s electrical system has been subdivided into two basic categories. These are loads serviced by the vessel’s battery banks and those serviced by the vessel’s diesel generator sets (gensets). The battery banks are sized to provide the electrical loads in the design with power during a twenty-hour period during each day, while the gensets provide the battery charger and the electrical loads in the design with power during the remaining total of four hours during the day in the design condition. The system is further broken down into the loads serviced by each power supplier, which can be defined as the alternating-current (AC) system and the direct-current (DC) system.

When the gensets are not running, the AC system is powered by the vessel’s inverter, which is powered by the 12V DC battery bank. The DC system, which is composed of a 12 V and a 24 V system, is powered by battery banks made up of groups of 6 V deep-cycle batteries. The 12 V system uses series-connected pairs of batteries, while the 24 V system uses groups of four batteries in series. The AC system is powered directly by the generators while they are running, while all DC loads are still powered by their respective battery banks. Simultaneously, these banks are charged by the vessel’s battery charging system—also powered by the generators.

The three different electrical systems were installed on the vessel to accommodate the multiple different kinds of loads the vessel needs to accommodate in order to perform its various functions. The 12 V DC system has been placed to accommodate part of the hotel loads, including LED lighting, potable water pressure, and the sewage treatment system, in addition to many of the operational and navigational loads, such as the spreader (deck) lights, navigational lights, radar, navigation computer equipment, communications, and instruments. This type of electrical system is common to most yachts; consequently, equipment for installation in the 12 V system will be readily available for the vessel.

30

The 24 V DC system is installed to accommodate various DC motor loads. While many of these loads could have been incorporated into the 12 V DC system, the nature of the other loads on the 12 V DC bus (most importantly computer equipment, the inverter and the associated AC loads) mandated a separate battery system to avoid subjecting these sensitive loads to the system voltage drops associated with the starting of a DC motor. Because the motor loads in the design have relatively high power requirements, the use of a higher voltage system (24 V) made logical sense to minimize line current and transfer cable diameter. The 24 V system accommodates the steering and autopilot hydraulic pump motors, sailing winches, furling motors, the centerboard lift motor, and the water ballast pump motor.

The 120 V AC system powers loads typically found in a standard household. These include lighting, the ship computer, galley appliances (microwave oven, dishwasher, and a refrigeration system), a washing machine, a 24 gallon-per-hour reverse-osmosis fresh water maker, and an array of United States standard electrical outlets to power typical electrical appliances.

The design load cases for the vessel were those characterized as “underway.” This is because the navigational, sailing, steering and other underway loads are additive to the normal hotel and vessel management loads constantly serviced; therefore, the greatest load demands will be experienced when the vessel is underway. Other loads, such as the cargo hoists, will only be powered by the generators; consequently, they only came under consideration during the sizing of each genset in the design process.

As can be seen in Appendix J, the electrical load cases considered for design were the “Normal Underway” system loads and the “Charging Underway” system loads, each for the 12 V DC, 24 V DC, and 120 V AC systems. The “Normal Underway” case corresponds to the twenty-hour period during each day in which the vessel’s electrical needs must be met by the battery banks, and the latter corresponds to the four-hour charging period. The 12 V and 24 V battery banks were sized based on the daily required power capacity for each system for the “Normal” condition. It is important to note that the 12 V daily loads include the loads of the 120 V AC system powered by way of the inverter. The electrical system was designed so that the battery banks are never expended more than 50% of their total capacity because this significantly increases the useful life of these deep-cycle batteries.

The 6 V batteries selected for use in the design are the J305H-AC model, manufactured by Trojan Batteries, and have a 6 V power capacity of 360 amp-hours when discharged over a twenty-hour period. Thus, each series-connected pair of batteries has a capacity of 360 amp-hours at 12 V. For the requirements calculated in this design, 11 pairs of batteries are required such that the battery bank meets the 50% expenditure requirement described above. The 24 V system requires 5 groups of 4 series-connected batteries in order to meet this requirement, and, in total, this requires 42 battery units for the design. These can be found in the general arrangement drawings in Appendix G in the vessel’s engine room layout.

The battery charging system requires a total of 15 kW of generating power in order to charge the batteries in a four-hour period each day. In order to provide versatility to the operator in terms of power generation, the design has been equipped with two gensets, both of which manufactured by Northern Lights/Lugger. These are the M673L3 (6 kW) and the M773LW3 (9 kW) models and may be run independently or in parallel. Their specification sheets may be found in Appendix N. When desired by the operator, one or the other of the gensets can be operated at a given time, such as when the cargo handling system is in use. In this case, the operator can choose to provide the roughly 7 kW required by the two cargo hoists with the 9 kW

31

genset, which serves to benefit the design by both reducing fuel consumed when shore power is not available, and by operating the genset at closer to the design working load rather than at a small percentage of the designed 9 kW, which improves the longevity of the genset and reduces maintenance costs.

Energy Analysis A comparison of energy consumption, between the vessel designed in this document and

a vessel of similar size and cargo capacity (also operating at a similar average speed of 9 knots, powered by the same diesel engine as this design, but fully dependent on diesel power for propulsion rather than using sails) was conducted in this project. Assuming that the same electrical loads were required by the equivalent motor vessel, the following table of operating data was compiled.

Table 1: Yearly fuel consumption comparison

Vessel Wolczko 30 Eq. Motor Vessel Fuel Consumption, Main Engine [L/hr] 35.0 35.0 

Fuel Consumption, Gensets [L/hr] 5.72 5.72 Assumed yearly Engine Hours [hr] 300 6300 

Yearly Generator Hours [hr] 1400 1400 Total Yearly M/E Consumption [L] 10500 220500 Total Yearly DG Consumption [L] 8008 8008 

Total Yearly Consumption [L] 18508 228508 

As can be seen in this table, the use of wind power for the propulsion of this vessel over the sole use of diesel power provides a significant savings in fuel for the sailing vessel indicative of a financial advantage as well as a clear benefit regarding the design’s environmental impact. To this end, it is important to note that the design has been outfitted with a wind generator, manufactured by AirMarine®, located on the main mast as well as 12 m2 of current off-the-shelf solar panels, which are fitted atop the wheelhouse.

In typical tropical conditions, which assume a seven-hour period of sun exposing the solar cells coupled with 15 knots of wind, these two renewable energy sources provide a combined capacity of 1,196 amp-hours of electricity at 12 V DC, which provide the system power by either supplying loads on the 12 V DC bus or by charging the battery bank. This capability is managed by an automatic Electrical Management System (EMS), which ensures that current does not flow within the system in any potentially damaging path for any of the connected equipment.

HULL AND DECK SCANTLINGS The hull and deck scantlings for this design were determined according to the ABS

Aluminum Vessel Rules. These rules, while not specific to sailing craft, are a good starting place for structural design and are considered adequate for the determination of the general character of the vessel’s structure at this phase of design. The Structural Midship Section, along with the associated ABS calculations can be found in Appendix I.

32

SYSTEMS DESIGN The various systems found aboard this design have been specified to varying degrees of

detail, depending on their importance and their impact on the overall design. The following sections detail those not already described in this report.

SAILING SYSTEMS 

Sail Handling This vessel has sails that are particularly large, and therefore will require powered

winches to perform at least the larger functions of sail handling underway. This is largely with reference to the foresail, which is considered too large to be handled by the conventional hand winch configuration standard to most smaller sailing vessels. In the case of the full genoa, it was calculated (as can be seen in the calculations in Appendix F) that in 25 knots of breeze, the jib sheet would experience roughly 6 t of tension force. After a consultation with specialists at Harken®, it was determined that the best method for handling this genoa is a hydraulic captive reel winch powered by a 24 V DC hydraulic power pack dedicated to the port and starboard jib winches. These winches have a 6,000 kgf pull capacity with an 8,000 kgf hold capacity. Using these winches, the vessel will be able to operate under full sail at up to 25 knots of wind, at which point sail must be shortened.

The fore main and main sails are rigged on booms, and thus can be sheeted using a block-and-tackle system. In this design, a 4:1 tackle ratio was selected for these two sheeting systems; this system greatly reduces the amount of winch power required to sheet the sail. As a result, each sail requires a winch power ratio value of at least 30:1, as can be seen in the sail calculations. Therefore, a standard 24 V DC 35:1 or greater power ratio winch was selected to manage the sheets and halyards—all of which have a 2:1 tackle ratio. These standard yacht winches are powered by electric motor (foot switch actuated) or used with a conventional winch handle when desired, which disengages the electrical components. Therefore, the vessel can be sailed free of drain on the electrical system at any time except when trimming the genoa, which must draw on the 24 V DC system.

Centerboard The centerboard on this vessel is the only major hull component constructed of steel

instead of aluminum. This is largely to achieve the goal of placing as much weight as low as possible while avoiding the actual placement of ballast material (such as lead) in the centerboard itself. The construction of the centerboard structure in plain steel and with an overly hefty structure was determined to be the most cost effective way to achieve the goal of contributing to a low vessel CG with the centerboard while minimizing the amount of load to be handled by the centerboard lifting system.

As can be seen in the sketch, the centerboard is attached to the fixed keel/trunk with the use of a large steel pin at the upper leading edge of the centerboard foil. This pin will effectively bear the entire load on the centerboard along with the flattened trapezoidal section at the top of the foil. This will be accomplished by the use of a sturdy bolted cradle for the pin (to allow for installation and removal) along with a pair of flat vertical pads for the trapezoidal section of the board to exert load upon. The vertical pads will be cushioned with Teflon or a similar material to provide the board with the ability to deploy while loaded and to prevent jamming or damage to the hoist system during such an operation. These pads will also aid in the prevention of galvanic action between the centerboard and hull materials.

33

The hoist system is composed of a reversible DC electric motor on the 24 V system, mounted on the deck of the cargo hold forward of the trunk, and geared to a segregated wire spool mounted to the interior structure of the trunk and sealed with waterproof shaft bearings. Each side of the wire spool will be dedicated to one of two 5:1 ratio block-and-tackle systems that serve to either raise or lower the centerboard. A clamp-type brake on the gear shaft will serve to hold the board in the desired position when raising or lowering is complete, and all of these functions will be operable from a remote control panel in the wheelhouse and a local panel in the cargo hold, accessible from the watertight hatch from the forecastle. The hoist system can be seen below in Figure 15.

Figure 15: Centerboard lifting system

A sizing calculation, which can be found in Appendix E, led to the selection of a hoist capable of raising the centerboard in less than 3 minutes. As can be seen in this calculation, a candidate hoist motor would be required to lift up to 1.5 t of load for a total of 12 m of cable over the course of these three minutes. A motor manufactured by Detroit Hoist Products has a 3.73 kW power requirement and can complete the task in slightly less than two minutes.

AUXILIARY PROPULSION AND MANEUVERING SYSTEMS 

Bow Thruster The bow thruster used in this project was determined to be similar to that specified by

Florida Bow Thrusters as the BOW 28548. This thruster was sized using a length-based selection chart for vessels up to 110 feet in length (33.5 m) and assumed to manage motor yachts (which have more wind profile area to control than this design), and thus deemed adequate for this design. The thruster provides 628 lbf (2.8 kN) of force transverse to the bow at a location less than 3 m aft of frame 0 by way of a reversible 24 V DC electric motor rated at 16 kW and powered by the main engine alternator in maneuvering situations.

This thruster is intended to compensate for any lack of maneuverability inherent in the design of the hull form, steering system, and fixed directional thrust system of auxiliary propulsion in the design. In theory, it will significantly mitigate the technical risks posed by the prospect of maneuvering this vessel in small areas with little or no capability for repair and in conditions where factors such as current and wind could make safe moorage or anchoring exceedingly difficult.

34

Steering The steering of the vessel will be accomplished by an electro-hydraulic system designed

and supplied by Wil Hamm Autopilots. The system makes use of four 24 V DC reversible hydraulic pumps with motors of 375 W capacity each. These motors are actuated by either the automatic control system or by signals from the ship’s wheel in the wheelhouse. The motors supply hydraulic fluid to two separate hydraulic rams that can individually or dually control the angle of both rudders, which are kept in sync by their tiller arms and a tie rod connecting them. The hydraulic rams are mounted to a foundation based on a central keel girder and transmit load directly to the tie rod.

The risk of electrical failure in the hydraulic system is mitigated by a manual pump that can be clutched to the ship’s wheel, while ultimate hydraulic system failure is mitigated by a block-and-tackle system rigged to each of the outboard ends of the steering gear room. Both of these emergency systems will provide the vessel with adequately effective steering in the event of a major control malfunction and will be suitable to sail to a port where repairs can be enacted.

Diesel Fuel This vessel has two primary diesel fuel tanks located beneath the deck of the cargo hold,

as can be seen in the general arrangement in Appendix G. These tanks hold a total of approximately 7 t of diesel fuel when filled, and are supplemented by a day tank aft of the engine room that holds an additional 1.4 t of diesel fuel. This creates a total capacity of approximately 10,000 L. According to the endurance fuel calculation shown in Appendix H, this amount of fuel capacity can propel the vessel over a distance of roughly 2,500 NM at the design speed of 9 knots while using the two gensets for a total of 4 hours per day (which is the design condition for the generators).

In addition to this capacity, there is a small 15 L tank stored on the accommodation bulkhead above the Dickinson diesel heater to serve as a gravity-feed day tank for the heater. Since this design is intended to be operated primarily by sail and only to use auxiliary power when it is necessary to do so, this fuel capacity is conservative and adequate to ensure that refueling need happen only on a very infrequent basis. Because of this, the decision of when and where to purchase fuel can be based on locations where it is least expensive and is known to be free of contaminants, as well as on other factors that promote the business operation’s ability to reduce costs.

AUXILIARY SYSTEMS 

Cargo Handling The handling of cargo will be performed by this vessel in the traditional two-crane style

known as the “Burton and fall” method. In this method, the fore main boom will serve as the primary cargo hold crane, positioned above the cargo hatch in use at a given time, while the crane boom mounted on the forward side of the main mast will serve as the primary dock crane, positioned out above the dock on a sharp angle with the vessel centerline. By this method, the loading operator will be able to use a single hoist point (in the form of a hook, sling, net, or other loading implement depending on the cargo type) attached to both crane booms. The cargo handling method is shown below in Figure 16.

Inverticallylifted to swhich efvessel) anthe oppos

Ta design crane boosystem tocrane to Ultimateon the m

Ccargo hoalso beencargo hotransportthat this change wtrip will acclimate

Figu

n the case oy from the hsufficient heffectively swnd effectivesite will occ

This system wwith only o

oms that muo control the

be moved ly, the amouain mast is s

Cargo is seculd in order tn determinedold atmosphted by contavessel woul

with the vessbe no more ed), and the

Hold C

ure 16: Burt

of unloadinghold, while theight, the aft wings the loly keeps it cur. will greatly one crane byust be execute boom posi

only a fewunt of weighsoundly justiured during to prevent thd that, apartere for any

ainer at highld do well tosel’s latitudethan that atrisk of prob

Crane

ton and fall

g, the operahe main ma(main mast)

oad outboardclear of the s

increase they way of sigted by the opition for eacw times if ht and wind rified.

transit withhe shifting oft from keepi

reason. Bher speeds tho allow the e. The humt which the cblems—such

35

l cargo hand

ator will usest crane line) crane will d over the dsidestays and

e loading andgnificantly rperator. Thih crane as wat all moreresistance in

h tie-downs f cargo whiling the cargecause mos

han this vesambient tem

midity that thcargo was lo

h as cracking

Cargo

dling metho

e the fore me remains slatake up slac

dock or quad other riggin

d unloading reducing theis is done bo

well as a mee than oncencrease aloft

to pad eyele the vessel

go dry, it is nst of these wsel would b

mperature inhe wood migoaded (and tg in the carg

Hold

Dock

od plan view

main boom ack. Once tck as the forway (or the seng. In the lo

efficiency oe amount of oth by allowethodology the per loadint due to the e

s welded tol is heeled ornot necessarwood produe able to m

n the cargo hght be exposto which it w

go—associat

Crane

w

to lift the cthe load has ward crane eecondary loaoading cond

of the vesself control ovewing for a sim

hat requires ng or unloaextra crane b

o the deck or pitching. Iry to manag

ucts are currmanage, it fol

hold to gradsed to durinwould alreaded with a su

cargo been

eases, ading

dition,

l over er the mpler

each ading. boom

of the It has

ge the rently llows

dually ng the dy be udden

36

exposure to radically different humidity after travel in a controlled environment invalidated the idea of using any such system at all.

As a result, the cargo management system relies on the transportation of cargo that is preferably already milled to lumber form of at least a rough cut, and necessarily will be fumigated and/or treated such that importation into restricted countries like Australia, New Zealand, or the United States will be possible. The vessel’s cargo hold will thus be ventilated and dry, which is promoted by the hatch configuration selected. This configuration utilizes two separate hatches, with each supported on an individual coaming structure that serves to improve the ability of the hatch gaskets to seal while also improving the section modulus of the hull section in way of the cargo hatches. A large single hatch opening covered by either one exceedingly heavy hatch or by two or three interconnecting hatches makes less structural sense and could lead to challenges in preventing the intrusion of water into the hold. The selected system will be capable of keeping the hold dry, which is very important for most any cargo that could be carried by this design.

Water Ballast The vessel’s water ballast system is quite extensive in order to ensure the operability of

the vessel in every loading condition. The arrangement of the tanks employed in this system can be found in the General Arrangement in Appendix G. There are 23 seawater ballast tanks in total, and each is filled by the electric centrifugal pump, which has been sized by calculation (which can be seen in Appendix M). It is intended that the large majority of the ballast tanks be filled near port while the engine may still be running or with a genset charging the batteries running the pump. The pump may then be used on the 24 V DC system on a limited basis to provide righting ballast during sailing operations to maintain the highest possible speed. Harbor water ballast then may be gradually exchanged for open seawater (on a limited basis) as well to prevent transfer of local ballast water from port to port—a common practice followed in shipping today.

The water ballast system uses the same pump to fill, transfer, and empty the seawater ballast by way of various manifolds and solenoid valves. All are controlled by a panel in the wheelhouse, so that effectively any tank may be filled, transferred to or from, or emptied to sea by the operator in the wheelhouse. This is the optimal way to manage the water ballast system for a small crew as it helps to centralize the control of the vessel’s systems and requires as little effort to perform as possible. The one- or two-person watch in the wheelhouse can therefore concentrate on other tasks, such as navigation.

The seawater ballast pump is also attached to the bilge water system and can aid in the pumping of bilge water overboard if necessary in any kind of emergency situation.

Bilge Water System This vessel is equipped with a bilge water system that draws water from the lowest sump

in each watertight subdivision in the hull and pumps it overboard. All engines in the engine room are equipped with individual oil drip pans isolated from these bilge water sump areas to avoid the pumping of any oil or oily water overboard. The operator must be cautious, however, and ensure that if any oil appears in the bilge sump, it will be removed before the bilge system is activated.

The bilge system is activated by float switches in each of the sumps, which activate the self-priming bilge pump, open a solenoid valve for that sump, and alert the operator in the wheelhouse. When the bilge water has been fully evacuated, or the system’s time lag has been

37

expended, the float switch deactivates and the system returns to standby. The system can also be activated by a manual override, by which the operator simply turns on the pump and opens a particular solenoid valve for a desired sump (from a panel in the wheelhouse) if a float switch or other system component begins to malfunction. All valves can also be actuated manually if necessary.

Refrigeration The vessel’s refrigeration system is not particularly robust in refrigeration capacity, but

rather more focused on efficiency in that it makes use of a significant amount of available volume in the starboard side of the pilothouse, below the weather deck, to install a large amount of insulation. This yields a volume of reasonable size for the refrigerator (a total of 1 m3 including insulation space) along with a large amount of freezer space (a total of 4 m3 including insulation space) for the intended crew of three people. Such a system is fully compatible with the design theme of a high degree of efficiency for the energy consumed by the design, and could even present an opportunity for increased profits from catching and freezing pelagic fish (such as tuna or mahimahi) to be stowed in the large freezer to be sold in the next port-of-call.

Navigation The design is equipped with navigational equipment to allow for safe passage of the

vessel in any of the intended regions of travel: temperate and tropical climates and the vicinity of the associated continental and island land masses. Primary navigation will be conducted using a combined navigation system, such as those supplied by Raymarine, and including at least the following components:

• GPS Transceiver • Chart Plotter • Radar • AIS Transceiver • Autopilot Interface • Depth Sounder During the normal operation of the vessel, this equipment will ensure that the vessel is on

course, that the operators are aware of their surroundings in terms of offshore contacts and land masses, and that other vessels in the vicinity will be aware of its presence. Additionally, the vessel will be capable of traversing a course of waypoints virtually autonomously aside from manual control of sails. A digital log will also be kept on the ship’s computer along with alternate navigation software.

In addition to this equipment, more traditional methods of navigation will also be in use aboard the vessel. The large chart table to port in the aft area of the wheelhouse is intended to store charts to harbor scale for all ports of call traveled to. The table top will allow for adequate space to examine and plot on these charts and parallel the digital navigation process on paper. The table will also provide storage for a sextant and other navigation instruments.

Communications This design is equipped with a standard complement of offshore communications

equipment. In addition to the yachting-standard short-range radio communications available using VHF radios, the design is equipped with a combination Single-Side Band (SSB) and Amateur (Ham) radio set. This long-range radio is theoretically capable of communication with any point on the planet and can facilitate communication functions including voice, weather fax,

38

ship-to-shore telephone, text-based email, and internet access either very inexpensively or free of charge. This radio, coupled with the ship’s computer and other hardware, will provide the necessary communications with the mainland to allow for business interaction for management purposes and personal interaction for the crew without incurring the expenses associated with satellite communications. It will also allow for vital communication with other vessels and mainland stations of interest to sailing vessels at sea for reasons of safety, logistical networking, and “socializing” while at sea, which is a helpful morale boost.

This equipment—namely the VHF—will also serve to aid in short-range communication between the design vessel and passers-by, as well as in communication near land for various reasons. The equipment on the whole also constitutes a significant reduction in the risks presented by the fact that the vessel primarily operates in desolate island locations and the middle of the ocean by linking the vessel and the crew to the rest of the world. This reduction of risk most importantly refers to surrounding vessels and rescue services that might be able to render help in a time of need, as well as weather services that are crucial to keeping the vessel operating in safe conditions at all times, and especially during hurricane season.

Ground Tackle The ground tackle for this design was sized according to the ABS Aluminum Vessel

Rules. According to these calculations, the vessel is equipped with two 300 kg anchors and a total of 220 m of high-strength steel chain. These anchors are located at the bow and stern rollers, and each is equipped with a Lofranz 24 V DC windlass which can be powered by the 24 V battery bank or by the main engine alternator. The forward anchor is attached to 120 m of chain, and the aft anchor has 100 m. Both the bow and stern have chain lockers to house these lengths integral to the hull. This length of chain for the forward anchor permits safe anchorage in water as deep as 24 m with the rule of thumb allowance of a 5:1 ratio between anchor chain length and depth. Anchoring can be performed in deeper water than this with less than ideal assurance of anchor holding, but such situations will be rare to non-existent in the desired area of operation. The anchor rode can be supplemented with extra line if necessary for a particularly deep anchorage. The stern anchor is useful for mooring bow-to at a quay or in tight anchoring situations where the full freedom of swing may not be desirable.

In addition to the ground tackle described above, the forward anchoring gear is supplemented with a large parachute-type storm drogue to assist in keeping the vessel properly positioned during a heaving-to operation in extreme weather conditions. This piece of emergency equipment can be deployed when it is imperative to keep the bow pointed into the direction of the wind and oncoming waves to minimize danger to the vessel and crew.

The strategic positioning of these two anchors aboard the vessel, along with the storm drogue, serves to provide the vessel and crew with a degree of safety and security at sea and near to land imperative for the proper operation of this yacht.

Potable Water The vessel’s potable water is stored in two tanks aft of the fuel tanks below the cargo

hold. Together, these hold approximately 1.4 t of fresh water, which is conservatively large for a three-person crew. Assuming that each person consumes as much as 80 L of water per day, this will provide water for roughly 6 days. This is roughly ¼ the amount estimated by the United States Geological Survey consumed by each US citizen on average (USGS). The system is also equipped with a reverse-osmosis seawater purifier that produces 91 L/hour at optimum output,

39

and this can be run while the gensets are charging the batteries to maintain a full level in the fresh water tanks for any kind of prolonged offshore passage.

The system supplies water, by way of a small electric pump manufactured by Whale Pumps, to the galley sink, head sink, and the shower stall in the head. Hot water is supplied through an on-demand heater in the engine room powered by propane gas. In actuality, the water consumption of each person could be less than 80 L, if the crew conserves, and this system would then last much longer than a week even while not replenished with the reverse-osmosis machine. While this large water capacity is prudent at sea, it is also an important strength in the design for use berthed in ports where the use of shore water may not be desirable. In these cases—especially when they are anticipated—the water purifier can be run to top off the tanks before landfall with the particulate-free open seawater, and then the tanks can supply the necessary water while in the given port, reducing the risk of health issues due to contaminated water. This is a reasonable way to remain consistent with the design theme of reduction of risk, design conservatism, and comfort.

Gray Water In this design, gray water is managed by the operator. All gray water is led directly

overboard from the drain, as is common on many smaller yachts. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the operator to ensure that no local regulations are being broken by dumping gray water, and it is the operator’s responsibility to ensure that the products that end up discharged, such as soaps and cleaning products, are not harmful to the environment. Dumping regulations imposed by the United States and New Zealand governments, which are likely to be the two most stringent encountered, will be posted near all relevant drains.

Black Water Black water is dealt with by the use of a sewage holding tank located below the

accommodation area aft of the engine room. This tank is large and can accommodate roughly 2250 L of sewage (which is mostly seawater from the toilets) when full. At this point, the use of the sewage treatment plant becomes necessary. It is intended that the large holding tank manages the sewage produced during any prolonged stay in a port without pump-out capabilities such that a potentially illegal discharge of treated sewage not become necessary in a harbor. The sewage treatment plant can then be run once the vessel is underway and can gradually treat and empty the contents of the sewage holding tank. This is another instance of large capacity allowing for flexibility in operation in the design.

Liquefied Propane Gas The vessel uses Liquefied Propane Gas (LPG) both to power the cooking surfaces on the

stove and in the oven and to heat fresh water in the on-demand water heater. Both of these elements run off system pressure in the line that is present whenever the LPG circuit on the general breaker board is engaged, activating a solenoid valve on the cylinders stored in the tender compartment below the aft deck. When this circuit is opened, the solenoid valve shuts and system pressure is no longer supplied, isolating all of the propane in the system into the tender compartment.

LPG is commonly used aboard yachts and is readily available most anywhere this vessel might travel, while it is also safe and easily managed by the simple system described above. Because of these facts, and to the ability of such a system to meet the basic needs of this design, it was determined that the use of LPG is prudent and logical.

40

HVAC The use of any active HVAC elements in the design is limited. The ventilation of the

accommodation spaces and forward work space in the forecastle is achieved by way of the deck hatches, portholes, and dorade-style vents. The goal of design simplicity was a priority in the decision to rely upon dorade-type vents, which use wind to ventilate the below spaces. Consistent with this thought, the design also does not have any air conditioning system, since the cooling effect of moving air was determined to be adequate to cool the vessel’s interior. This design theme led to a maximization of ports and hatches in the deck and side structure that can be opened to allow the passage of breeze through the interior when desired.

When the vessel travels to the temperate and cooler climates during the winter months, it relies upon the heating capability of a Dickinson Antarctic model diesel heater to heat the living quarters from the lower aft accommodation spaces to the pilothouse and wheelhouse. This is achieved by radiation and convection in the accommodation space, radiation and convection through the un-insulated aluminum bulkhead, as well as convection of warm air through the companionway to the pilothouse. The wheelhouse is heated by convection through the deck.

This simple and effective system is well suited for the design because it will provide a comfortable and controlled environment inside the vessel with minimal energy cost and minimal potential for malfunction.

Weight Estimate The lightship weight estimate was performed in spreadsheet form, and the calculation of

the vessel’s lightship mass and center of gravity can be found in Appendix K. Once the weight of the vessel in the lightship condition and the longitudinal weight distribution had been estimated in a spreadsheet, the various load cases for the vessel were determined and solved in Hydromax, which allowed for effectively real-time updating of tank loads and cargo loads. The results of the studies conducted in Hydromax once weights were determined internally by the program can be found in the Hydrostatics and Stability section following this section.

HYDROSTATICS AND STABILITY The unique hull form exhibited in this design has several predictable hydrostatic

characteristics that have been apparent in the design process since before the Dellenbaugh calculation described earlier in the paper. The most obvious of these is the vessel’s large initial stability, which was characterized by the early estimate of heel angle in 15 knots of breeze to only be less than 5°. The hydrostatic properties of the vessel are outlined in Appendix L.

Once the weight estimate for the lightship condition was established and imported into Hydromax, the load conditions for the vessel were determined and the vessel’s stability was analyzed at each load condition to determine whether or not the vessel had an acceptably safe set of stability characteristics. As can be seen in Appendix L, the vessel meets the United States Coast Guard criteria for area under the GZ curve in each of the load conditions determined during the weight estimation phase of the project. In short, while the vessel does not have the same high range of stability that many offshore sailing yachts have, the range of stability is still adequate. The vessel must be heeled significantly past 90° in any loading condition in order to reach the point of vanishing stability. While knockdowns are a possibility and cause for concern, the ability to avoid a knockdown or a roll severe enough to reach the point of vanishing stability is completely real, and lies in the hands and experience of the operator.

41

The hydrostatic and stability analysis has shown that the vessel is safe to operate offshore. If piloted by a prudent skipper and run diligently, the vessel will perform well offshore.

CONCLUSIONS 

DESIGN EVALUATION This project has successfully produced a design for an aluminum sailing yacht capable of

carrying a cargo such as teak or mahogany. In all subject areas possible, the design is intended to be safe, seaworthy, and efficient. The design’s safety and seaworthiness are accentuated by attributes such as the vessel’s stability curves in each loading condition and their surpassing the Coast Guard requirements for stability. These characteristics are also elevated by design elements such as the redundancies in the steering system and the inclusion of a wheelhouse to protect the operator from the elements while piloting the vessel through adverse weather conditions.

The vessel’s efficiency is accented by a great number of design attributes. Key among these is the vessel’s ability to use the wind to power itself through the water and its ability to power some of its own electrical needs with the use of a wind generator and an array of solar panels. Efficiency is also at play in the arrangement of spaces and the multi-functionality of many aspects of the design, such as the sailing boom’s use as a cargo crane.

The vessel has also been designed sufficiently to be effectively operated by a crew of three people. In addition to being an attractive design that appeals to cruising sailors as something that would be desirable to take offshore, the vessel includes all of the required amenities for the vessel to be operated shorthanded. The inclusion of electric and hydraulic winches to control the sails, the centralization of the control systems, such as for the ballast system and centerboard lift system, the use of electric furling for all of the sails, and the logical organization of the layout, among other elements of the design, all contribute to strength in the design. This vessel will be managed effectively in all foreseeable weather conditions, will be easily maneuvered and handled, and will be able to be loaded and unloaded effectively by the small crew of three.

The theme of simplicity in the design, which stems from the three goals of safety, seaworthiness, and efficiency, precluded the use of intricate systems or the use of many systems in the design, because each additional system or component is technically a potential failure point for the design. It is therefore prudent to reduce the number of such elements in the design and to increase the number of redundant uses for a given component or system. While this is efficient practice in the design, it also allows for better standardization of inventory in spare parts and encourages the design to better develop the systems and components that are ultimately used.

Along these lines, the minimalistic approach to cargo handling in the design is a good example of this strategy. The lack of unnecessary equipment for atmospheric control in the cargo hold was a conclusion reached by a logical investigation of the associated implications of such a system, and was fully justified by the design process. Similarly, the suggestion for fire control in the design requirements was largely discounted—aside from the ability to block the cargo hold vents from allowing oxygen into the hold—because there is a negligible risk of fire starting in the hold while the vessel is underway. An integral system in the machinery spaces

42

and galley was also not included, and it was deemed sufficient to use hand-held fire extinguishers instead.

The design has been produced with mitigation of risk in mind, however, and this can be seen in many aspects of the design. The American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) Aluminum Vessel Rules were used primarily wherever possible, such as in the determination of structural elements of the design and sizing of the ground tackle. Bureau Veritas (BV), which classes sailing vessels, was also consulted for some elements of the design of the vessel’s sailing rig such as the spreader arrangement. The adherence to classification society rules was undertaken to ensure that the character of the design is such that it is suitable to be classed by a major classification society, or in other words, that the designed vessel can be operated in the desired conditions with a manageable and safe degree of risk.

Reduction of costs, both capital and operational, was another significant goal of the design. Aside from the obvious use of sail, wind generation, and photovoltaic equipment to reduce the vessel’s need for fuel, many subtle efforts to increase the vessel’s operational efficiency and ease of construction also made significant contributions to this goal. These include elements of the design such as the Burton and fall double-crane loading and unloading method as well as the use of the single diesel heater and with reliance on basic thermodynamics to heat the vessel when necessary. These measures also go as far as the design of hull form, which was produced using effectively developable surfaces while striving to generate a shape capable of efficiently moving through the water and requiring as little driving force to make speed as possible. Such considerations ultimately determine capital cost of the sail complement and auxiliary propulsion engine as well as the recurring costs relating to fuel consumption under power and the wear and tear on the sails.

This design has successfully been developed both to the preliminary level mindful of the requirements set forth at the outset of the project as well as to good design practices. The design promises operation as part of a profitable business venture, and it is one that cruising sailors would find attractive and worth investing in. The design has a good degree of inherent safety, seaworthiness, and efficiency, and in the hands of a diligent operator, the design is capable of providing the ability to transport goods while spending an enjoyable and comfortable experience cruising the world’s oceans. In short, the goals set for the project at this stage have been met, and the design is ready to be continued to greater levels of detail, and ultimately be built and operated.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE WORK There are many paths that future work on this project could follow. There is the obvious

continuation of this design into the detail phase, but there are also other interesting areas for investigation that could expand upon the limits imposed by the scope of this project to add volume to the study of this concept. One of the most interesting fields in which this could be done is within the area of the viability of small-scale shipping ventures operating in the regions studied in this project or in other regions. Such investigations could use the knowledge gained in this project to more accurately determine the expenses that such an operation should expect to cover while expanding on the potential cargoes and thus revenues that could be utilized to generate cash flow for the operation.

Other interesting areas for further investigation include the optimization of different elements of the design. One example of where this could be useful would be the optimization of generator size, battery bank capacity, and electrical loading to minimize the ultimate cost of the vessel’s energy use by accounting for the capital and recurring costs of operating the entire

43

system in the vessel. Another interesting optimization problem involves a detailed study of weather conditions along a certain route and the associated optimization of the amount of time spent sailing, motor-sailing, and under auxiliary power. Such a study would also account for the capital costs (including initial purchase and replacement/overhaul costs) for the sails and engine, as well as for the associated recurring expenses for maintenance and fuel.

It would also be interesting to see work performed in the area of modern development of sailing load-bearing hull forms, such as the one developed in this project. A systematic study in a tow tank or with CFD might well serve to demonstrate the validity of the hull form developed in this project while also providing information to future designs for cargo-carrying sailing vessels to allow for even more efficient and profitable business operations than that described within this report.

44

WORKS CITED Baldwin, Elizabeth. Fijian Forestry Email Correspondence Interview, October

2008. Bureau Veritas. "Rules for Yachts." 2008. Bureau Veritas. 2009

<http://erules.veristar.com/dy/app/bootstrap.html>. Chappelle, Howard Irving. The American Fishing Schooners: 1825 - 1935. New York:

W.W.Norton & Company, Inc., 1973. Dix, Dudley. Dudley Dix Yacht Design. 21 December 2003. 28 May 2008

<http://www.dixdesign.com/hb70.htm>. Escape Artist. Escape Artist - International Yacht Broker. 2008. 28 May 2008

<http://yachtbroker.escapeartist.com/boats/action/view/boat/89/index.html>. Graul, Timothy. "Profile and Midship Section." 50' Ketch for Don Hanson. Sturgeon

Bay, Wisconsin: Timothy Graul Marine Design, (N. d.). Hadler, Dr. J. B. BSERIES.EXE. Glen Cove, 1992. —. NSMBREG.EXE. Glen Cove, 1992. Hamlin, Cyrus. Preliminary Design of Boats and Ships. Centreville: Cornell Maritime

Press, 1989. Larsson, Lars and Rolf Eliasson. Principles of Yacht Design. Camden, Maine:

International Marine, 2007. Marchaj, C.A. Sail Performance: Techniques to Maximize Sail Power. Camden:

International Marine/McGraw-Hill, 2003. Milgram, Jerome. Sail Force Coefficients for Systematic Rig Variations. Technical &

Research. New York: SNAME, 1971. Olmsted, Roger. Scow Schooners of San Francisco Bay. San Francisco: National

Maritime Museum, 1988. Roberts, Jason. Hardwood Importation/Exportation and the US Interview, 14

August 2008. Sanford, Sylvie. French Customs Official Interview, 27 May 2008. Skene, Norman. Elements of Yacht Design. Dobbs Ferry: Sheridan House, 2001.

45

United States Department of Commerce. TradeStats Express - National Trade Data. 2007. 25 May 2008 <http://tse.export.gov/NTDChartDisplay.aspx?UniqueURL=k2mb4me5r1xsjm55g41qv355-2008-5-27-3-52-6&Flow=Import>.

USGS. United States Geological Survey Q&A: Water Use at Home. 2009. 2009

<http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/qahome.html>. Wolczko, Dr. Donald P. Cruising Yacht Owner/Operator Interview, 27 May 2008. ZF Gears. ZF Marine Transmissions. 2009. 2009 <http://www.zf-

marine.com/Transmissions/>.

WORKS CONSULTED Dashew. Offshore Cruising Encyclopedia. Charlotte: Beowulf, 2008. Graul, Timothy. Email Correspondence March - May 2008. Helmore, Phillip J. Update on van Oortmeersen's Resistance Prediction. Conference

Paper. Sydney: University of New South Wales, 2008. John D. Finnerty, Ph.D. Project Financing: Asset-Based Financial Engineering. New

York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1996. Lamb, Thomas. "SNAME Members' Page." 2007. ISWSCYD Competition. 16 April

2008 <http://www.sname.org/standing/education/ISWSCYDC/index.html>. Magrane, Jeffrey S. Preliminary Design of a Multi-Purpose Cargo Vessel for Trade

Between Urban and Underdeveloped Areas. BS Thesis. Glen Cove: Webb Institute of Naval Architecture, 1989.

Miller, Prof. Paul. Email Correspondence March - April 2009. Vigor, John. The Seaworthy Offshore Sailboat. Camden: International Marine, 2001.

46

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDICES 

A

 

APPENDIX A: ISWSCYDC RULES PUBLICATION 

A-1

THE SOCIETY OF NAVAL ARCHITECTS AND MARINE ENGINEERS September 2008

INTERNATIONAL STUDENT WORKBOAT/small craft/YACHT design competition RULES GENERAL Participants must be undergraduate students. They may compete individually or in teams up to four (4) students. Participants must be undergraduate student members enrolled in Naval Architecture, Marine Engineering or Ocean Engineering program at an accredited college/university or in a small craft design school such as the Westlawn Yacht Design or The Landing Schools. Design projects that are developed in response to a formal course requirement are eligible for submission as well as thesis projects. The period of preparation of the design should not be more than two (2) semesters, or twelve (10) months maximum. The design must be the original work of the students and cannot be based on any funded research work within the school in which any of the students on the design team participated, nor can any part of the design effort be part of, or paid for, by funded research. More than one design may be submitted from a school but an individual student may only participate in one design entry. Students intending to enter the competition are urged to submit an Entry Form (copy attached) before starting work on the design. Early receipt of this form enables the competition sponsors to communicate with the students regarding any needed changes requirements. The design team (individual) must submit design requirements document for the product in mind, preferably at the same time as submitting the Entry Form. Again this allows feedback from the competition sponsors. The product design subject must be a marine product ranging from workboats to sailing and luxury motor yachts. The length overall should be greater than 10 meters but less than 70 meters, and the displacement must be less than 500 Metric Tons. Design Reports shall be no more than 160 pages in length (including Figures, Tables. Drawings, and Appendices). Large folded prints of drawings are acceptable and need not be bound into the report, but will be included in the page count. Designs submitted which exceed the 160 page limit will be disqualified. The report must be an integrated report not bits and pieces (Drawings can be separate). (As an aid think of the report as a thesis) A copy of the report on a CD must be submitted. A copy can also be sent electronically by e-mail, but a CD must be sent. The report first page must show the names, signatures and SNAME Membership Numbers (if applicable) of the design team members. The faculty advisor must submit a separate certificate stating that the students did the work. Designs submitted must be the work of undergraduate students. Guidance can and is expected to come from faculty advisor and other faculty members, but it must be appropriately referenced in the Design Report. Prizes shall be $1500 for the first, $750 for the second and $500 for the third, with awards going directly to the students submitting the winning designs. The winner of the competition will be invited to present their design to SNAME members at the Student Award Session at the SNAME Annual Meeting (September or October).

A-2

If a design team, that has submitted an entry, withdraws from the competition the team point of contact must promptly advise the competition sponsor. II SCHEDULE The schedule milestones are shown below and must be adhered to with no exceptions; Competition announcement issued: September 5, 2008 Student team application with Design Requirements: Earliest October 24, 2008 Latest January 23, 2009 ISWSCYDC Acceptance & feedback on Design Req: Earliest November 21, 2008

Latest February 13, 2009 Designs submittal deadline (Date of e-mail or postmark): June 19, 2009 Competition Winners announced: August 28, 2009 Awards Presented at SNAME Annual Meeting: November 2009 Designs received after the submittal deadline will not be accepted unless for exceptional reason. III APPLICATION Individuals or teams intending to enter a design in the competition must submit an Entry Form (Copy attached) and a copy of their Design requirements to the competition sponsor by the application date in Section II – Schedule. The Entry Form and Design Requirements should be sent to: Mr. Alan Hugenot Tel: 415 531 6172 E-mail: Hugenot@comcast.net USA The completed Design Report CDs must be sent to the same address by or before the submittal date in Section II – Schedule. DESIGN REPORT REQUIREMENTS The quality of the technical work done is the most important factor in the judging of the submitted designs. No technical work, however, is of value unless it can be reviewed and used by others. Thus, the documentation of the design in the Design Report is of critical importance. In particular, the Design Report should accomplish the following:

1) Demonstrate that the design meets the Design Requirements. 2) Describe the technical approach used to satisfy each of the Design Requirements,

together with any design trade-off studies or alternative solutions that were considered and the rationale for the selection of the proposed design solution.

3) Identify any technical risks and the means to alleviate them. 4) Present descriptions, sketches, system analyses and discussion of techniques used in

sufficient detail to permit technical evaluation of the design. 5) Specifically, the design report should address the approach taken to selecting the size,

proportions, powering and weights, and provide sufficient data to define the ship concept, including as a minimum: a) Table of Principal Characteristics (dimensions, displacement, deadweight (payload),

speed, endurance, complement, etc.) b) Weight estimate, in an acceptable weight classification format. c) Curves of Form and Stability. d) Arrangement analysis.

A-3

e) Trim and Stability for at least the Lightship, loaded departure, and loaded arrival conditions.

f) Damage stability, where appropriate. g) Resistance and powering analysis. h) Structural analysis and scantling calculations.

i) Electrical load analysis. j) Seakeeping analysis to meet operation in the sea state identified in the Design

requirements. k) Major HM&E systems and equipment characteristics and descriptions. l) Endurance fuel calculation. m) Cost Analysis. n) Technical risk analysis and mitigation approaches, if appropriate.

Drawings: Lines, showing major appendages. General Arrangement in sufficient detail to show accommodation details, cabins, mess

rooms, galley, wheelhouse, etc. Capacity Plan – Instead a capacity table can be included in a Trim and Stability Booklet. Machinery Arrangement – if the size of the work boat/yacht is small this can be integrate

with the general Arrangement, but it must include the same detail as if it was a separate drawing.

Structural Midship Section showing major scantlings. It may be inappropriate for some small craft or yacht design to follow this list but the intent is to submit a complete contract design appropriate to the type of craft being designed. For example while the trim and stability of a sailing yacht is important it is not normal to prepare a Trim and Stability Booklet. JUDGING A panel of industry experts will select the top 5 design entries for detailed evaluation. The top 5 designs will be selected based on:

• Demonstrated understanding of the key issues • Quality of the submitted design presentation • Meeting the design requirements • Creativity of design • Relevance and general interest to the small craft and yacht industry • System integration

The three winners will be selected from the top 5 design entries based on: • Technical content • Documentation • Originality • Practicality • Compliance with the Design Requirements

FACTORS FOR JUDGING 1) Technical Content (40 points)

Correctness of theory, validity of reasoning used, computational accuracy, breadth and

A-4

depth of analyses, and extent of understanding the design process as evidenced by the quality and compliance with the Design Requirements.

2) Documentation (15 points) The effectiveness of the Design Report as an instrument of communication is a strong factor in the judging. Organization of the report, clarity, completeness of design rationale and technical data, proper English usage (appropriate allowance will be made for foreign submissions), use of figures and tables, drawing quality, are all major considerations.

3) Originality (10 points) The design should reflect some innovative thinking. However, the innovation must be realistic and practical.

4) Practicality (10 points) The design, even if some risks are involved, should have a reasonable chance of being achieved within practical constraints of current technology, cost and schedule.

5) Compliance with Design Requirements (25 points) The design must be in compliance with the design Requirements and this factor will evaluate how well this is accomplished.

B

 

APPENDIX B: DESIGN REQUIREMENTS 

B-1

   

WEBB INSTITUTE GLEN COVE, NEW YORK 

SNAME INTERNATIONAL STUDENT WORKBOAT 

SMALL CRAFT YACHT DESIGN COMPETITION 

 Design Requirements for 

The Design of a Freight­Carrying Cruising Sailing Yacht  

By:

Stefan Tyler Wolczko

Monday, 05 January 2009

Submitted To: Mr. Alan Hugenot

The Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers

B-2

 INTRODUCTION Sailing yachtsmen, aboard a wide variety of vessel types and hailing from all over the

developed world, ply our planet’s oceans by the hundreds every year. Their goals vary; some are sailing for world circumnavigation time records, others simply want to sail one great adventure alone or with their family through the South Pacific islands and others still try to find ways to make cruising their permanent way of life.

Many people who decide to cruise long-term are required to stop for extended periods of time in industrialized nations to work in temporary jobs in order to support their lifestyle. There are also those who do not have so much as this option, due to restrictions on foreign nationals’ employment in some areas, and thus may be forced to abandon the sailing lifestyle and return to whatever country they came from.

These cruiser-sailors comprise a plentiful stream of people sailing the oceans on yachts that serve to transport only the sailors and their belongings. If the yachtsmen wishing to cruise indefinitely were equipped to carry a payload along with them, there could potentially be a profitable business venture inherent in the cruising lifestyle. There are many poorly accessible cruising destinations, such as the many remote island groups of the Pacific, which could allow for sailing vessels to occupy a niche such as the inter-island merchant trade. In addition to this, there could also be potential for relatively long distance trade to be facilitated by such sailing vessels, along routes that are already traveled by yachtsmen at their own expense. This is especially true if cargo with a low time value can be carried.

Low time value cargo, which places relatively low importance on speed of delivery, coupled with the amount of fuel consumed per ton carried as could be experienced by a primarily sail-powered vessel could level the playing field between small sailing merchant operations and larger and more well-established shipping companies. All of these possibilities indicate potential for a profitable business venture in sailing merchant craft.

OWNER’S DESIGN REQUIREMENTS This design process shall strive to produce a preliminary design for a bluewater sailing

cruiser that can carry a low time value cargo, which will be exotic hardwoods, such as teak or mahogany. The design shall be carried out in a thoughtful manner, and will take care in arriving at a safe, seaworthy, and efficient solution to the task of cruising and sail-powered transport of goods. The design will ideally be in aluminum.

The design shall strive to avoid being classified as commercial wherever possible. This is to say that the design will be that of a functional yacht, not of a merchant ship, with regard to regulation and operation. As such, the design shall account for a realistic cruising situation, and bear in mind that the yacht must be operable by a crew of as little as three experienced and capable owner-operators. The vessel shall be designed to maximize ability to carry payload while maintaining a comfortable and habitable accommodation space for three crewmembers. Potentially applicable regulations shall be investigated and adhered to such that the vessel will be operable in the United States and abroad.

These three crewmembers must be able to sail and maneuver the vessel in any foreseeable situation, meteorological or otherwise, that can be reasonably expected on a bluewater cruise across the Pacific Ocean. It is assumed that severe weather will be encountered at sea, and thus the vessel’s rig and systems must be manageable by this crew size in the worst adverse conditions expected. Adequate machinery shall be included in the design.

B-3

The design shall be able to manage and appropriately care for the cargo carried by the vessel in any of the ambient temperature and humidity conditions to be expected along a trans-Pacific journey, which may include significant change in latitude. This means that large temperature and humidity shifts will be encountered, and the sensitive hardwood cargo must be preserved and undamaged during the transit from tropical to temperate or cold climates. This should include atmospheric control and fire suppression for the cargo compartment(s).

The design will accommodate compliance with all regulations and recommendations to be expected in the handling of wood agricultural products. This includes importation regulations, such as fumigation, and handling recommendations from industry professionals for the preservation of wood quality during the transportation process. The vessel should also be worthy of classification with a major classification society, such as ABS or DNV, under a set of rules that is consistent with the vessel’s categorization as a yacht (probably the ABS Aluminum Rules), though special consideration may be required due to the uncommon nature of the design.

The crew must be able to load and unload cargoes in relatively underdeveloped ports. Thus, the vessel must be equipped with its own cargo handling gear, such as cranes, to ensure that the crew will be able to load and arrange all of the cargo that is to be carried by the vessel. To this end, the vessel must also be designed accordingly to allow for effective and efficient self loading and unloading of the vessel’s cargo.

In order to minimize fuel expenses, it will be necessary to optimize the design from an energy standpoint. Emphasis shall be placed on renewable energy, consistent with the propulsion system’s use of wind power. The use of solar and wind power generation shall be investigated to power the charger for the battery bank(s), the shipboard auxiliary systems, and even the auxiliary propulsion system.

Essentially, the design shall be carried out with mindfulness of safety, seaworthiness, and efficiency. The design shall make use of renewable energy where possible, and shall strive to operate as a functional yacht, carrying cargo and allowing the owner-operators to cruise in a financially profitable manner.

C

 

APPENDIX C: BUSINESS MODEL

C-1

General Vessel Characteristics Vessel Speed Prediction [m] [-] [m] [-] [m] [-] [m] [-] [m] [-] [m] [-] [m] [m] [m] [m3] [t] [-] [m2] [kN] [-] [kN] [kN] [%] [knots]

LWL L/LOA LOA L/B Beam (B) B/BWL BWL B/T Draft

(T) T/TCB Canoebody Draft (TCB) L/Fbd Freeboard

(Fbd) Depth

(D) Canoebody

Depth (DCB)

Canoebody Submerged

Volume

Total Displacement

(∆) SA/VFL2/3

Sail Area (SA)

Thrust (T) FN Resistance

(RT) Force

Differential Force

Differential Operating

Speed

10 0.95 10.57 2.77 3.61 1.08 3.35 2.18 1.65 2.15 0.77 10.11 0.99 2.64 1.76 15.4 15.8 17.3 107.3 2.09 0.36 2.11 0.02 0.01 7.00 11 0.95 11.62 2.81 3.91 1.08 3.63 2.18 1.79 2.15 0.83 10.94 1.01 2.80 1.84 20.0 20.5 17.4 128.4 2.50 0.36 2.62 0.12 0.05 7.25 12 0.95 12.66 2.85 4.21 1.08 3.91 2.18 1.93 2.15 0.90 11.76 1.02 2.95 1.92 25.3 25.9 17.6 151.3 2.94 0.34 2.86 0.09 0.03 7.25 13 0.95 13.71 2.89 4.49 1.07 4.19 2.18 2.06 2.15 0.96 12.59 1.03 3.09 1.99 31.3 32.1 17.7 176.0 3.42 0.34 3.51 0.09 0.03 7.50 14 0.95 14.75 2.94 4.77 1.07 4.45 2.18 2.19 2.15 1.02 13.41 1.04 3.23 2.06 38.1 39.1 17.9 202.7 3.94 0.33 3.89 0.05 0.01 7.50 15 0.95 15.79 2.98 5.04 1.07 4.71 2.18 2.31 2.15 1.08 14.24 1.05 3.37 2.13 45.7 46.8 18.1 231.2 4.50 0.33 4.69 0.19 0.04 7.75 16 0.95 16.83 3.02 5.30 1.07 4.97 2.18 2.43 2.15 1.13 15.07 1.06 3.50 2.20 54.1 55.4 18.3 261.8 5.09 0.32 5.14 0.05 0.01 7.75 17 0.95 17.87 3.06 5.56 1.07 5.22 2.18 2.55 2.15 1.19 15.89 1.07 3.62 2.26 63.3 64.9 18.5 294.5 5.73 0.31 5.55 0.18 0.03 7.75 18 0.95 18.91 3.10 5.80 1.06 5.46 2.18 2.67 2.14 1.24 16.72 1.08 3.75 2.32 73.4 75.2 18.8 329.4 6.40 0.31 6.57 0.16 0.03 8.00 19 0.95 19.95 3.14 6.05 1.06 5.70 2.17 2.78 2.14 1.30 17.54 1.08 3.86 2.38 84.3 86.4 19.1 366.6 7.13 0.30 6.91 0.22 0.03 8.00 20 0.95 20.98 3.18 6.28 1.06 5.93 2.17 2.89 2.14 1.35 18.37 1.09 3.98 2.44 96.0 98.4 19.4 406.2 7.90 0.30 8.12 0.22 0.03 8.25 21 0.95 22.01 3.23 6.51 1.06 6.16 2.17 3.00 2.14 1.40 19.19 1.09 4.09 2.49 108.6 111.3 19.7 448.3 8.71 0.30 8.37 0.34 0.04 8.25 22 0.95 23.04 3.27 6.74 1.06 6.38 2.17 3.10 2.14 1.45 20.02 1.10 4.20 2.55 122.0 125.1 20.0 493.0 9.58 0.30 9.79 0.21 0.02 8.50 23 0.96 24.07 3.31 6.95 1.05 6.60 2.17 3.20 2.14 1.50 20.85 1.10 4.31 2.60 136.3 139.8 20.4 540.5 10.51 0.29 9.96 0.54 0.05 8.50 24 0.96 25.10 3.35 7.17 1.05 6.82 2.17 3.30 2.14 1.54 21.67 1.11 4.41 2.65 151.5 155.3 20.8 590.9 11.49 0.29 11.61 0.12 0.01 8.75 25 0.96 26.13 3.39 7.37 1.05 7.03 2.17 3.40 2.14 1.59 22.50 1.11 4.51 2.70 167.6 171.7 21.2 644.4 12.53 0.29 11.71 0.82 0.07 8.75 26 0.96 27.15 3.43 7.58 1.05 7.23 2.17 3.50 2.14 1.63 23.32 1.11 4.61 2.75 184.5 189.1 21.6 701.0 13.63 0.29 13.59 0.04 0.00 9.00 27 0.96 28.18 3.47 7.77 1.05 7.44 2.17 3.59 2.14 1.68 24.15 1.12 4.71 2.80 202.2 207.3 22.1 760.9 14.79 0.29 15.67 0.88 0.06 9.25 28 0.96 29.20 3.51 7.97 1.04 7.63 2.17 3.68 2.14 1.72 24.98 1.12 4.80 2.84 220.9 226.4 22.6 824.4 16.03 0.29 15.76 0.27 0.02 9.25 29 0.96 30.22 3.56 8.15 1.04 7.83 2.16 3.77 2.14 1.76 25.80 1.12 4.89 2.89 240.4 246.4 23.1 891.5 17.33 0.29 18.11 0.78 0.05 9.50 30 0.96 31.24 3.60 8.34 1.04 8.02 2.16 3.85 2.13 1.81 26.63 1.13 4.98 2.93 260.7 267.3 23.6 962.3 18.71 0.28 18.14 0.57 0.03 9.50 31 0.96 32.26 3.64 8.52 1.04 8.21 2.16 3.94 2.13 1.85 27.45 1.13 5.07 2.98 282.0 289.0 24.1 1037.2 20.16 0.29 20.78 0.61 0.03 9.75 32 0.96 33.27 3.68 8.69 1.04 8.40 2.16 4.02 2.13 1.89 28.28 1.13 5.15 3.02 304.0 311.6 24.7 1116.1 21.70 0.28 20.76 0.94 0.04 9.75 33 0.96 34.29 3.72 8.87 1.03 8.58 2.16 4.10 2.13 1.92 29.10 1.13 5.24 3.06 327.0 335.2 25.3 1199.3 23.32 0.29 23.69 0.37 0.02 10.00 34 0.96 35.30 3.76 9.03 1.03 8.76 2.16 4.18 2.13 1.96 29.93 1.14 5.32 3.10 350.8 359.5 25.9 1287.0 25.02 0.28 23.63 1.39 0.06 10.00 35 0.96 36.31 3.80 9.20 1.03 8.94 2.16 4.26 2.13 2.00 30.76 1.14 5.40 3.14 375.4 384.8 26.5 1379.3 26.81 0.28 26.86 0.05 0.00 10.25

 

C-2

Cargo Capacity Prediction Yearly Revenue Prediction [m] [m3] [t] [-] [t] [t] [m3] [m3] [Board ft] [Board ft] [-] [$/Trip] [knots] [days] [weeks] [1/year] [$/Year]

LWL Displaced Volume

(V)

Calc. Total Displacement

(∆) ∆LS/∆FL

Lightship Displacement

(∆LS)

Max Cargo Mass

Cargo Volume

(Mahogany)

Cargo Volume (Teak)

Cargo Volume

(Mahogany)

Cargo Volume (Teak)

Preferred Cargo Revenue Operating

Speed Time @

Sea Total Trip Time

Number Trip/Year

Yearly Revenue

10 15.43 15.05 0.89 14.08 1.74 3.19 2.42 1352.87 1024.05 Teak $12,289 7.00 89.88 18.84 2.76 $33,917 11 19.99 19.50 0.89 18.20 2.30 4.21 3.19 1784.59 1350.84 Teak $16,210 7.25 86.78 18.40 2.83 $45,817 12 25.28 24.66 0.89 22.95 2.95 5.42 4.10 2296.47 1738.30 Teak $20,860 7.25 86.78 18.40 2.83 $58,959 13 31.31 30.54 0.88 28.37 3.72 6.83 5.17 2894.36 2190.87 Teak $26,290 7.50 83.89 17.98 2.89 $76,016 14 38.11 37.18 0.88 34.45 4.61 8.46 6.40 3583.96 2712.86 Teak $32,554 7.50 83.89 17.98 2.89 $94,127 15 45.70 44.59 0.88 41.22 5.62 10.31 7.81 4370.78 3308.44 Teak $39,701 7.75 81.18 17.60 2.95 $117,314 16 54.10 52.78 0.88 48.69 6.76 12.41 9.40 5260.18 3981.67 Teak $47,780 7.75 81.18 17.60 2.95 $141,186 17 63.31 61.77 0.88 56.85 8.05 14.77 11.18 6257.36 4736.48 Teak $56,838 7.75 81.18 17.60 2.95 $167,951 18 73.36 71.57 0.87 65.72 9.47 17.39 13.16 7367.39 5576.70 Teak $66,920 8.00 78.65 17.24 3.02 $201,903 19 84.25 82.20 0.87 75.30 11.05 20.28 15.35 8595.19 6506.08 Teak $78,073 8.00 78.65 17.24 3.02 $235,550 20 95.99 93.65 0.87 85.60 12.79 23.47 17.76 9945.57 7528.25 Teak $90,339 8.25 76.26 16.89 3.08 $278,050 21 108.58 105.93 0.87 96.60 14.69 26.96 20.40 11423.22 8646.74 Teak $103,761 8.25 76.26 16.89 3.08 $319,361 22 122.03 119.05 0.87 108.32 16.76 30.75 23.28 13032.71 9865.04 Teak $118,380 8.50 74.02 16.57 3.14 $371,402 23 136.34 133.02 0.86 120.74 19.01 34.87 26.40 14778.51 11186.51 Teak $134,238 8.50 74.02 16.57 3.14 $421,153 24 151.52 147.82 0.86 133.87 21.43 39.33 29.77 16664.99 12614.47 Teak $151,374 8.75 71.91 16.27 3.20 $483,731 25 167.56 163.47 0.86 147.70 24.04 44.12 33.40 18696.44 14152.17 Teak $169,826 8.75 71.91 16.27 3.20 $542,698 26 184.47 179.97 0.86 162.23 26.85 49.26 37.29 20877.05 15802.77 Teak $189,633 9.00 69.91 15.99 3.25 $616,810 27 202.24 197.31 0.86 177.45 29.85 54.77 41.46 23210.93 17569.39 Teak $210,833 9.25 68.02 15.72 3.31 $697,541 28 220.88 215.49 0.85 193.35 33.05 60.65 45.91 25702.12 19455.07 Teak $233,461 9.25 68.02 15.72 3.31 $772,407 29 240.38 234.52 0.85 209.92 36.47 66.91 50.65 28354.57 21462.83 Teak $257,554 9.50 66.23 15.46 3.36 $866,212 30 260.74 254.38 0.85 227.17 40.09 73.56 55.68 31172.19 23595.61 Teak $283,147 9.50 66.23 15.46 3.36 $952,288 31 281.97 275.09 0.85 245.08 43.93 80.61 61.01 34158.80 25856.31 Teak $310,276 9.75 64.53 15.22 3.42 $1,060,161 32 304.04 296.63 0.85 263.65 47.99 88.06 66.66 37318.18 28247.79 Teak $338,973 9.75 64.53 15.22 3.42 $1,158,217 33 326.98 319.00 0.84 282.87 52.28 95.93 72.62 40654.05 30772.85 Teak $369,274 10.00 62.92 14.99 3.47 $1,281,151 34 350.76 342.20 0.84 302.72 56.81 104.23 78.90 44170.06 33434.28 Teak $401,211 10.00 62.92 14.99 3.47 $1,391,953 35 375.39 366.23 0.84 323.21 61.56 112.96 85.50 47869.85 36234.81 Teak $434,818 10.25 61.38 14.77 3.52 $1,530,939

 

C-3

Capital Cost Prediction [m] [-] [m2] [-] [kW] [$] [$] [$] [$] [$] [people] [m3] [$] [$] [$] [$] [$] [$]

LWL ∆/SA Sail Area ∆/PAux Auxiliary

Power Rig & Sails

Cost Auxiliary

Power Cost Electrical

Cost Auxiliary Systems

Cost Outfit Cost

Crew Size

Accommodation Volume

Accommodation Cost

Labor Cost

Design Cost

Legal & Miscellaneous Costs 8% Margin Total Vessel

Cost

10 0.77 107.34 0.51 30.98 ($10,734) ($3,098) ($1,549) ($4,648) ($3,098) 2 10 ($8,000) ($34,310) ($7,719) ($11,578) ($7,719) ($104,200) 11 0.77 128.42 0.51 40.14 ($12,842) ($4,014) ($2,007) ($6,021) ($4,014) 2 10 ($8,000) ($41,718) ($9,385) ($14,078) ($9,385) ($126,702) 12 0.77 151.31 0.51 50.75 ($15,131) ($5,075) ($2,537) ($7,612) ($5,075) 2 10 ($8,000) ($50,183) ($11,290) ($16,935) ($11,290) ($152,415) 13 0.77 176.05 0.51 62.86 ($17,605) ($6,286) ($3,143) ($9,429) ($6,286) 2 10 ($8,000) ($59,743) ($13,441) ($20,161) ($13,441) ($181,453) 14 0.77 202.67 0.51 76.51 ($20,267) ($7,651) ($3,826) ($11,477) ($7,651) 2 10 ($8,000) ($70,433) ($15,846) ($23,769) ($15,846) ($213,924) 15 0.77 231.24 0.51 91.76 ($23,124) ($9,176) ($4,588) ($13,764) ($9,176) 2 20 ($16,000) ($88,686) ($19,952) ($29,928) ($19,952) ($269,354) 16 0.77 261.83 0.51 108.62 ($26,183) ($10,862) ($5,431) ($16,293) ($10,862) 2 20 ($16,000) ($101,732) ($22,888) ($34,331) ($22,888) ($308,982) 17 0.77 294.52 0.51 127.13 ($29,452) ($12,713) ($6,356) ($19,069) ($12,713) 2 20 ($16,000) ($116,001) ($26,098) ($39,147) ($26,098) ($352,323) 18 0.77 329.40 0.51 147.30 ($32,940) ($14,730) ($7,365) ($22,095) ($14,730) 2 20 ($16,000) ($131,519) ($29,590) ($44,384) ($29,590) ($399,459) 19 0.77 366.58 0.51 169.16 ($36,658) ($16,916) ($8,458) ($25,375) ($16,916) 2 20 ($16,000) ($148,313) ($33,368) ($50,052) ($33,368) ($450,470) 20 0.77 406.16 0.51 192.73 ($40,616) ($19,273) ($9,637) ($28,910) ($19,273) 3 30 ($24,000) ($172,807) ($38,878) ($58,317) ($38,878) ($524,857) 21 0.77 448.26 0.51 218.01 ($44,826) ($21,801) ($10,901) ($32,702) ($21,801) 3 30 ($24,000) ($192,227) ($43,248) ($64,872) ($43,248) ($583,845) 22 0.77 493.00 0.51 245.02 ($49,300) ($24,502) ($12,251) ($36,752) ($24,502) 3 30 ($24,000) ($212,996) ($47,921) ($71,881) ($47,921) ($646,931) 23 0.77 540.50 0.51 273.75 ($54,050) ($27,375) ($13,688) ($41,063) ($27,375) 3 30 ($24,000) ($235,138) ($52,903) ($79,354) ($52,903) ($714,186) 24 0.77 590.91 0.51 304.22 ($59,091) ($30,422) ($15,211) ($45,633) ($30,422) 3 30 ($24,000) ($258,676) ($58,199) ($87,298) ($58,199) ($785,683) 25 0.77 644.35 0.51 336.43 ($64,435) ($33,643) ($16,822) ($50,465) ($33,643) 3 30 ($24,000) ($283,633) ($63,814) ($95,721) ($63,814) ($861,491) 26 0.77 700.99 0.51 370.38 ($70,099) ($37,038) ($18,519) ($55,557) ($37,038) 3 30 ($24,000) ($310,033) ($69,754) ($104,631) ($69,754) ($941,681) 27 0.77 760.95 0.51 406.06 ($76,095) ($40,606) ($20,303) ($60,910) ($40,606) 3 30 ($24,000) ($337,899) ($76,024) ($114,036) ($76,024) ($1,026,324) 28 0.77 824.39 0.51 443.49 ($82,439) ($44,349) ($22,174) ($66,523) ($44,349) 3 30 ($24,000) ($367,256) ($82,629) ($123,944) ($82,629) ($1,115,494) 29 0.77 891.47 0.51 482.64 ($89,147) ($48,264) ($24,132) ($72,396) ($48,264) 3 30 ($24,000) ($398,126) ($89,575) ($134,363) ($89,575) ($1,209,263) 30 0.77 962.34 0.51 523.53 ($96,234) ($52,353) ($26,176) ($78,529) ($52,353) 3 30 ($24,000) ($430,535) ($96,867) ($145,301) ($96,867) ($1,307,706) 31 0.77 1037.17 0.51 566.14 ($103,717) ($56,614) ($28,307) ($84,921) ($56,614) 4 40 ($32,000) ($470,908) ($105,950) ($158,925) ($105,950) ($1,430,325) 32 0.77 1116.11 0.51 610.47 ($111,611) ($61,047) ($30,523) ($91,570) ($61,047) 4 40 ($32,000) ($506,471) ($113,952) ($170,927) ($113,952) ($1,538,347) 33 0.77 1199.32 0.51 656.51 ($119,932) ($65,651) ($32,826) ($98,477) ($65,651) 4 40 ($32,000) ($543,651) ($122,317) ($183,475) ($122,317) ($1,651,279) 34 0.77 1286.98 0.51 704.26 ($128,698) ($70,426) ($35,213) ($105,640) ($70,426) 4 40 ($32,000) ($582,474) ($131,052) ($196,578) ($131,052) ($1,769,204) 35 0.77 1379.25 0.51 753.71 ($137,925) ($75,371) ($37,686) ($113,057) ($75,371) 5 50 ($40,000) ($629,368) ($141,602) ($212,404) ($141,602) ($1,911,632)

 

C-4

Yearly Cost Prediction [m] [$/year] [$/year] [$/year] [$/year] [$/year] [$/year] [$/year] [$/year] [$/year] [$/year] [$/year] [$/year] [$/year] [$/year] [$/year] [$/year] [$/year]

LWL Classification Insurance Regulatory Customs Registration Consumables Cargo Handling Management Cargo

Stowage Hull Mechanical Auxiliary Rigging & Sails Provisions Salary 8% Margin Total Recurring

Cost

10 ($1,042) ($6,252) ($1,042) ($1,042) ($1,042) ($5,210) ($5,210) ($10,420) ($5,210) ($1,042) ($4,168) ($3,126) ($2,084) ($4,000) $0 ($4,071) ($54,961) 11 ($1,267) ($7,602) ($1,267) ($1,267) ($1,267) ($6,335) ($6,335) ($12,670) ($6,335) ($1,267) ($5,068) ($3,801) ($2,534) ($4,000) $0 ($4,881) ($65,897) 12 ($1,524) ($9,145) ($1,524) ($1,524) ($1,524) ($7,621) ($7,621) ($15,241) ($7,621) ($1,524) ($6,097) ($4,572) ($3,048) ($4,000) $0 ($5,807) ($78,394) 13 ($1,815) ($10,887) ($1,815) ($1,815) ($1,815) ($9,073) ($9,073) ($18,145) ($9,073) ($1,815) ($7,258) ($5,444) ($3,629) ($4,000) $0 ($6,852) ($92,506) 14 ($2,139) ($12,835) ($2,139) ($2,139) ($2,139) ($10,696) ($10,696) ($21,392) ($10,696) ($2,139) ($8,557) ($6,418) ($4,278) ($4,000) $0 ($8,021) ($108,287) 15 ($2,694) ($16,161) ($2,694) ($2,694) ($2,694) ($13,468) ($13,468) ($26,935) ($13,468) ($2,694) ($10,774) ($8,081) ($5,387) ($4,000) $0 ($10,017) ($135,226) 16 ($3,090) ($18,539) ($3,090) ($3,090) ($3,090) ($15,449) ($15,449) ($30,898) ($15,449) ($3,090) ($12,359) ($9,269) ($6,180) ($4,000) $0 ($11,443) ($154,485) 17 ($3,523) ($21,139) ($3,523) ($3,523) ($3,523) ($17,616) ($17,616) ($35,232) ($17,616) ($3,523) ($14,093) ($10,570) ($7,046) ($4,000) $0 ($13,004) ($175,549) 18 ($3,995) ($23,968) ($3,995) ($3,995) ($3,995) ($19,973) ($19,973) ($39,946) ($19,973) ($3,995) ($15,978) ($11,984) ($7,989) ($4,000) $0 ($14,701) ($198,457) 19 ($4,505) ($27,028) ($4,505) ($4,505) ($4,505) ($22,524) ($22,524) ($45,047) ($22,524) ($4,505) ($18,019) ($13,514) ($9,009) ($4,000) $0 ($16,537) ($223,248) 20 ($5,249) ($31,491) ($5,249) ($5,249) ($5,249) ($26,243) ($26,243) ($52,486) ($26,243) ($5,249) ($20,994) ($15,746) ($10,497) ($6,000) $0 ($19,375) ($261,561) 21 ($5,838) ($35,031) ($5,838) ($5,838) ($5,838) ($29,192) ($29,192) ($58,384) ($29,192) ($5,838) ($23,354) ($17,515) ($11,677) ($6,000) $0 ($21,498) ($290,229) 22 ($6,469) ($38,816) ($6,469) ($6,469) ($6,469) ($32,347) ($32,347) ($64,693) ($32,347) ($6,469) ($25,877) ($19,408) ($12,939) ($6,000) $0 ($23,770) ($320,888) 23 ($7,142) ($42,851) ($7,142) ($7,142) ($7,142) ($35,709) ($35,709) ($71,419) ($35,709) ($7,142) ($28,567) ($21,426) ($14,284) ($6,000) $0 ($26,191) ($353,575) 24 ($7,857) ($47,141) ($7,857) ($7,857) ($7,857) ($39,284) ($39,284) ($78,568) ($39,284) ($7,857) ($31,427) ($23,570) ($15,714) ($6,000) $0 ($28,765) ($388,322) 25 ($8,615) ($51,689) ($8,615) ($8,615) ($8,615) ($43,075) ($43,075) ($86,149) ($43,075) ($8,615) ($34,460) ($25,845) ($17,230) ($6,000) $0 ($31,494) ($425,164) 26 ($9,417) ($56,501) ($9,417) ($9,417) ($9,417) ($47,084) ($47,084) ($94,168) ($47,084) ($9,417) ($37,667) ($28,250) ($18,834) ($6,000) $0 ($34,381) ($464,137) 27 ($10,263) ($61,579) ($10,263) ($10,263) ($10,263) ($51,316) ($51,316) ($102,632) ($51,316) ($10,263) ($41,053) ($30,790) ($20,526) ($6,000) $0 ($37,428) ($505,274) 28 ($11,155) ($66,930) ($11,155) ($11,155) ($11,155) ($55,775) ($55,775) ($111,549) ($55,775) ($11,155) ($44,620) ($33,465) ($22,310) ($6,000) $0 ($40,638) ($548,610) 29 ($12,093) ($72,556) ($12,093) ($12,093) ($12,093) ($60,463) ($60,463) ($120,926) ($60,463) ($12,093) ($48,371) ($36,278) ($24,185) ($6,000) $0 ($44,013) ($594,182) 30 ($13,077) ($78,462) ($13,077) ($13,077) ($13,077) ($65,385) ($65,385) ($130,771) ($65,385) ($13,077) ($52,308) ($39,231) ($26,154) ($6,000) $0 ($47,557) ($642,025) 31 ($14,303) ($85,819) ($14,303) ($14,303) ($14,303) ($71,516) ($71,516) ($143,032) ($71,516) ($14,303) ($57,213) ($42,910) ($28,606) ($8,000) ($100,000) ($60,132) ($811,778) 32 ($15,383) ($92,301) ($15,383) ($15,383) ($15,383) ($76,917) ($76,917) ($153,835) ($76,917) ($15,383) ($61,534) ($46,150) ($30,767) ($8,000) ($100,000) ($64,020) ($864,277) 33 ($16,513) ($99,077) ($16,513) ($16,513) ($16,513) ($82,564) ($82,564) ($165,128) ($82,564) ($16,513) ($66,051) ($49,538) ($33,026) ($8,000) ($100,000) ($68,086) ($919,162) 34 ($17,692) ($106,152) ($17,692) ($17,692) ($17,692) ($88,460) ($88,460) ($176,920) ($88,460) ($17,692) ($70,768) ($53,076) ($35,384) ($8,000) ($100,000) ($72,331) ($976,473) 35 ($19,116) ($114,698) ($19,116) ($19,116) ($19,116) ($95,582) ($95,582) ($191,163) ($95,582) ($19,116) ($76,465) ($57,349) ($38,233) ($10,000) ($200,000) ($85,619) ($1,155,853)

 

[m]

LWL To

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35

Total [$]

otal Initial Cost

($104,200) ($126,702) ($152,415) ($181,453) ($213,924) ($269,354) ($308,982) ($352,323) ($399,459) ($450,470) ($524,857) ($583,845) ($646,931) ($714,186) ($785,683) ($861,491) ($941,681)

($1,026,324) ($1,115,494) ($1,209,263) ($1,307,706) ($1,430,325) ($1,538,347) ($1,651,279) ($1,769,204) ($1,911,632)

Cash Flow Pred[$/year]

Total Recurring Cashflow

($21,044) ($20,080) ($19,435) ($16,490) ($14,160) ($17,912) ($13,299) ($7,598) $3,445 $12,302 $16,489 $29,132 $50,513 $67,578 $95,409 $117,533 $152,673 $192,267 $223,796 $272,030 $310,263 $248,384 $293,940 $361,989 $415,480 $375,085

diction [$]

Present Valuof Cashflow

($283,362) ($297,659) ($317,876) ($321,841) ($334,473) ($421,849) ($422,208) ($417,011) ($370,126) ($345,737) ($384,474) ($335,826) ($216,882) ($138,853)

$26,590 $139,136 $358,110 $610,555 $789,812

$1,106,682$1,333,737$684,306 $964,131

$1,430,541$1,768,011$1,281,680

 

e w

$1,000,00

$500,00

$

$500,00

$1,000,00

$1,500,00

$2,000,00

$2,500,00

Presen

t Value

 of Life

time Ca

shflo

w

00

00

0

00

00

00

00

00

10

Pr

C-5

15

resent Va

CB =

CB =

CB =

alue of L

= 0.50

= 0.55

= 0.60

20

Waterli

Lifetime

25

ine Length (m)

 Cashflo

)

ow with 

Desig

Actua

30

LWL

n Point

al Design Point

35

 

5

D

 

APPENDIX D: LINES DRAWING WITH MAJOR APPENDAGES

E

 

APPENDIX E: APPENDAGE CALCULATIONS

E-1

Appendage Characteristics          Minimum Lift from Appendages  L [kN] 17.276 Minimum Expected Boat Speed  VS  [knots]  5 

Leeway Angle  α [deg]  5.75 Leeway Angle  α [rad]  0.100 

Water Density  ρH2O  [kg/m3] 1025.9 Fixed Keel & Hull Lift  [kN] 9.904Centerboard Lift  [kN] 7.417Total Keel & Centerboard Lift  L [kN] 17.321 Excess Lift  [kN] 0.045

Prof. Royce ‐ “Fish” Method ‐ Lecture 20 in the Sailing Yacht Design CourseCase 1 ‐ Full system including hull, trunk and centerboard

Underwater Profile Area  [‐]  [m2]  46.06 

Centerboard Profile Area  [‐]  [m2]  7.5 

Canoebody draft  r0  [m]  2.081 

Total draft  b0  [m]  7.801 

Lift graph abcissa  r0/b0  [‐]  0.267 

Lift graph ordinate  CL  [‐]  0.925 Adjusted Centerboard Span  b [m] 5.720

Effective Span  be  [m]  7.503 

Effective AR Factor (be/b)2  ARe/ARg  [‐]  1.720 

Geometric AR  ARg  [‐]  4.362 

Effective AR  ARe  [‐]  7.506 Lift  L [kN] 120.444 Lift  L  [kN]  7.417 

Lift  L  [kN]  8.020 

Case 2 ‐ System including hull and trunk ‐ No centerboard

Underwater Profile Area  [‐]  [m2]  38.51 

Trunk Profile Area  [‐]  [m2]  7.55 

Canoebody draft  r0  [m]  1.801 

Total draft (to trunk) ‐ Fixed Draft  b0  [m]  2.801 

Lift graph abcissa  r0/b0  [‐]  0.643 

Lift graph ordinate  CL  [‐]  0.59 Trunk Span  b [m] 1.000

Effective Span  be  [m]  2.151 

Effective AR Factor (be/b)2  ARe/ARg  [‐]  4.629 

E-2

Geometric AR  ARg  [‐]  0.132 

Effective AR  ARe  [‐]  0.613 Lift  L [kN] 9.904

Fixed Keel Ballast  [‐] [kg]Moveable Keel (CB) Ballast  [‐] [kg]

Total Keel Area  [‐]  [m2]  15.5 

Fixed Keel Planform Area  [‐]  [m2]  8 Fixed Keel Root Chord  [‐] [m] 8Fixed Keel Tip Chord  [‐] [m] 7Fixed Keel Mean Chord  [‐] [m] 7.5Fixed Keel Span  [‐] [m] 1Fixed Keel Geometric Aspect Ratio  [‐] [‐] 0.125

Centerboard Keel Planform Area  [‐]  [m2]  7.5 Centerboard Root Chord  [‐] [m] 2Centerboart Tip Chord  [‐] [m] 1Centerboard Mean Chord  [‐] [m] 1.5Centerboard Span  [‐] [m] 5Centerboard Geometric Aspect Ratio  [‐] [‐] 3.333333333 Rudder Planform Area  [‐]  [m2]  1.174057379 Number of Rudders  [‐] 2

Single Rudder Planform Area  [‐]  [m2]  6.875 

Rudder Planform Area  [‐]  [m2]  13.75 Rudder Root Chord  [‐] [m] 3Rudder Tip Chord  [‐] [m] 2Rudder Average Chord  [‐] [m] 2.5Rudder Span  [‐] [m] 2.75Rudder Geometric Aspect Ratio  [‐] [‐] 1.1

Balance Calculations          Foretriangle Area  [m2]  229.65 

Main Area  [m2]  262.18 

Mizzen Area  [m2]  262.18 Main CE to Jib CE (l)  [m] 9.62Main CE to Main/Jib CE (a)  [m] 4.492Main/Jib CE to Mizzen CE (l)  [m] 17.67Main CE to Total CE (a)  [m] 3.719Vertical Center of Lateral Resistance  [m] ‐3.510 

E-3

Centerboard Lift Calculations          

Assumed Centerboard Mass  m  [t]  5.0 

Fully retracted centerboard moment arm  ‐  [m]  1.87 

Fully retracted centerboard moment  M  [t·m]  9.4 

[N·m]  91.7 

Factor of Safety  S  [‐]  1.5 

Assumed Help From Buoyancy  FB  [N]  0 

Required Moment  MR  [N·m]  137.5432 

Fully retracted lift moment arm  ‐  [m]  1.88 

Required total lift force  FL  [N]  73.16126 

[t]  7.460106 

Lifting tackle ratio  RT  [‐]  5 

Required Lift Capacity  CL  [t]  1.492021 

Lowered block‐and‐tackle length  ‐  [m]  3.23 

Retracted block‐and‐tackle length  ‐  [m]  0.83 

Overall Distance Covered  ‐  [m]  2.4 

Cable Required  ‐  [m]  12.0 

Potential Lift Candidate 

Lift speed  ‐  [ft/min]  21 

[m/min]  6.40 

Time to lift Centerboard  ‐  [min]  1.87 

Motor Power  ‐  [hp]  5 

[kW]  3.731 

F

 

APPENDIX F: SAIL PLAN & SAIL CALCULATIONS

F-1

Righting Moment Estimate          Determination of Sail Force & Heeling Moment ­ Using Milgram 

     

Righting Moment at 30° Heel  RM30

° [t·m]  314.6 Upwind Sailing Sail Forces 

 RM30

° [kN·m]  3085.3 Wind Speed 

VW [knots

]  35 

VW  [m/s]  18.01 

Skene's Method           Vertical Center of Lateral Resistance  CLRV  [m]  ‐3.510 

Load Determination Beam on‐deck  BMax  [m]  8.3  Fore + Jib: 

Coefficient for heel angles greater than 30°  C1  [‐]  1.5  Side Force Coefficient  CSmj  [‐]  1.215 

Coefficient for stays, sheeting and halyards  C2  [‐]  1.85  Vertical Side Force Cent/Mast Height  FSV/HM  [‐]  0.417 

Maximum Lower Shroud Tension  PT  [tf]  113.057  Horizontal Side Force Cent/Foretriangle+Boom  FS\H/LF+B  [‐]  0.019 

[kN]  1109  Area  A  [m2]  650.4 

Maximum Compressive Mast Load  P  [kN]  2051  Mast Height  H  [m]  36.6 

Foretriangle + Boom Length  LF+B [m]  24.1 

Minimum Required Moment of Inertia  Side Force  FS  [kN]  157.6 

Fore Mast Athwartship Support Factor  k  [‐]  1.0  Vertical Side Force Center  FSV  [m]  15.26 

Fore Mast Longitudinal Support Factor  k  [‐]  1.0  Horizontal Side Force Center  FSH  [m]  0.4579 

Main Mast Athwartship Support Factor  k  [‐]  0.7  Heeling Arm  LAH  [m]  18.77 

Main Mast Longitudinal Support Factor  k  [‐]  1.0  Heeling Moment  MH  [kN·m]  2958 

Fore Mast Height  H  [m]  36.6 

Main Mast Height  H  [m]  39.1  Main: 

Fore Mast Spreader Count  [‐]  3  Side Force Coefficient  CSm  [‐]  1.422 

Main Mast Spreader Count  [‐]  3  Vertical Side Force Cent/Mast Height  FSV/HM  [‐]  0.479 

Fore Mast Panel Length  L  [m]  9.2  Horizontal Side Force Cent/Foretriangle+Boom  FSH/LF+B  [‐]  0.44 

Main Mast Panel Length L  [m]  9.8 

Area A  [m2] 

200.9051678 

Axial Modulus of Elasticity of Al  E  [Pa]  6.89E+10  Mast Height  H  [m]  39.1 

Boom Length  LB [m]  10.99 

Fore Mast  Side Force  FS  [kN]  57.0 

Min Reqd Moment of Inertia (Long)  JLMin  [cm4]  25236  Vertical Side Force Center  FSV  [m]  18.73 

F-2

Min Reqd Moment of Inertia (Athwartship)  JAMin  [cm4]  25236  Horizontal Side Force Center  FSH  [m]  4.8356 

Main Mast  Heeling Arm  LAH  [m]  22.24 

Min Reqd Moment of Inertia (Long)  JLMin  [cm4]  15356  Heeling Moment  MH  [kN·m]  1267 

Min Reqd Moment of Inertia (Athwartship)  JAMin  [cm4]  28817 

Total: 

Cylindrical Mast Section           Total Side Force Coefficient  CST  [‐]  1.278 

Density of Al ρ 

[kg/m3

]  2660 Vertical Side Force Cent/Mast Height 

FSV/HM  [‐]  0.441 

Fore mast panel height  L  [m]  9.2  Horizontal Side Force Cent/Foretriangle+Boom  FSH/LF+B  [‐]  0.161 

Main mast panel height  L  [m]  9.8  Area  A  [m2]  851.3 

Thickness  t  [cm]  3.0  Mast Height  H  [m]  37.9 

Inside Radius  r1  [cm]  64.0  Side Force  FS  [kN]  216.9 

Outside Radius  r2  [cm]  67.0  Vertical Side Force Center  FSV  [m]  16.69 

Moment of Inertia  I  [cm4]  16411  Horizontal Side Force Center  FSH  [m]  3.88 

Residual Less Skene's Method  Res  [cm4]  ‐8826  Heeling Arm  LAH  [m]  20.20 

Volume of Aluminum  ‐  [m3]  4.519  Heeling Moment  MH  [kN·m]  4383 

Mass of fore mast  [t]  12.020 

Fore Mast           Main Mast          

Load Determination  Load Determination Beam on‐deck  BMax  [m]  8.3  Beam on‐deck  BMax  [m]  8.3 

Coefficient for heel angles greater than 30°  C1  [‐]  1.5  Coefficient for heel angles greater than 30°  C1  [‐]  1.5 

Coefficient for stays, sheeting and halyards  C2  [‐]  1.85  Coefficient for stays, sheeting and halyards  C2  [‐]  1.85 

Maximum Lower Shroud Tension  PT  [kN]  1063  Maximum Lower Shroud Tension  PT  [kN]  455 

Maximum Compressive Mast Load  P  [kN]  1967  Maximum Compressive Mast Load  P  [kN]  842 

Determination of Elliptical Mast Sections  Determination of Elliptical Mast Sections 

Density of Al ρ 

[kg/m3

]  2660 Density of Al 

ρ [kg/m3

]  2660 

Mast Height  H  [m]  39.2  Mast Height  H  [m]  38.9 

F-3

Spreader Count  [‐]  4  Spreader Count  [‐]  4 

Panel Length  L  [m]  7.838  Panel Length  L  [m]  7.780 

Axial Modulus of Elasticity of Al  E  [Pa]  6.89E+10  Axial Modulus of Elasticity of Al  E  [Pa]  6.89E+10 

Panel 1  Panel 1 

Minimum Required Moment of Inertia  Minimum Required Moment of Inertia 

Percentage of total compressive load  [‐]  100%  Percentage of total compressive load  [‐]  100% 

Maximum Compressive Mast Load  P  [kN]  1967  Maximum Compressive Mast Load  P  [kN]  842 

Athwartship Support Factor  k  [‐]  0.7  Athwartship Support Factor  k  [‐]  1.0 

Longitudinal Support Factor  k  [‐]  1.0  Longitudinal Support Factor  k  [‐]  1.5 

Min Reqd Moment of Inertia (Athwartship)  JAMin  [cm4]  8700  Min Reqd Moment of Inertia (Athwartship)  JAMin  [cm4]  7493 

Min Reqd Moment of Inertia (Long)  JLMin  [cm4]  17754  Min Reqd Moment of Inertia (Long)  JLMin  [cm4]  16859 

Section  Section 

Longitudinal (X‐axis) outside diameter  da  [cm]  43.2  Longitudinal (X‐axis) outside diameter  da  [cm]  47.8 

Athwartship (Y‐axis) outside diameter  db  [cm]  28.8  Athwartship (Y‐axis) outside diameter  db  [cm]  28.8 

Thickness  t  [mm]  8  Thickness  t  [mm]  8 

Longitudinal (X‐axis) average radius   aa  [mm]  212  Longitudinal (X‐axis) average radius   aa  [mm]  235 

Athwartship (Y‐axis) average radius  ba  [mm]  140  Athwartship (Y‐axis) average radius  ba  [mm]  140 

Radius of Gyration  K2  [mm]  0.299  Radius of Gyration  K2  [mm]  0.313 

Radius of Gyration  K3  [mm]  0.214  Radius of Gyration  K3  [mm]  0.207 

Athwartship Moment of Inertia   IA  [cm4]  9675  Athwartship Moment of Inertia   IA  [cm4]  10578 

Residual  R  [cm4]  975  Residual  R  [cm4]  3086 

Longitudinal Moment of Inertia   IL  [cm4]  18111  Longitudinal Moment of Inertia   IL  [cm4]  23229 

Residual  R  [cm4]  356  Residual  R  [cm4]  6370 

Panel number  ‐  [‐]  1  Panel number  ‐  [‐]  1 

Section mass  M  [kg]  184.4  Section mass  M  [kg]  195.0 

Vertical Center of Gravity  VCG  [m]  3.919  Vertical Center of Gravity  VCG  [m]  3.89 

Panel 2  Panel 2 

Minimum Required Moment of Inertia  Minimum Required Moment of Inertia 

F-4

Percentage of total compressive load  [‐]  100%  Percentage of total compressive load  [‐]  100% 

Maximum Compressive Mast Load  P  [kN]  1967  Maximum Compressive Mast Load  P  [kN]  842 

Athwartship Support Factor  k  [‐]  0.7  Athwartship Support Factor  k  [‐]  1.0 

Longitudinal Support Factor  k  [‐]  1.0  Longitudinal Support Factor  k  [‐]  1.5 

Min Reqd Moment of Inertia (Athwartship)  JAMin  [cm4]  8700  Min Reqd Moment of Inertia (Athwartship)  JAMin  [cm4]  7493 

Min Reqd Moment of Inertia (Long)  JLMin  [cm4]  17754  Min Reqd Moment of Inertia (Long)  JLMin  [cm4]  16859 

Section  Section 

Longitudinal (X‐axis) outside diameter  da  [cm]  43.2  Longitudinal (X‐axis) outside diameter  da  [cm]  47.8 

Athwartship (Y‐axis) outside diameter  db  [cm]  28.8  Athwartship (Y‐axis) outside diameter  db  [cm]  28.8 

Thickness  t  [mm]  8  Thickness  t  [mm]  8 

Longitudinal (X‐axis) average radius   aa  [mm]  212  Longitudinal (X‐axis) average radius   aa  [mm]  235 

Athwartship (Y‐axis) average radius  ba  [mm]  140.0  Athwartship (Y‐axis) average radius  ba  [mm]  140.0 

Radius of Gyration  K2  [mm]  0.299  Radius of Gyration  K2  [mm]  0.313 

Radius of Gyration  K3  [mm]  0.214  Radius of Gyration  K3  [mm]  0.207 

Athwartship Moment of Inertia   IA  [cm4]  9675  Athwartship Moment of Inertia   IA  [cm4]  10578 

Residual  R  [cm4]  975  Residual  R  [cm4]  3086 

Longitudinal Moment of Inertia   IL  [cm4]  18111  Longitudinal Moment of Inertia   IL  [cm4]  23229 

Residual  R  [cm4]  356  Residual  R  [cm4]  6370 

Panel number  ‐  [‐]  2  Panel number  ‐  [‐]  2 

Section mass  M  [kg]  184.4  Section mass  M  [kg]  195.0 

Vertical Center of Gravity  VCG  [m]  11.757  Vertical Center of Gravity  VCG  [m]  11.67 

Panel 3  Panel 3 

Minimum Required Moment of Inertia  Minimum Required Moment of Inertia 

Percentage of total compressive load  [‐]  100%  Percentage of total compressive load  [‐]  100% 

Maximum Compressive Mast Load  P  [kN]  1967  Maximum Compressive Mast Load  P  [kN]  842 

Athwartship Support Factor  k  [‐]  0.7  Athwartship Support Factor  k  [‐]  1.0 

Longitudinal Support Factor  k  [‐]  1.0  Longitudinal Support Factor  k  [‐]  1.5 

Min Reqd Moment of Inertia (Athwartship)  JAMin  [cm4]  8700  Min Reqd Moment of Inertia (Athwartship)  JAMin  [cm4]  7493 

Min Reqd Moment of Inertia (Long)  JLMin  [cm4]  17754  Min Reqd Moment of Inertia (Long)  JLMin  [cm4]  16859 

F-5

Section  Section 

Longitudinal (X‐axis) outside diameter  da  [cm]  43.2  Longitudinal (X‐axis) outside diameter  da  [cm]  47.8 

Athwartship (Y‐axis) outside diameter  db  [cm]  28.8  Athwartship (Y‐axis) outside diameter  db  [cm]  28.8 

Thickness  t  [mm]  8  Thickness  t  [mm]  8 

Longitudinal (X‐axis) average radius   aa  [mm]  212  Longitudinal (X‐axis) average radius   aa  [mm]  235 

Athwartship (Y‐axis) average radius  ba  [mm]  140.0  Athwartship (Y‐axis) average radius  ba  [mm]  140.0 

Radius of Gyration  K2  [mm]  0.299  Radius of Gyration  K2  [mm]  0.313 

Radius of Gyration  K3  [mm]  0.214  Radius of Gyration  K3  [mm]  0.207 

Athwartship Moment of Inertia   IA  [cm4]  9675  Athwartship Moment of Inertia   IA  [cm4]  10578 

Residual  R  [cm4]  975  Residual  R  [cm4]  3086 

Longitudinal Moment of Inertia   IL  [cm4]  18111  Longitudinal Moment of Inertia   IL  [cm4]  23229 

Residual  R  [cm4]  356  Residual  R  [cm4]  6370 

Panel number  ‐  [‐]  3  Panel number  ‐  [‐]  3 

Section mass  M  [kg]  184.4  Section mass  M  [kg]  195.0 

Vertical Center of Gravity  VCG  [m]  19.595  Vertical Center of Gravity  VCG  [m]  19.45 

Panel 4  Panel 4 

Minimum Required Moment of Inertia  Minimum Required Moment of Inertia 

Percentage of total compressive load  [‐]  100%  Percentage of total compressive load  [‐]  100% 

Maximum Compressive Mast Load  P  [kN]  1967  Maximum Compressive Mast Load  P  [kN]  842 

Athwartship Support Factor  k  [‐]  0.7  Athwartship Support Factor  k  [‐]  1.0 

Longitudinal Support Factor  k  [‐]  1.0  Longitudinal Support Factor  k  [‐]  1.5 

Min Reqd Moment of Inertia (Athwartship)  JAMin  [cm4]  8700  Min Reqd Moment of Inertia (Athwartship)  JAMin  [cm4]  7493 

Min Reqd Moment of Inertia (Long)  JLMin  [cm4]  17754  Min Reqd Moment of Inertia (Long)  JLMin  [cm4]  16859 

Section  Section 

Longitudinal (X‐axis) outside diameter  da  [cm]  43.2  Longitudinal (X‐axis) outside diameter  da  [cm]  47.8 

Athwartship (Y‐axis) outside diameter  db  [cm]  28.8  Athwartship (Y‐axis) outside diameter  db  [cm]  28.8 

Thickness  t  [mm]  8  Thickness  t  [mm]  8 

Longitudinal (X‐axis) average radius   aa  [mm]  212  Longitudinal (X‐axis) average radius   aa  [mm]  235 

Athwartship (Y‐axis) average radius  ba  [mm]  140.0  Athwartship (Y‐axis) average radius  ba  [mm]  140.0 

F-6

Radius of Gyration  K2  [mm]  0.299  Radius of Gyration  K2  [mm]  0.313 

Radius of Gyration  K3  [mm]  0.214  Radius of Gyration  K3  [mm]  0.207 

Athwartship Moment of Inertia   IA  [cm4]  9675  Athwartship Moment of Inertia   IA  [cm4]  10578 

Residual  R  [cm4]  975  Residual  R  [cm4]  3086 

Longitudinal Moment of Inertia   IL  [cm4]  18111  Longitudinal Moment of Inertia   IL  [cm4]  23229 

Residual  R  [cm4]  356  Residual  R  [cm4]  6370 

Panel number  ‐  [‐]  4  Panel number  ‐  [‐]  4 

Section mass  M  [kg]  184.4  Section mass  M  [kg]  195.0 

Vertical Center of Gravity  VCG  [m]  27.433  Vertical Center of Gravity  VCG  [m]  27.23 

Panel 5  Panel 5 

Minimum Required Moment of Inertia  Minimum Required Moment of Inertia 

Percentage of total compressive load  [‐]  100%  Percentage of total compressive load  [‐]  100% 

Maximum Compressive Mast Load  P  [kN]  1967  Maximum Compressive Mast Load  P  [kN]  842 

Athwartship Support Factor  k  [‐]  0.7  Athwartship Support Factor  k  [‐]  1.0 

Longitudinal Support Factor  k  [‐]  1.0  Longitudinal Support Factor  k  [‐]  1.5 

Min Reqd Moment of Inertia (Athwartship)  JAMin  [cm4]  8700  Min Reqd Moment of Inertia (Athwartship)  JAMin  [cm4]  7493 

Min Reqd Moment of Inertia (Long)  JLMin  [cm4]  17754  Min Reqd Moment of Inertia (Long)  JLMin  [cm4]  16859 

Section  Section 

Longitudinal (X‐axis) outside diameter  da  [cm]  43.2  Longitudinal (X‐axis) outside diameter  da  [cm]  47.8 

Athwartship (Y‐axis) outside diameter  db  [cm]  28.8  Athwartship (Y‐axis) outside diameter  db  [cm]  28.8 

Thickness  t  [mm]  8  Thickness  t  [mm]  8 

Longitudinal (X‐axis) average radius   aa  [mm]  212  Longitudinal (X‐axis) average radius   aa  [mm]  235 

Athwartship (Y‐axis) average radius  ba  [mm]  140.0  Athwartship (Y‐axis) average radius  ba  [mm]  140.0 

Radius of Gyration  K2  [mm]  0.299  Radius of Gyration  K2  [mm]  0.313 

Radius of Gyration  K3  [mm]  0.214  Radius of Gyration  K3  [mm]  0.207 

Athwartship Moment of Inertia   IA  [cm4]  9675  Athwartship Moment of Inertia   IA  [cm4]  10578 

Residual  R  [cm4]  975  Residual  R  [cm4]  3086 

Longitudinal Moment of Inertia   IL  [cm4]  18111  Longitudinal Moment of Inertia   IL  [cm4]  23229 

Residual  R  [cm4]  356  Residual  R  [cm4]  6370 

F-7

Panel number  ‐  [‐]  5  Panel number  ‐  [‐]  5 

Section mass  M  [kg]  184.4  Section mass  M  [kg]  195.0 

Vertical Center of Gravity  VCG  [m]  35.271  Vertical Center of Gravity  VCG  [m]  35.01 

Spar Properties  Spar Properties Spar mass  M  [t]  0.922  Spar mass  M  [t]  0.975 

Spar Vertical Center of Gravity  VCG  [m]  19.60  Spar Vertical Center of Gravity  VCG  [m]  19.45 

Spreader weight  ‐  Spreader weight  ‐ 

Fore Mast Boom           Main Mast Boom          

Required Section Modulus  Required Section Modulus Length of the sail luff  P  [m]  34.3  Length of the sail luff  P  [m]  34.3 

Length of the sail foot  EB  [m]  11.6  Length of the sail foot  EB  [m]  10.99 

Length between clew and kicking strap point  FB  [m]  5.8  Length between clew and kicking strap point  FB  [m]  5.5 

Yield stress of Aluminum  σy [Mpa]  55.2  Yield stress of Aluminum  σy [Mpa]  55.2 Required Section Modulus (Vertical)  Zy  [cm4]  2050  Required Section Modulus (Vertical)  Zy  [cm4]  1840 

Cylindrical Boom Section  Cylindrical Boom Section Outside diameter  do  [cm]  53  Outside diameter  do  [cm]  53 

Thickness  t  [cm]  1  Thickness  t  [cm]  1 

Inside diameter  di  [cm]  51.0  Inside diameter  di  [cm]  51.0 

Section Modulus  Zy  [cm4]  2166.2  Section Modulus  Zy  [cm4]  2166.2 

Residual  R  [cm4]  115.9  Residual  R  [cm4]  325.8 

Boom Length  L  [m]  11.70  Boom Length  L  [m]  11.09 

Boom Mass  M  [t]  0.508  Boom Mass  M  [t]  0.482 

Fore Mast Whisker Pole           Aft Crane Boom          

(Assumed 50% of Fore Main Boom Diameter)  (Same as Fore Main Boom) 

Outside diameter  do  [cm]  26.5  Outside diameter  do  [cm]  53 

Thickness  t  [cm]  1  Thickness  t  [cm]  1 

Inside diameter  di  [cm]  24.5  Inside diameter  di  [cm]  51.0 

Pole Length  L  [m]  12.71  Boom Length  L  [m]  11.70 

F-8

Pole Mass  M  [t]  0.271  Boom Mass  M  [t]  0.508 

Buckling Check ­ Cargo Crane (Fore Main Boom) 

        

Maximum Crane Load  Pcr  [t]  5 

Factor of Safety  S  [‐]  2 

Effective Load  PE  [t]  10 

PE  [kN]  98.07 

Al Modulus of Elasticity  E  [Pa]  6.89E+10 

Boom Length  L  [m]  11.70 

Second Moment of Inertia I  [m4] 

0.000552371 

Acceptable Load  PAcc  [kN]  2746 

Residual  R  [kN]  2648 

[t]  270.0 

F-9

Sail Characteristics          

Sail Area  SA  [m2]  851.3445178 

Jib 

Foretriangle Aspect Ratio  ARFT  [‐]  2.886 

Span  [m]  36.07 

Foretriangle  [m]  12.5 

Foot (Root Chord)  [m]  19.41 

Tip Chord  [m]  0 

Mean Chord  [m]  9.705 

Area  

[m2]  350.06 

Assumed wind speed  [knots]  25 

Sheet Load  [N]  57902 

[kgf]  5904 

Winch Power Ratio  [‐]  116 

Fore Main Sail 

Aspect Ratio  AR  [‐]  2.959 

Span  [m]  34.33 

Fullness of Roach  [‐]  51% 

Foot (Root Chord)  [m]  11.6 

Tip Chord  [m]  5.899563064 

Mean Chord  [m]  8.749781532 

Area  

[m2]  300.38 

Boom Height  [m]  1.75 

Mast Diameter  [‐]  [m]  0.4593 

Mast Height Above Deck  [m]  36.08 

Assumed wind speed  [knots]  25 

Main Sheet Tackle Ratio  [‐]  4 

Sheet Load  [N]  15601 

[kgf]  1591 

Minimum Winch Power Ratio  [‐]  31 

Main Sail 

Aspect Ratio  AR  [‐]  3.124 

Span  [m]  34.33 

Fullness of Roach  [‐]  7% 

Foot (Root Chord)  [m]  10.99 

Tip Chord  [m]  0.71435 

Mean Chord  [m]  5.852175 

F-10

Area  

[m2]  200.91 

Boom Height  [m]  2.5 

Mast Diameter  [‐]  [m]  0.4532 

Mast Height Above Deck  [m]  36.83 

Assumed wind speed  [knots]  25 

Main Sheet Tackle Ratio  [‐]  4 

Sheet Load  [N]  14859 

[kgf]  1515 

Minimum Winch Power Ratio  [‐]  30 

Foretriangle+Main Boom+Mizzen Boom  [m]  35.09 

Upwind Sail Performance 

Wind Speed  VWind  [knots]  10 

Air Density  ρAir  [kg/m3]  1.23 

Driving Force Coefficient  CDF  [‐]  0.331 

Side Force Coefficient  CSF  [‐]  1.247 

Driving Force  [kN]  4.586 

Side Force  [kN]  17.276 

  Dellenbaugh Angle 

        

Sail Area  [m2]  851.3445178 

Vertical Center of Effort  [m]  14.26 

Vertical Center of Lateral Resistance  [m]  ‐3.51 

Heeling Arm  [m]  17.77 

Displacement  [kg]  267250 

Metacentric Height  [m]  3.541 

Dellenbaugh Angle  [deg]  4.460 

G

 

APPENDIX G: GENERAL ARRANGEMENT DRAWING

H

 

APPENDIX H: PROPELLER & ENGINE CALCULATIONS

H-1

Dimension  Abbr.  Units  Value  Notes 

Required Power             

Design Speed Under Power  VS  [knots]  9  Selected as a reasonable portion of hull speed 

Propeller Speed  N  [RPM]  500.2  From Prop Calcs 

Required Delivered Power  DkW  [kW]  147.5  From Prop Calcs 

Margins and Conditions             

Sea and Weather Margin  SM  [‐]  15% 

Mechanical Efficiency  ηM  [‐]  96.5%  From engine spec sheet 

Engine Size Determination             

Required Delivered Power  DkW  [kW]  147.5 

Power with Sea Margin  DkW  [kW]  169.6 

Brake Power with Sea Margin  BkW  [kW]  175.8 

Brake Horsepower with Sea Margin  BHP  [hp]  235.7 

Engine Selection             

Manufacturer  [‐]  Lugger by Northern Lights 

Model  [‐]  L1066A 

Rated Power  [hp]  250 

Rated Power  [kW]  186.4 

Rated Speed  [RPM]  2400 

Gear Selection             

Engine Speed  NEng  [RPM]  2400 

Propeller Speed  NProp  [RPM]  500.2 

Gear Ratio (X:1)  RGear  [‐]  4.798 

System Endurance          

ME Fuel Consumption at operating speed  [L/hr]  35.0 

Genset Fuel Consumption  [L/hr]  5.7 

Daily Fuel Consumption  [L/day]  862.9 

Assumed Fuel Capacity  [t]  8.438 

[L]  10045 

Days at operating speed  [day]  11.6 

Distance per day  [nm/day]  216.0 

Range  [nm]  2514.6 

NSMB Reg

Outputs 

Wake Frac

Thrust Ded

Relative ro

Propeller

Effective P

Total Resis

Required P

slktpr1.ex

Inputs 

Number o

Back Cavit

Head Pres

Desired pr

Outputs 

Blade Area

Pitch Ratio

Diameter 

Delivered 

Design Adv

Design Thr

Design Tor

Design Op

Operating

Boat Spee

Velocity of

Advance C

Thrust Coe

Thrust Coe

Residual 

Torque Co

Open wate

Propeller s

Torque ‐ O

Torque ‐ B

Actual Del

Dimensi

gression Progr

ction 

duction 

otative efficiency

r Design Chara

Power 

stance 

Propeller Thrust

xe ­ Propeller S

f Blades 

tation  

sure to Propelle

ropeller thrust 

a Ratio 

o 

Power 

vance Coefficien

rust Coefficient 

rque Coefficient

en Water Efficie

g Point 

d 

f Advance 

Coefficient 

efficient ‐ f(J2) 

efficient ‐ f(J) 

oefficient ‐ f(J) 

er efficiency 

speed 

Open Water 

Behind Hull 

ivered Power 

ion 

ram 

y 

cteristics 

 

Selection Progr

er CL 

nt 

t 

ency 

Abbr. 

  

1‐w 

1‐t 

ηR 

  

EkW 

RT 

T 

ram    

Z 

H 

T 

BAR 

P/D 

D 

DkW 

J 

KT 

KQ 

ηO 

  

VS 

VA 

J 

KT 

KT 

KQ 

ηO 

n N QO 

QB 

DkW 

Units  Valu

     

[‐]  0.75

[‐]  0.738

[‐]  0.977

     

[kW]  71.6

[kN]  15.47

[kN]  20.96

     

[‐]  3 

[‐]  5% 

[m]  2 

[kN]  20.96

[‐]  0.374

[‐]  0.578

[m]  1.24

[kW]  144

[‐]  0.337

[‐]  0.125

[‐]  0.013

[‐]  0.506

     

[knots]  9.000

[knots]  6.759

[‐]  0.336

[‐]  0.124

[‐]  0.124

[‐]  0.000

[‐]  0.013

[‐]  0.506

[RPS]  8.337[RPM]  500.

[N·m]  2751

[N·m]  2816

[kW]  147.5

ue  N

  

1 

8 

7 

  

1  From Van O

70  From Van O

62 

  

Before actu

62 

4 

8 

4 

4 

7 

5 

32 

6 

  

0 

9 

6  Solved for t

44  Derived fro

45  Determined

00 

32  Determined

6 

7 2 

1 

6 

5 

Notes 

Oortmeersen 

Oortmeersen 

ual placement 

to match thrust 

om KT/J2 

d w/ polynomial

d w/ polynomial

 

 

l 

l 

B­Series Pr

Propeller C

Propeller CKT Coefficien

A0 =  0

A1 =  ‐0

A2 =  ‐0A3 =  0

H-2

rogram Output

CharacteristicZ 

BAR

P/D Coefficients:nts: 

0.218 

0.223 

0.179 0.050 

JT  KT 

0.00  0.217

0.05  0.206

0.10  0.193

0.15  0.1800.20  0.166

0.25  0.151

0.30  0.136

0.35  0.120

0.40  0.103

0.45  0.085

0.50  0.067

0.55  0.049

0.60  0.030

0.65  0.010

t    

cs =  3 

=  0.374 

=  0.578 

KQ 

79  0.01988 

63  0.01899 

38  0.01808 

05  0.01712 65  0.01613 

17  0.01509 

61  0.01400 

00  0.01285 

31  0.01165 

57  0.01038 

78  0.00904 

93  0.00764 

03  0.00615 

09  0.00459 

ThtC

ffii

t(K)[

]

     

blades 

KQ Coefficients:

A4 =  0.020

A5 =  ‐0.017

A6 =  ‐0.006A7 =  ‐0.006

η

0.000 

0.086 

0.171 

0.252 0.329 

0.400 

0.464 

0.520 

0.564 

0.592 

0.596 

0.565 

0.471 

0.247 

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.00

Thrust Coe

fficient (K

T) [‐]

0 

7 

6 6 

0.10

Prope

0.20

Advance C

eller Op

0.30 0.

Coefficient (J) [

en Wate

.40 0.50

[‐]

er Curve

KT

η

KQ

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 0.60

es

T

Q

.00

.01

.02

.03

.04

.05

.06

Torque

 Coe

fficient (K

Q) [‐]

I

 

APPENDIX I: HULL & DECK SCANTLING CALCULATIONS

I-1

Long Strength Cargo SG = 1 Name  Long Pos.  Buoyancy  Weight  Net Load  Shear  Moment 

m  t/m  t/m  t/m  t  t‐m st 25  ‐30.746  0.098  11.59  11.492  0.568 0.014 st 24  ‐29.465  3.456  4.404  0.948  3.012 2.775 st 23  ‐28.184  3.846  5.675  1.829  4.212 7.263 st 22  ‐26.902  5.931  4.419  ‐1.512  3.369 12.536 st 21  ‐25.621  7.906  6.04  ‐1.866  1.207 15.524 st 20  ‐24.34  9.667  8.306  ‐1.361  ‐0.889 15.636 st 19  ‐23.059  11.202  11.322  0.12  ‐1.989 13.528 st 18  ‐21.778  12.513  4.658  ‐7.855  ‐5.446 9.986 st 17  ‐20.497  14.073  5.73  ‐8.343  ‐15.867 ‐3.834 st 16  ‐19.216  15.092  5.75  ‐9.342  ‐27.422 ‐31.394 st 15  ‐17.935  14.95  17.019  2.068  ‐26.687 ‐67.243 st 14  ‐16.653  15.164  23.917  8.753  ‐21.752 ‐99.361 st 13  ‐15.372  16.109  22.76  6.651  ‐11.334 ‐120.3 st 12  ‐14.091  16.649  23.306  6.657  ‐2.998 ‐129.557 st 11  ‐12.81  15.378  22.361  6.982  5.224 ‐128.172 st 10  ‐11.529  12.928  21.364  8.436  15.044 ‐115.355 st 9  ‐10.248  11.45  15.228  3.778  23.149 ‐90.46 st 8  ‐8.967  9.909  1.938  ‐7.971  27.856 ‐57.575 st 7  ‐7.686  8.227  1.219  ‐7.008  18.463 ‐28.011 st 6  ‐6.404  6.484  1.051  ‐5.433  10.501 ‐9.662 st 5  ‐5.123  4.751  0.96  ‐3.791  4.621 ‐0.177 st 4  ‐3.842  3.102  0.865  ‐2.237  0.772 3.09 st 3  ‐2.561  0.508  0.769  0.261  ‐0.655 2.764 st 2  ‐1.28  0.509  0.575  0.066  ‐1.081 1.566 st 1  0.001  0  0.481  0.481  ‐0.632 0.434 

I-2

ABS Calculations for Structures 2.19 ­ Material Factors for Welded Aluminum Alloys 

2.19.1 ­ Material Factor Q0 Minimum ultimate strength of welded aluminum  

Ual  =  28.1  kg/mm2 Minimum yield strength of welded aluminum  

Yal  =  14.8  kg/mm2 Material Factor 

Q0  =  1.52  [for metric units] Material Factor 

Q  =  1.71  [for metric units] 

Section 5 ­ Rudders & Steering Gears 5.3 ­ Balanced Rudders       5.3.1 ­ Steel Upper Stocks Distance from CL of upper stock to center of area A 

R  =  0.2  m Area below the load line of the immersed rudder surface 

A  =  10  m2 Vessel speed 

V  =  20  knots Upper stock minimum diameter 

S  =  201  mm 

5.3.2 ­ Steel Lower Stocks Vertical distance from the bottom of the neck bearing to center of area A 

a  =  0.8  m Horizontal distance from CL of lower stock to center of area A 

b  =  0.2  m R = a + (a^2 + b^2)^(1/2) 

R  =  1.62 Upper stock minimum diameter 

S1  =  404  mm 

Section 6 ­ Longitudinal Strength 

6.3 ­ Longitudinal Hull­Girder Strength 6.3.1 ­ Normal Strength Standard Strength factor (Table 6.2) (Minimum Value) 

f  =  150 

Block coefficient (minimum 0.62)

Cb = 0.62

Required hull‐girder section modulus at midship

SMbasic = 2159 cm2·m

Table 6.1 ­ Required Section Modulus Strength Factor

s = 0.4349Maximum Bending Moment (Hydromax)

M = 129.557 t·mCase For Table 6.1

Case = IRequired midship section modulus

SM = 1564 cm2·m= 1563522 cm3

= 1.5635 m3

Section 8 ­ Frames       8.3 ­ Frame Spacing       8.3 Maximum Spacing Maximum frame spacing

S = 502 mmActual Frame Spacing

S = 500 mm

8.5 ­ Hold Frames       8.5.1 ­ Transverse Frames Transverse frame spacing

s = 0.5 mHorizontal distance from shell plating to most outboard row of deck supports 

b = 0.65 mVertical distance of straight frame (min 2.10 m)

l = 2.1 mVertical distance from DWL to midpoint of l (min 0.4*l)

h = 0.84 mVertical distance between lowest deck and freeboard deck (min 2.44 m)

h1 = 2.44 mRequired minimum midship transverse frame section modulus

SM = 35.756 cm3

Frame SM Check Frame thickness 

t  =  12 mmFrame depth 

h  =  15 cmFrame moment of inertia 

I  =  337.5 cmFrame weld to neutral axis 

y  =  7.5 cmFrame section modulus 

SM  =  45.000 cm3

Section 15 ­ Shell Plating    15.3 ­ Shell Plating Amidships    15.3.5 ­ Side Shell Plating Spacing of transverse or longitudinal frames

s  =  500 mmMinimum side shell plating amidships 

t  =  7.2 mm

15.3.8 ­ Bottom Shell Plating Minimum bottom shell plating amidships (transverse)

t  =  7.3 mmMinimum bottom shell plating amidships (longitudinal)

t  =  6.7 mm

15.3.9 ­ Minimum Thickness Minimum plating thickness (transverse)

t  =  7.7 mmMinimum plating thickness (longitudinal)

t  =  6.2 mm

I-3

Calculation of Properties About Overall Centroid: Item Centroid Item Inertia Area Transv Vert Transv(T-T) Vert(V-V Item (m2) (m) (m) (m4) (m4) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- L8x4x1 0.01 1.69 -1.68 0.00 0.00 L8x4x1 0.01 3.69 -1.68 0.00 0.00 L8x4x1 0.01 2.69 -1.68 0.00 0.00 L8x4x1 0.01 1.36 -1.68 0.00 0.00 L8x4x1 0.01 3.36 -1.68 0.00 0.00 L8x4x1 0.01 2.36 -1.68 0.00 0.00 L8x4x1 0.01 -1.69 -1.68 0.00 0.00 L8x4x1 0.01 -3.69 -1.68 0.00 0.00 L8x4x1 0.01 -2.69 -1.68 0.00 0.00 L8x4x1 0.01 -1.36 -1.68 0.00 0.00 L8x4x1 0.01 -3.36 -1.68 0.00 0.00 L8x4x1 0.01 -2.36 -1.68 0.00 0.00 L8×8×1 0.01 3.92 1.24 0.00 0.00 L8×8×1 0.01 3.91 0.44 0.00 0.00 L8×8×1 0.01 3.89 -0.36 0.00 0.00 L8×8×1 0.01 -3.92 1.24 0.00 0.00 L8×8×1 0.01 -3.91 0.44 0.00 0.00 L8×8×1 0.01 -3.89 -0.36 0.00 0.00 Plate 0.01 0.46 -2.82 0.00 0.00 Plate 0.02 0.64 -2.30 0.00 0.00 Plate 0.05 2.27 -1.81 0.00 0.04 Plate 0.00 3.91 -1.74 0.00 0.00 Plate 0.00 3.94 -1.56 0.00 0.00 Plate 0.00 3.98 -1.37 0.00 0.00 Plate 0.00 4.00 -1.20 0.00 0.00 Plate 0.00 4.01 -1.00 0.00 0.00 Plate 0.00 4.03 -0.81 0.00 0.00 Plate 0.00 4.03 -0.64 0.00 0.00 Plate 0.00 4.04 -0.43 0.00 0.00 Plate 0.00 4.05 -0.16 0.00 0.00 Plate 0.01 4.06 0.16 0.00 0.00 Plate 0.01 4.06 0.54 0.00 0.00 Plate 0.01 4.07 0.99 0.00 0.00 Plate 0.01 4.07 1.53 0.00 0.00 Plate 0.01 -0.46 -2.82 0.00 0.00 Plate 0.02 -0.64 -2.30 0.00 0.00 Plate 0.05 -2.27 -1.81 0.00 0.04 Plate 0.00 -3.91 -1.74 0.00 0.00 Plate 0.00 -3.94 -1.56 0.00 0.00 Plate 0.00 -3.98 -1.37 0.00 0.00 Plate 0.00 -4.00 -1.20 0.00 0.00

Plate 0.00 -4.01 -1.00 0.00 0.00 Plate 0.00 -4.03 -0.81 0.00 0.00 Plate 0.00 -4.03 -0.64 0.00 0.00 Plate 0.00 -4.04 -0.43 0.00 0.00 Plate 0.00 -4.05 -0.16 0.00 0.00 Plate 0.01 -4.06 0.16 0.00 0.00 Plate 0.01 -4.06 0.54 0.00 0.00 Plate 0.01 -4.07 0.99 0.00 0.00 Plate 0.01 -4.07 1.53 0.00 0.00 Plate 0.09 0.32 -1.72 0.03 0.00 Plate 0.01 0.17 -0.61 0.00 0.00 Plate 0.09 -0.32 -1.72 0.03 0.00 Plate 0.01 -0.17 -0.61 0.00 0.00 Plate 0.03 1.02 -1.40 0.00 0.00 Plate 0.03 2.02 -1.40 0.00 0.00 Plate 0.03 3.02 -1.40 0.00 0.00 Plate 0.11 2.18 -0.99 0.00 0.12 Plate 0.11 -2.18 -0.99 0.00 0.12 Plate 0.03 -1.02 -1.40 0.00 0.00 Plate 0.03 -2.02 -1.40 0.00 0.00 Plate 0.03 -3.02 -1.40 0.00 0.00 Plate 0.06 3.41 1.90 0.00 0.01 Plate 0.04 0.00 2.09 0.00 0.00 Plate 0.06 -3.41 1.90 0.00 0.01 Plate 0.02 0.33 2.22 0.00 0.00 Plate 0.02 2.78 2.16 0.00 0.00 Plate 0.03 0.33 1.78 0.00 0.00 Plate 0.02 2.78 1.73 0.00 0.00 Plate 0.02 -0.33 2.22 0.00 0.00 Plate 0.02 -2.78 2.16 0.00 0.00 Plate 0.03 -0.33 1.78 0.00 0.00 Plate 0.02 -2.78 1.73 0.00 0.00 Plate 0.01 0.25 2.40 0.00 0.00 Plate 0.02 2.90 2.40 0.00 0.00 Plate 0.01 -0.25 2.40 0.00 0.00 Plate 0.01 0.20 1.53 0.00 0.00 Plate 0.01 2.88 1.53 0.00 0.00 Plate 0.01 -0.20 1.53 0.00 0.00 Plate 0.01 -2.88 1.53 0.00 0.00 Plate 0.02 3.43 1.69 0.00 0.00 Plate 0.02 3.42 1.48 0.00 0.00 Plate 0.02 -3.43 1.69 0.00 0.00 Plate 0.02 -3.42 1.48 0.00 0.00 Plate 0.02 -2.90 2.40 0.00 0.00 ===================================================================================== Totals 1.55 0.00 -0.17

Extents: -------- Distance overall centroid to top = 2.59 m Distance overall centroid to bottom = 2.67 m Distance overall centroid to left = 4.08 m Distance overall centroid to right = 4.08 m Section Modulii: ---------------- Top fiber = 1.62 m3 Bottom fiber = 1.57 m3 Left fiber = 2.36 m3 Right fiber = 2.36 m3 Transverse axis (T-T) inertias are about a horizontal centroidal line. Vertical axis (V-V) inertias are about a vertical centroidal line. Significant figures respected (see Options menu).

[Calculated using the Section Modulus Calculator offered with GHS]

J

 

APPENDIX J: ELECTRICAL LOAD ANALYSIS & ONE­LINE DIAGRAM

J-1

Electrical Load Analysis 

[A]  [‐]  [hr]  [A·hr]  [kW·hr]  [A·hr @ 12V DC] 

Load  Current  Service Factor  Daily Hours in Use  Daily Consumption  Daily Consumption  Daily Consumption  Notes 

Normal Underway Operating Condition                      

Normal Underway Operation DC System ­ 12 VDC           (@ 12V DC)     (@ 12V DC)    

Hotel Lighting  8.0  0.20  4.00  32.00  0.38  32.00  40x 23W fluorescent bulbs 

Navigational Lighting  6.0  0.50  10.00  60.00  0.72  60.00  72W tri‐color 

Spreader Lights  10.0  0.03  0.50  5.00  0.06  5.00  4x 30W Lights 

Water Pressure  5.0  0.03  0.60  3.00  0.04  3.00  Whale universal water pump (8 L/min) 

Head Treatment  10.0  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  Assumption 

Radar  2.9  0.50  10.00  28.50  0.34  28.50  http://www.raymarine.com/ProductDetail.aspx?SITE=1&SECTION=2&PAGE=76&PRODUCT=3658  

VHF  5.0  0.70  14.00  70.00  0.84  70.00  http://www.raymarine.com/ProductDetail.aspx?SITE=1&SECTION=2&PAGE=830&PRODUCT=4101 

SSB  12.0  0.10  2.00  24.00  0.29  24.00  http://www.landfallnavigation.com/eicm802.html 

Depth  1.0  1.00  20.00  20.00  0.24  20.00  Assumption Plotter  2.8  1.00  20.00  55.00  0.66  55.00  http://www.raymarine.com/ProductDetail.aspx?SITE=1&SECTION=2&PAGE=1893&PRODUCT=4273 

Instruments  1.0  1.00  20.00  20.00  0.24  20.00  Assumption AIS  0.2  1.00  20.00  4.00  0.05  4.00  http://www.raymarine.com/ProductDetail.aspx?SITE=1&SECTION=2&PAGE=1718&PRODUCT=4004 

‐‐‐ 

Total           321.50  3.86  321.50    

Normal Underway Operation DC System ­ 24 VDC           (@ 24V DC)     (@ 24V DC)    Autopilot/Steering  40.0  0.80  16.00  640.00  15.36  640.00  Wil Hamm ‐ 2x 20A 24V DC motors Cockpit Winches  130.0  0.05  1.00  130.00  3.12  130.00  Calculated from Harken's winch motor sizes (24V) Boom Furlers  80.0  0.03  0.60  48.00  1.15  48.00  Assumption Foresail Furler  80.0  0.03  0.60  48.00  1.15  48.00  Assumption Water Ballast Pump  42.0  0.02  0.45  18.90  0.45  18.90  1 kW ‐ from prelim pump sizing calc Anchor Windlass  145.0  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  marinewarehouse.net ‐‐‐ 

Total           884.90  21.24  884.90    

Normal Underway Operation AC System ­ 120 VAC           (@ 120V AC)     (@ 12V DC)    Computer  3.5  1.00  20.00  70.00  8.40  700.00  Dell.com: 300W DC power supply ‐ conservative estimate Hotel Lighting  8.0  0.10  2.00  16.00  1.92  160.00  40x 23W fluorescent bulbs 

Outlets  20.0  0.15  3.00  60.00  7.20  600.00  Assumption 

‐‐‐ 

Total           146.00  17.52  1460.00    

Charging Underway Operating Condition                      

Charging Underway Operation DC System ­ 12V DC ­ Assuming 2 hour charge time     (@ 12V DC)     (@ 12V DC)    

Navigational Lighting  6.0  0.50  2.00  12.00  0.14  12.00  72W tri‐color Spreader Lights  8.0  0.10  0.40  3.20  0.04  3.20  4x 30W Lights Water Pressure  5.0  0.05  0.20  1.00  0.01  1.00  Whale universal water pump (8 L/min) 

Head Treatment  10.0  0.08  0.30  3.00  0.04  3.00  Assumption Radar  5.0  0.75  3.00  15.00  0.18  15.00  http://www.raymarine.com/ProductDetail.aspx?SITE=1&SECTION=2&PAGE=76&PRODUCT=3658  

VHF  1.0  0.70  2.80  2.80  0.03  2.80  http://www.raymarine.com/ProductDetail.aspx?SITE=1&SECTION=2&PAGE=830&PRODUCT=4101 

SSB  2.0  0.05  0.20  0.40  0.00  0.40  http://www.landfallnavigation.com/eicm802.html 

J-2

Depth  1.0  1.00  4.00  4.00  0.05  4.00  Assumption Plotter  2.5  1.00  4.00  10.00  0.12  10.00  http://www.raymarine.com/ProductDetail.aspx?SITE=1&SECTION=2&PAGE=1893&PRODUCT=4273 

Instruments  1.0  1.00  4.00  4.00  0.05  4.00  Assumption AIS  0.3  1.00  4.00  1.00  0.01  1.00  http://www.raymarine.com/ProductDetail.aspx?SITE=1&SECTION=2&PAGE=1718&PRODUCT=4004 

‐‐‐ 

Total           56.40  0.68  56.40    

Charging Underway Operation DC System ­ 24 VDC           (@ 24V DC)     (@ 24V DC)    

Autopilot/Steering  40.0  0.80  3.20  128.00  3.07  128.00  Wil Hamm ‐ 4 20A 24V DC motors Cockpit Winches  130.0  0.05  0.20  26.00  0.62  26.00  Calculated from Harken's winch motor sizes (24V) Boom Furlers  80.0  0.03  0.12  9.60  0.23  9.60  Assumption Foresail Furler  80.0  0.03  0.12  9.60  0.23  9.60  Assumption Water Ballast Pump  42.0  0.10  0.40  16.80  0.40  16.80  1 kW ‐ from prelim pump sizing calc 

Anchor Windlass  145.0  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  marinewarehouse.net 

‐‐‐ 

Total           190.00  4.56  190.00    

Charging Underway Operation AC System ­ 120V AC ­ Assuming 2 hour charge time     (@ 120V AC)     (@ 12V DC)    Computer  3.5  1  4.00  14.00  1.68  140.00  Dell.com: 300W DC power supply ‐ conservative estimate Dishwasher  7.0  0.5  2.00  14.00  1.68  140.00  Calculated from Bosch website Hotel Lighting  8.0  0.75  3.00  24.00  2.88  240.00  40x 23W fluorescent bulbs 

Microwave  14.0  0.1  0.40  5.60  0.67  56.00  assumed 1500W power consumption Outlets  20.0  0.75  3.00  60.00  7.20  600.00  Assumed Refrigeration  15.0  1  4.00  60.00  7.20  600.00  Assumed based on http://www.seafrost.com/bd.htm Washing Machine  15.0  0.5  2.00  30.00  3.60  300.00  Calculated from Bosch website Reverse Osmosis Watermaker  18.5  1  4.00  74.00  8.88  740.00  From AquaMarine website Centerboard Lift Hoist  31.5  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  5 ton ‐ detroit hoist ‐‐‐ Total           281.60  33.79  2816.00    

 

Name 

 

Abbr. 

Units 

Value 

Notes 

Total Normal Condition System Size 

           

Total 12V DC System Load L12DC 

[A·hr] 

322  

Total 24V DC System Load L24DC 

[A·hr] 

885  

Total 120V AC System Load (DC amp‐hours) 

L120AC 

[A·hr] 

1460 

Assumed Inverter Efficiency  ηInv  [‐]  85%  Xantrex full load eff. (93% peak) 

Effective AC System Load (in 12V DC) LAC 

[A·hr] 

1718 

Total 12V DC Daily Consumption  

[A·hr] 

2039 

Total 24V DC Daily Consumption  

[A·hr] 

885 

Battery Banks             Battery Manufacturer  [‐]  Trojan 

Model Number  [‐]  J305H‐AC  Voltage  [V]  6 20‐hr Capacity  [‐]  360 

12V DC Bank Number of Pairs  [‐]  11 

Bank Capacity (for 12V DC) [A·hr] 

3960 

Percentage of total daily consumption  [‐] 

194% 

24V DC Bank Number of Quads  [‐]  5 

Bank Capacity (for 24V DC) [A·hr] 

1800 

Percentage of total daily consumption  [‐] 

203% 

Total Size Total battery units required  [‐]  42 

Renewable Battery Charging             

J-3

Solar Panels 

Total Panel Area  ASP  [m2]  12  Assumed less than half of wheelhouse top area 

Power per area  ‐ [W/m2]  140 

calculated from http://www.wholesalesolar.com/products.folder/module‐folder/kyocera/KD210GX‐LP.html 

Total Power in Full Sunlight  ‐  [kW]  1.68 Time in full sunlight per day  ‐  [hr]  7  Assumed 

Power provided per day  PSP [kW·hr] 

11.76 

12V Amp Hours per day  ‐ [A·hr]  980 

Wind Generator @ 15 knots apparent windspeed 

12V Current produced  IWG  [A]  9 From http://www.e‐marine‐inc.com/products/wind_generators/airxmarine.html 

12V Amp Hours per day  ‐ [A·hr]  216 

Wind Generator @ 20 knots apparent windspeed 

12V Current produced  IWG  [A]  18.5 From http://www.e‐marine‐inc.com/products/wind_generators/airxmarine.html 

12V Amp Hours per day  ‐ [A·hr]  444 

12V DC Renewable Charging Capacity 

Sunny Day, 15 knots Appnt. Wind  ‐ [A·hr] 

1196 

Sunny Day, 20 knots Appnt. Wind  ‐ [A·hr] 

1424 

Battery Charger             

Total 12V Battery Bank Capacity  ‐ [A·hr] 

3960 

Total 24V Battery Bank Capacity  ‐ [A·hr] 

1800 

Generator Rated Power  ‐  [kW]  15 Charging Cond. Average AC Load  ‐  [kW]  8.4 Available Charging Power Provided  ‐  [kW]  6.6 4 Hour Avail Charging 12V DC amp‐hours  ‐ 

[A·hr] 

1092.0 

4 Hour Charging 12V DC Load  ‐ [A·hr]  56.4 

Available Charging 12V DC amp‐hours  ‐ 

[A·hr] 

1035.6 

4 Hour Avail Charging 24V DC amp‐hours  ‐ 

[A·hr] 

546.0 

4 Hour Charging 24V DC Load  ‐ [A·hr] 

190.0 

Available Charging 24V DC amp‐hours  ‐ 

[A·hr] 

356.0 

Generator autostart battery power level  ‐  [‐]  50% 

Required amp‐hours for 12V bank  ‐ [A·hr] 

1980 

Required amp‐hours for 24V bank  ‐  [A·hr 900 

] 

Charge system efficiency  ηChg  [‐]  90%  Assumed 

Actual charge time ‐ 12V Bank  TChg  [hr]  3.12  Empirical method, p165 of Nigel Calder (David Smead) 

Actual charge time ‐ 24V Bank  TChg  [hr]  3.81  Empirical method, p165 of Nigel Calder (David Smead) 

Generator/Engine­Powered Loads 

           

Windlass (24V DC Power)  ‐  [kW]  3.5  marinewarehouse.net 

Cargo Hoist (120V AC Power) ‐  [kW] 

3.728  3 ton ‐ detroit hoist 

Centerboard Lift (120V AC Power) ‐  [kW] 

3.728  5 ton ‐ detroit hoist 

Generator Sizing             

Largest Single Load LMax  [kW] 

3.728  Centerboard Lift 

Added Capacity Factor [‐] 

125%  Assumed 

Minimum Smaller Generator Capacity  [kW]  4.66 

Generator Selection             Generator 1 Manufacturer  [‐]  Lugger by Northern Lights Model  [‐]  M673L3 Rated Power  [kW]  6 

Generator 2 Manufacturer  [‐]  Lugger by Northern Lights Model  [‐]  M773LW3 Rated Power  [kW]  9 

K

 

APPENDIX K: WEIGHT ANALYSIS 

K-1

Lightship Weights & Centers 

All centers of gravity measured aft of FP +, Starboard +, and above DWL +  

[tonne]  [m]  [m]  [m]  [tonne·m]  [tonne·m]  [tonne·m] Item  Mass  LCG  TCG  VCG  L Mom  T Mom  V Mom  Notes 

Structure                         Hull Shell Plating  9.235  16.601  0.000  ‐0.431  153.314  0.000  ‐3.980  Hull minus transom hatch Cambered Deck  4.501  17.374  0.000  1.977  78.200  0.000  8.898  Full deck area Cargo Hatches  1.974  12.873  0.000  2.300  25.407  0.000  4.539  Assumed based on area surrounding entire volume of hatch Transom Hatch  0.093  30.747  0.000  1.350  2.863  0.000  0.126  2.5 sq m, assumed to be 3.5 sq m for structure Hull Structure  3.694  16.601  0.000  ‐0.431  61.326  0.000  ‐1.592  40% of shell plating at same CG Deck Structure  1.800  17.374  0.000  1.977  31.280  0.000  3.559  40% of deck plating at same CG Pilothouse  1.607  19.345  ‐0.030  1.679  31.091  ‐0.048  2.698  Assumed straight area to account for windows and struct Wheelhouse  1.801  25.192  ‐0.054  3.193  45.375  ‐0.097  5.751  Assumed straight area to account for windows and struct Watertight Bulkheads  1.733  15.473  0.000  0.142  26.808  0.000  0.246  Assumed plate thickness to account for stiffeners Engine Foundation  0.133  21.480  0.000  ‐1.370  2.857  0.000  ‐0.182  Assumed plate area Shaft Foundation  0.133  20.140  0.000  ‐1.650  2.679  0.000  ‐0.219  Assumed plate area Genset Foundation  0.133  19.390  ‐0.420  ‐1.510  2.579  ‐0.056  ‐0.201  Assumed plate area Forward Mast Step  0.160  5.610  0.000  0.270  0.895  0.000  0.043  Assumed plate area Aft Mast Step  0.080  18.510  0.000  0.650  1.477  0.000  0.052  Assumed plate area Keel Foundation  0.612  15.240  0.000  ‐2.280  9.324  0.000  ‐1.395  Assumed plate area Coatings  0.194  16.601  0.000  ‐0.431  3.223  0.000  ‐0.084  Density a sample from International Marine ‐‐‐ Margin  1.394  17.168  ‐0.007  0.655  478.696  ‐0.201  18.260  Assumed to be 5% Total  29.277  17.168  ‐0.007  0.655  478.696  ‐0.201  18.260    

Forepeak                         Floor  0.076  2.222  0.000  ‐0.350  0.170  0.000  ‐0.027 Chain Stop  0.027  2.222  0.000  ‐0.400  0.059  0.000  ‐0.011 ‐‐‐ Margin  0.005  2.222  0.000  ‐0.363  0.229  0.000  ‐0.037  Assumed to be 5% Total  0.108  2.222  0.000  ‐0.363  0.229  0.000  ‐0.037    

Forecastle                         Sail Stowage Racks  0.206  5.255  ‐0.548  0.849  1.081  ‐0.113  0.175 Workbench  0.076  6.449  1.906  0.191  0.489  0.145  0.014 Floor  0.427  5.802  0.000  ‐0.550  2.479  0.000  ‐0.235 ‐‐‐ Margin  0.035  5.712  0.045  ‐0.065  4.050  0.032  ‐0.046  Assumed to be 5% Total  0.744  5.712  0.045  ‐0.065  4.050  0.032  ‐0.046    

Master Stateroom                         Floor  0.262  25.939  2.293  ‐0.250  6.794  0.601  ‐0.065 Bulkheads  0.054  24.904  1.547  0.824  1.352  0.084  0.045 Master Bunk  0.172  26.900  2.650  0.250  4.625  0.456  0.043 Master Desk  0.076  24.996  3.450  0.125  1.903  0.263  0.010 Master Dresser  0.069  27.450  1.250  0.250  1.897  0.086  0.017 ‐‐‐ Margin  0.032  26.163  2.351  0.077  16.572  1.489  0.049  Assumed to be 5% Total  0.665  26.163  2.351  0.077  16.572  1.489  0.049    

K-2

Crew Stateroom                         Floor  0.227  26.198  ‐2.279  ‐0.250  5.951  ‐0.518  ‐0.057 Bulkheads  0.050  25.221  ‐1.605  0.820  1.264  ‐0.080  0.041 Crew Bunks  0.120  26.900  ‐3.088  0.295  3.219  ‐0.370  0.035 Crew Desk  0.065  25.150  ‐3.450  0.125  1.643  ‐0.225  0.008 Crew Dressers  0.169  25.871  ‐1.303  0.667  4.366  ‐0.220  0.113 ‐‐‐ Margin  0.032  26.058  ‐2.239  0.222  16.442  ‐1.413  0.140  Assumed to be 5% Total  0.663  26.058  ‐2.239  0.222  16.442  ‐1.413  0.140    

Head                         Floor  0.067  22.991  3.290  ‐0.250  1.546  0.221  ‐0.017 Bulkheads  0.106  22.558  2.857  0.844  2.382  0.302  0.089 Counter/Sink  0.043  22.500  3.750  0.250  0.972  0.162  0.011 WC  0.050  22.250  2.970  0.000  1.113  0.149  0.000 Shower  0.105  23.555  3.547  0.815  2.473  0.372  0.086 ‐‐‐ Margin  0.019  22.870  3.250  0.455  8.484  1.206  0.169  Assumed to be 5% Total  0.390  22.870  3.250  0.455  8.484  1.206  0.169    

Accommodation Area                         Floor  0.340  24.133  ‐0.668  ‐0.250  8.211  ‐0.227  ‐0.085 ‐‐‐ Margin  0.017  24.133  ‐0.668  ‐0.250  8.211  ‐0.227  ‐0.085  Assumed to be 5% Total  0.357  24.133  ‐0.668  ‐0.250  8.211  ‐0.227  ‐0.085    

Galley & Pilothouse                         Partial Bulkheads  0.078  20.602  ‐3.000  1.401  1.603  ‐0.233  0.109 Dinette  0.193  18.573  ‐1.628  1.203  3.587  ‐0.314  0.232 Galley Sink  0.052  20.500  1.350  1.150  1.063  0.070  0.060 Galley Stove  0.118  19.500  1.350  1.150  2.297  0.159  0.135  Assumed 80 kg Counter/Provision Stowage  0.144  17.932  0.926  1.150  2.576  0.133  0.165 Refrigerator (Interior and Insulation)  0.050  21.524  3.500  1.150  1.076  0.175  0.058 Freezer (Interior and Insulation)  0.250  19.012  3.500  1.150  4.753  0.875  0.288 ‐‐‐ Margin  0.044  19.175  0.977  1.184  16.955  0.864  1.047  Assumed to be 5% Total  0.928  19.175  0.977  1.184  16.955  0.864  1.047    

Wheelhouse                         Pilot Berth/Seating  0.116  23.056  1.061  2.481  2.683  0.123  0.289 Wheel Pedastel  0.030  23.987  0.000  2.561  0.710  0.000  0.076 Chart Table/Stowage  0.187  27.000  ‐1.750  2.507  5.054  ‐0.328  0.469 Navigation/Communications Station  0.106  26.960  1.750  2.534  2.853  0.185  0.268 ‐‐‐ Margin  0.022  25.742  ‐0.043  2.510  11.299  ‐0.019  1.102  Assumed to be 5% Total  0.461  25.742  ‐0.043  2.510  11.299  ‐0.019  1.102    

Installations                         Main Engine  0.981  21.411  0.000  ‐0.741  21.004  0.000  ‐0.727 Genset 1  0.163  19.850  3.250  ‐1.130  3.236  0.530  ‐0.184 

K-3

Genset 2  0.240  19.915  ‐3.250  ‐1.092  4.780  ‐0.780  ‐0.262 Propeller Shaft  0.040  20.750  0.000  ‐1.450  0.824  0.000  ‐0.058  Assuming 15 cm Dia. 304SS shaft Gearbox/Transmission  0.200  18.740  0.000  ‐1.440  3.748  0.000  ‐0.288  Weight assumed 24V Battery Bank  0.900  19.388  ‐1.316  ‐1.348  17.449  ‐1.184  ‐1.213 12V Battery Bank  0.990  19.375  1.046  ‐1.349  19.181  1.036  ‐1.336 Winch Hydraulic Power Pack  0.100  21.180  3.250  ‐1.101  2.118  0.325  ‐0.110  Harken hydro 3 power unit Refrigeration System  0.020  20.600  3.250  ‐1.141  0.412  0.065  ‐0.023  Assumed based on http://www.seafrost.com/bd.htm Diesel Heater  0.014  22.250  0.000  1.068  0.312  0.000  0.015 Rudders (2)  1.017  29.608  0.000  ‐1.459  30.103  0.000  ‐1.483 Rudder Stock (2)  0.050  28.910  0.000  ‐0.580  1.459  0.000  ‐0.029  Assuming 20 cm Dia. 304SS shaft Centerboard Lift Hoist  0.250  8.960  0.000  ‐0.660  2.240  0.000  ‐0.165  Assuming similar to harken jib winches Steering System  0.300  28.530  0.000  0.080  8.559  0.000  0.024  Assumption Propeller  0.200  23.770  0.000  ‐2.050  4.754  0.000  ‐0.410  Assumed mass Bow Thruster Unit  0.085  2.720  0.000  ‐0.310  0.231  0.000  ‐0.026  Mass from Florida Bow Thrusters Fuel Tanks & Piping  0.000  0.000  0.000  0.000  Assumed accounted for in structure (integral tanks) Water Tanks & Piping  0.000  0.000  0.000  0.000  " Holding Tanks & Piping  0.000  0.000  0.000  0.000  " SW Ballast Tanks & Piping  0.000  0.000  0.000  0.000  " ‐‐‐ Margin  0.444  21.696  ‐0.002  ‐1.131  120.410  ‐0.009  ‐6.276  Assumed to be 8% Total  5.994  21.696  ‐0.002  ‐1.131  120.410  ‐0.009  ‐6.276    

Deck Equipment                         Pulpit  0.117  ‐3.515  0.000  2.069  ‐0.411  0.000  0.242  Teak Bollards  0.130  19.151  0.000  1.960  2.483  0.000  0.254 Genoa Tracks & Cars  0.024  18.440  0.000  1.986  0.444  0.000  0.048 Genoa Blocks  0.010  18.440  0.000  1.986  0.184  0.000  0.020 Jib Sheet Winches  0.250  24.000  0.000  2.250  6.000  0.000  0.563  Weight assumed ‐ CR33SLHD Captive Reel Winch (Harken) Main/Fore Sheet Winches  0.040  25.500  0.000  2.350  1.020  0.000  0.094  Harken B44.2STEH Electric Winches Fore Tracks & Blocks  0.024  17.170  0.000  2.120  0.414  0.000  0.051 Main Tracks & Blocks  0.024  30.130  0.000  2.090  0.726  0.000  0.050 Bow Rollers  0.024  ‐1.070  0.330  1.900  ‐0.026  0.008  0.045 Bow Anchors  0.300  ‐1.820  0.330  1.960  ‐0.546  0.099  0.588 Stern Roller  0.038  30.830  2.750  2.300  1.181  0.105  0.088  Placement awaiting determination of long'l offset Stern Anchor  0.300  30.830  2.750  1.550  9.249  0.825  0.465 Anchor Windlass (Bow)  0.175  2.000  0.000  2.300  0.350  0.000  0.403  IMTRA Anchor Windlass (Stern)  0.175  29.790  2.750  2.100  5.213  0.481  0.368  IMTRA Anchor Chain (Bow)  0.432  2.000  0.000  0.500  0.864  0.000  0.216  120 m Fwd Anchor Chain (Stern)  0.360  26.300  0.000  ‐0.710  9.468  0.000  ‐0.256  100 m Aft Deck Hatches ‐ Ventilation/Light  0.029  11.625  0.000  2.469  0.337  0.000  0.072 RIB Tender  0.085  28.750  0.000  1.285  2.444  0.000  0.109  11 AL ‐ Superlight ‐ http://www.abinflatables.com/i_producto.asp 

RIB Tender outboard  0.085  30.340  0.000  1.530  2.579  0.000  0.130 25 HP Honda 4Stroke ‐ http://www.honda‐marine.com/modeldetail.aspx?modelGroup=bf25 

Cargo Handling Fore Boom (Cargo Crane) (See rig & sails)  0.000  0.000  0.000  0.000  0.000  0.000  0.000  Accounted for in rig & sails Fwd Cargo Hoist  0.386  6.220  0.000  2.310  2.401  0.000  0.892  Detroit hoist 21 ft/min 5 ton cap. Boom Controls  0.100  6.220  0.000  2.310  0.622  0.000  0.231  Assumed located at hoist Aft Cargo Hoist  0.386  19.500  0.000  3.380  7.527  0.000  1.305  Detroit hoist 21 ft/min 5 ton cap. Boom Controls  0.100  19.500  0.000  3.380  1.950  0.000  0.338  Assumed located at hoist Transom Hatch Equipment  0.300  30.500  0.000  1.350  9.150  0.000  0.405 ‐‐‐ Margin  0.312  16.338  0.390  1.726  63.623  1.518  6.720  Assumed to be 8% Total  4.206  16.338  0.390  1.726  63.623  1.518  6.720    

K-4

Rig & Sails                         Bowsprit  0.406  ‐3.766  0.000  1.915  ‐1.527  0.000  0.777 Genoa  0.151  ‐3.700  0.000  11.870  ‐0.560  0.000  1.796  Assume 10 oz. sail cloth ‐ furled Fore Mast  0.922  6.000  0.000  21.995  5.533  0.000  20.284 Fore Mast Spreaders  0.138  6.000  0.000  21.995  0.830  0.000  3.043  Assumed percentage of mast weight Fore Main Boom (See Deck Hardware)  0.508  12.090  0.000  3.876  6.147  0.000  1.971 Fore Mast Whisker Pole  0.271  5.580  0.000  10.230  1.511  0.000  2.771 Foresail  0.130  12.090  0.000  3.876  1.570  0.000  0.503  Assume 10 oz. sail cloth ‐ furled Main Mast  0.975  19.000  0.000  20.100  18.529  0.000  19.602 Main Mast Spreaders  0.146  19.000  0.000  20.100  2.779  0.000  2.940  Assumed percentage of mast weight Main Boom  0.482  25.109  0.000  4.794  12.100  0.000  2.310 Aft Crane Boom  0.508  18.400  0.000  10.750  9.355  0.000  5.465 Main Sail  0.087  25.109  0.000  4.794  2.181  0.000  0.416  Assume 10 oz. sail cloth ‐ furled Extra Sails  0.423  5.610  0.000  0.270  2.374  0.000  0.114  Spares for each and spinnaker(s) Chainplates  0.279  12.870  0.000  2.000  3.595  0.000  0.559 Standing Rigging  0.500  12.246  0.000  20.215  6.123  0.000  10.108 ‐‐‐ Margin  0.356  11.900  0.000  12.257  70.540  0.000  72.659  Assumed to be 6% Total  6.283  11.900  0.000  12.257  70.540  0.000  72.659    

Ballast                         Fixed Ballast (Trunk Lead)  36.008  16.488  0.000  ‐2.446  593.698  0.000  ‐88.075  Assumed 90% of desired volume filled with lead Centerboard  5.117  13.753  0.000  ‐4.197  70.369  0.000  ‐21.474  Assumed constructed of plain steel plate ‐‐‐ Margin  0.411  16.148  0.000  ‐2.664  664.067  0.000  ‐109.550  Assumed to be 1% Total  41.536  16.148  0.000  ‐2.664  664.067  0.000  ‐109.550    

Total Lightship                         Total  91.612  16.720  0.037  ‐0.179  1479.578  3.240  ‐15.848    

L

APPENDIX L: HYDROSTATICS, TRIM AND STABILITY 

L-1

Equilibrium Hydrostatics Full-Load Departure: Draft Amidsh. m 7.785 Displacement tonne 275.1 Heel to Starboard degrees 0.0 Draft at FP m 7.780 Draft at AP m 7.791 Draft at LCF m 7.786 Trim (+ve by stern) m 0.011 WL Length m 30.724 WL Beam m 8.332 Wetted Area m^2 327.630Waterpl. Area m^2 200.639Prismatic Coeff. 0.541 Block Coeff. 0.135 Midship Area Coeff. 0.264 Waterpl. Area Coeff. 0.784 LCB from zero pt. (+ve fwd) m -16.368 LCF from zero pt. (+ve fwd) m -17.166 KB m 6.989 KG fluid m 7.532 BMt m 3.404 BML m 43.207 GMt corrected m 2.862 GML corrected m 42.664 KMt m 10.393 KML m 50.196 Immersion (TPc) tonne/cm 2.057 MTc tonne.m 3.818 RM at 1deg = GMt.Disp.sin(1) tonne.m 13.741 Max deck inclination deg 0.0 Trim angle (+ve by stern) deg 0.0

Key point Type Freeboard mMargin Line (freeboard pos = -18.02 m) 1.747 Deck Edge (freeboard pos = -18.02 m) 1.823

Full-Load Arrival: Draft Amidsh. m 7.780 Displacement tonne 274.0 Heel to Starboard degrees 0.0 Draft at FP m 7.780 Draft at AP m 7.780 Draft at LCF m 7.780 Trim (+ve by stern) m 0.000 WL Length m 30.724 WL Beam m 8.332 Wetted Area m^2 327.129 Waterpl. Area m^2 200.403 Prismatic Coeff. 0.540 Block Coeff. 0.134 Midship Area Coeff. 0.263 Waterpl. Area Coeff. 0.783 LCB from zero pt. (+ve fwd) m -16.349 LCF from zero pt. (+ve fwd) m -17.152 KB m 6.986 KG fluid m 7.534 BMt m 3.413 BML m 43.252 GMt corrected m 2.865

L-2

GML corrected m 42.704 KMt m 10.399 KML m 50.238 Immersion (TPc) tonne/cm 2.054 MTc tonne.m 3.805 RM at 1deg = GMt.Disp.sin(1) tonne.m 13.699 Max deck inclination deg 0.0 Trim angle (+ve by stern) deg 0.0

Key point Type Freeboard mMargin Line (freeboard pos = -17.702 m) 1.753 Deck Edge (freeboard pos = -17.702 m) 1.829

Ballast Arrival Draft Amidsh. m 7.272 Displacement tonne 180.6 Heel to Starboard degrees 0.0 Draft at FP m 6.959 Draft at AP m 7.584 Draft at LCF m 7.311 Trim (+ve by stern) m 0.626 WL Length m 27.978 WL Beam m 8.316 Wetted Area m^2 287.835 Waterpl. Area m^2 185.949 Prismatic Coeff. 0.532 Block Coeff. 0.104 Midship Area Coeff. 0.207 Waterpl. Area Coeff. 0.799 LCB from zero pt. (+ve fwd) m -17.082 LCF from zero pt. (+ve fwd) m -17.328 KB m 6.707 KG fluid m 7.264 BMt m 4.873 BML m 51.221 GMt corrected m 4.316 GML corrected m 50.664 KMt m 11.580 KML m 57.928 Immersion (TPc) tonne/cm 1.906 MTc tonne.m 2.976 RM at 1deg = GMt.Disp.sin(1) tonne.m 13.601 Max deck inclination deg 1.2 Trim angle (+ve by stern) deg 1.2

Key point Type Freeboard mMargin Line (freeboard pos = -30.742 m) 2.04 Deck Edge (freeboard pos = -30.742 m) 2.116

L-3

Upright Stability Draft Amidsh. m 8.200 8.129 8.058 7.987 7.917 7.846 7.775 7.704 7.633 7.563 7.492 7.421 7.350 7.279 7.208 7.137 7.067 6.996 6.925 6.854 6.783 6.713 6.642 6.571 6.500 Displacement tonne 361.9 346.9 332.0 317.1 302.3 287.5 272.9 258.4 244.2 230.1 216.3 202.6 189.2 176.0 163.0 150.2 137.7 125.5 113.6 102.1 90.96 80.26 70.01 60.25 51.04 Heel to Starboard degrees 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Draft at FP m 8.200 8.129 8.058 7.987 7.917 7.846 7.775 7.704 7.633 7.563 7.492 7.421 7.350 7.279 7.208 7.137 7.067 6.996 6.925 6.854 6.783 6.713 6.642 6.571 6.500 Draft at AP m 8.200 8.129 8.058 7.987 7.917 7.846 7.775 7.704 7.633 7.563 7.492 7.421 7.350 7.279 7.208 7.137 7.067 6.996 6.925 6.854 6.783 6.713 6.642 6.571 6.500 Draft at LCF m 8.200 8.129 8.058 7.987 7.917 7.846 7.775 7.704 7.633 7.563 7.492 7.421 7.350 7.279 7.208 7.137 7.067 6.996 6.925 6.854 6.783 6.713 6.642 6.571 6.500 Trim (+ve by stern) m 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 WL Length m 30.918 30.892 30.867 30.841 30.815 30.780 30.719 30.630 30.500 30.329 30.120 29.887 29.624 29.330 29.007 28.653 28.271 27.858 27.416 26.944 26.440 25.906 25.338 24.736 24.097 WL Beam m 8.341 8.339 8.338 8.337 8.335 8.334 8.332 8.330 8.328 8.325 8.323 8.320 8.317 8.313 8.309 8.305 8.300 8.294 8.287 8.280 8.271 8.261 8.249 8.235 8.218 Wetted Area m^2 358.263 353.307 348.310 343.250 338.074 332.631 326.698 320.530 314.406 308.211 301.879 295.390 288.692 281.674 274.375 266.927 259.202 251.408 243.392 235.120 226.582 217.660 208.350 198.619 188.347Waterpl. Area m^2 206.752 206.194 205.528 204.713 203.689 202.301 200.256 197.912 194.221 191.873 189.382 186.726 183.877 180.732 177.303 174.422 170.259 165.814 161.034 155.882 150.347 144.307 137.750 130.647 122.865Prismatic Coeff. 0.588 0.580 0.573 0.565 0.557 0.548 0.539 0.531 0.522 0.514 0.506 0.498 0.489 0.481 0.472 0.462 0.452 0.441 0.430 0.417 0.404 0.390 0.374 0.357 0.338 Block Coeff. 0.167 0.162 0.156 0.151 0.145 0.139 0.134 0.128 0.123 0.118 0.112 0.107 0.102 0.097 0.092 0.086 0.081 0.076 0.070 0.065 0.060 0.055 0.049 0.044 0.039 Midship Area Coeff. 0.298 0.292 0.286 0.280 0.276 0.269 0.263 0.256 0.249 0.242 0.235 0.228 0.221 0.213 0.206 0.198 0.190 0.182 0.174 0.166 0.157 0.149 0.140 0.131 0.122 Waterpl. Area Coeff. 0.802 0.800 0.799 0.796 0.793 0.789 0.782 0.776 0.765 0.760 0.755 0.751 0.746 0.741 0.736 0.733 0.726 0.718 0.709 0.699 0.687 0.674 0.659 0.641 0.620 LCB from zero pt. (+ve fwd) m -16.583 -16.549 -16.512 -16.473 -16.432 -16.389 -16.346 -16.304 -16.263 -16.218 -16.174 -16.130 -16.087 -16.044 -16.002 -15.964 -15.932 -15.902 -15.873 -15.847 -15.823 -15.803 -15.786 -15.775 -15.771 LCF from zero pt. (+ve fwd) m -17.385 -17.372 -17.354 -17.330 -17.295 -17.240 -17.146 -17.038 -17.045 -16.954 -16.868 -16.785 -16.703 -16.614 -16.517 -16.360 -16.280 -16.206 -16.136 -16.070 -16.007 -15.942 -15.883 -15.822 -15.765 KB m 7.230 7.190 7.149 7.108 7.067 7.025 6.983 6.941 6.898 6.855 6.812 6.769 6.725 6.681 6.636 6.590 6.544 6.496 6.448 6.398 6.346 6.293 6.237 6.177 6.112 KG m 7.532 7.532 7.532 7.532 7.532 7.532 7.532 7.532 7.532 7.532 7.532 7.532 7.532 7.532 7.532 7.532 7.532 7.532 7.532 7.532 7.532 7.532 7.532 7.532 7.532 BMt m 2.722 2.823 2.930 3.043 3.163 3.288 3.423 3.570 3.728 3.904 4.099 4.314 4.551 4.813 5.103 5.430 5.799 6.214 6.688 7.234 7.869 8.601 9.467 10.499 11.740 BML m 35.604 36.889 38.232 39.617 41.015 42.327 43.335 44.240 44.097 45.152 46.221 47.304 48.390 49.418 50.407 52.383 53.140 53.857 54.488 55.011 55.436 55.669 55.693 55.519 55.013 GMt m 2.420 2.481 2.547 2.619 2.697 2.781 2.874 2.979 3.094 3.227 3.379 3.551 3.745 3.962 4.207 4.488 4.811 5.179 5.604 6.100 6.683 7.362 8.171 9.143 10.319 GML m 35.302 36.547 37.849 39.193 40.550 41.820 42.785 43.649 43.463 44.475 45.502 46.541 47.584 48.567 49.511 51.441 52.152 52.821 53.404 53.877 54.250 54.429 54.397 54.164 53.593 KMt m 9.952 10.013 10.079 10.151 10.229 10.313 10.406 10.511 10.626 10.759 10.911 11.083 11.277 11.494 11.739 12.020 12.343 12.711 13.136 13.632 14.215 14.894 15.703 16.675 17.851 KML m 42.834 44.079 45.381 46.725 48.082 49.352 50.317 51.181 50.995 52.007 53.034 54.073 55.116 56.099 57.043 58.973 59.684 60.353 60.936 61.409 61.782 61.961 61.929 61.696 61.125 Immersion (TPc) tonne/cm 2.119 2.113 2.107 2.098 2.088 2.074 2.053 2.029 1.991 1.967 1.941 1.914 1.885 1.853 1.817 1.788 1.745 1.700 1.651 1.598 1.541 1.479 1.412 1.339 1.259 MTc tonne.m 4.155 4.124 4.087 4.042 3.986 3.911 3.798 3.669 3.451 3.329 3.201 3.067 2.928 2.779 2.624 2.513 2.335 2.156 1.973 1.789 1.605 1.421 1.239 1.061 0.890 RM at 1deg = GMt.Disp.sin(1) tonne.m 15.287 15.021 14.758 14.495 14.229 13.957 13.689 13.436 13.183 12.963 12.755 12.557 12.364 12.167 11.964 11.764 11.560 11.341 11.111 10.868 10.609 10.311 9.984 9.614 9.191 Max deck inclination deg 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Trim angle (+ve by stern) deg 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

L-4

Large Angle Stability FLD

Heel to Starboard degrees -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0 110.0 120.0 130.0 140.0 150.0 160.0 170.0 180.0 Displacement tonne 275.1 275.1 275.1 275.1 275.1 275.1 275.2 275.1 275.1 275.1 275.2 275.1 275.1 275.1 275.1 275.1 275.1 275.1 275.1 275.1 275.1 275.1 Draft at FP m 7.940 7.859 7.800 7.780 7.800 7.857 7.940 7.981 8.004 8.020 8.066 8.234 N/A -7.688 -7.902 -7.996 -8.026 -8.028 -8.002 -8.002 -7.997 -7.995 Draft at AP m 7.367 7.634 7.754 7.791 7.754 7.635 7.366 7.008 6.529 5.801 4.490 0.803 N/A -15.208 -11.505 -10.181 -9.504 -9.081 -8.791 -8.631 -8.640 -8.648 WL Length m 30.828 30.788 30.746 30.724 30.746 30.787 30.829 30.852 30.863 30.876 30.899 31.054 31.352 30.866 30.833 30.861 30.868 30.865 30.853 30.851 30.850 30.850 Immersed Depth m 6.691 7.316 7.675 7.785 7.675 7.316 6.691 5.828 4.777 3.855 3.784 3.614 3.493 3.710 3.813 3.805 3.679 3.440 3.098 2.618 2.029 1.792 WL Beam m 7.233 8.764 8.450 8.332 8.450 8.764 7.233 7.202 4.721 4.440 4.917 5.502 4.623 3.672 4.932 4.222 4.721 5.626 6.990 8.084 8.467 8.344 Wetted Area m^2 316.320 325.487 330.991 327.630 331.073 325.540 316.221 313.480 313.949 313.005 305.723 301.130 278.408 276.247 275.444 272.259 271.411 271.808 275.245 292.734 302.580 302.716 Waterpl. Area m^2 175.415 199.206 200.713 200.640 200.713 199.218 175.420 141.940 120.883 108.976 106.428 102.494 98.740 96.121 101.271 108.879 121.209 141.566 172.453 200.144 209.833 207.704 Prismatic Coeff. 0.554 0.544 0.541 0.541 0.541 0.544 0.554 0.565 0.575 0.583 0.599 0.622 0.684 0.705 0.716 0.726 0.740 0.761 0.793 0.820 0.821 0.822 Block Coeff. 0.180 0.136 0.135 0.135 0.135 0.136 0.180 0.265 0.386 0.514 0.467 0.435 0.530 0.638 0.593 0.547 0.501 0.449 0.402 0.411 0.507 0.582 LCB from zero pt. (+ve fwd) m -16.354 -16.360 -16.367 -16.368 -16.367 -16.363 -16.353 -16.337 -16.322 -16.307 -16.293 -16.283 -16.275 -16.275 -16.280 -16.292 -16.306 -16.319 -16.330 -16.338 -16.337 -16.337 VCB from DWL m -1.018 -0.912 -0.826 -0.796 -0.826 -0.912 -1.018 -1.131 -1.238 -1.327 -1.403 -1.464 -1.501 -1.480 -1.424 -1.343 -1.233 -1.106 -0.982 -0.844 -0.703 -0.654 GZ m -1.389 -0.997 -0.499 0.001 0.502 1.000 1.391 1.492 1.417 1.246 1.026 0.773 0.506 0.186 -0.135 -0.436 -0.702 -0.895 -0.938 -0.771 -0.387 -0.001 LCF from zero pt. (+ve fwd) m -16.303 -16.692 -17.070 -17.167 -17.070 -16.694 -16.302 -15.922 -15.606 -15.421 -15.301 -15.060 -15.046 -15.155 -15.439 -15.536 -15.620 -15.777 -16.103 -16.849 -17.415 -17.458 TCF to zero pt. m -0.637 -0.311 -0.127 0.000 0.127 0.311 0.636 0.640 0.618 0.539 0.326 0.219 0.186 0.167 0.011 -0.092 -0.198 -0.311 -0.374 0.024 0.138 0.000 Max deck inclination deg 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0 110.0 120.0 130.0 140.0 150.0 160.0 169.9 178.8 Trim angle (+ve by stern) deg -1.1 -0.4 -0.1 0.0 -0.1 -0.4 -1.1 -1.8 -2.7 -4.1 -6.6 -13.6 N/A -13.7 -6.7 -4.1 -2.8 -2.0 -1.5 -1.2 -1.2 -1.2 Key point Type Immersion angle deg Margin Line (immersion pos = -17.066 m) 23.9 Deck Edge (immersion pos = -17.066 m) 24.9 Code Criteria Value Units Actual Status Margin %Part 170, Stability requirements for all inspected vessels 170.173: c5 - Area 0 to angle of GZmax Pass from the greater of spec. heel angle 0.0 deg 0.0 to the lesser of spec. heel angle 30.0 deg 30.0 angle of max. GZ 39.1 deg lower heel angle 0.0 deg required GZ area at lower heel angle 4.8700 m.deg higher heel angle 30.0 deg required GZ area at higher heel angle 3.1510 m.deg shall be greater than (>) 3.1510 m.deg 22.1785 Pass +603.86

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

0 40 80 120 160

Max GZ = 1.493 m at 39.1 deg.

Heel to Starboard deg.

GZ

m

L-5

FLA

Heel to Starboard degrees -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0 110.0 120.0 130.0 140.0 150.0 160.0 170.0 180.0 Displacement tonne 273.9 274.0 274.0 274.0 274.0 274.0 274.0 274.0 274.0 274.0 274.0 274.0 274.0 274.0 274.0 274.0 274.0 274.0 274.0 274.0 274.0 274.0 Draft at FP m 7.941 7.859 7.800 7.779 7.800 7.858 7.941 7.983 8.006 8.025 8.074 8.253 N/A -7.672 -7.897 -7.993 -8.024 -8.026 -8.001 -8.002 -7.998 -7.996 Draft at AP m 7.351 7.622 7.743 7.781 7.743 7.623 7.352 6.986 6.497 5.755 4.419 0.652 N/A -15.363 -11.575 -10.226 -9.535 -9.103 -8.806 -8.642 -8.649 -8.656 WL Length m 30.829 30.789 30.746 30.723 30.746 30.788 30.829 30.853 30.865 30.878 30.903 31.062 31.347 30.863 30.832 30.861 30.868 30.865 30.853 30.851 30.851 30.850 Immersed Depth m 6.686 7.311 7.670 7.780 7.670 7.311 6.686 5.821 4.769 3.844 3.773 3.602 3.480 3.697 3.801 3.794 3.669 3.432 3.091 2.614 2.025 1.791 WL Beam m 7.233 8.763 8.449 8.332 8.449 8.763 7.233 7.209 4.721 4.465 4.917 5.553 4.623 3.672 4.926 4.176 4.721 5.626 6.977 8.069 8.467 8.344 Wetted Area m^2 315.605 324.920 330.488 327.134 330.573 324.833 315.379 312.582 313.113 312.158 304.996 300.109 277.311 275.452 274.377 271.247 270.474 270.954 274.510 292.063 302.206 302.345Waterpl. Area m^2 175.330 198.928 200.523 200.417 200.523 198.941 175.335 141.898 120.882 109.077 106.460 102.474 98.548 96.093 101.405 108.870 121.189 141.509 172.235 199.816 209.868 207.723Prismatic Coeff. 0.553 0.543 0.540 0.540 0.540 0.543 0.553 0.564 0.574 0.582 0.598 0.621 0.684 0.705 0.716 0.726 0.740 0.761 0.793 0.820 0.821 0.821 Block Coeff. 0.179 0.136 0.134 0.134 0.134 0.136 0.179 0.265 0.385 0.511 0.466 0.430 0.530 0.638 0.593 0.547 0.500 0.448 0.402 0.411 0.505 0.580 LCB from zero pt. (+ve fwd) m -16.336 -16.343 -16.351 -16.352 -16.350 -16.347 -16.336 -16.320 -16.305 -16.289 -16.274 -16.264 -16.256 -16.256 -16.261 -16.274 -16.288 -16.302 -16.313 -16.321 -16.320 -16.320 VCB from DWL m -1.016 -0.910 -0.824 -0.794 -0.824 -0.910 -1.016 -1.128 -1.234 -1.321 -1.398 -1.458 -1.494 -1.473 -1.418 -1.337 -1.228 -1.102 -0.979 -0.842 -0.701 -0.652 GZ m -1.390 -0.998 -0.500 0.001 0.503 1.001 1.392 1.493 1.417 1.246 1.025 0.772 0.504 0.183 -0.138 -0.440 -0.707 -0.899 -0.942 -0.775 -0.390 -0.001 LCF from zero pt. (+ve fwd) m -16.298 -16.680 -17.060 -17.153 -17.060 -16.682 -16.298 -15.918 -15.604 -15.420 -15.298 -15.051 -15.046 -15.154 -15.459 -15.536 -15.619 -15.772 -16.099 -16.840 -17.416 -17.459 TCF to zero pt. m -0.646 -0.312 -0.127 0.000 0.127 0.312 0.646 0.650 0.626 0.543 0.329 0.220 0.190 0.164 0.003 -0.098 -0.205 -0.320 -0.381 0.017 0.139 0.000 Max deck inclination deg 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0 110.0 120.0 130.0 140.0 150.0 160.0 169.9 178.8 Trim angle (+ve by stern) deg -1.1 -0.4 -0.1 0.0 -0.1 -0.4 -1.1 -1.9 -2.8 -4.2 -6.8 -13.9 N/A -14.0 -6.8 -4.2 -2.8 -2.0 -1.5 -1.2 -1.2 -1.2 Key point Type Immersion angle deg Margin Line (immersion pos = -17.066 m) 24 Deck Edge (immersion pos = -17.066 m) 25 Code Criteria Value Units Actual Status Margin %Part 170, Stability requirements for all inspected vessels 170.173: c5 - Area 0 to angle of GZmax Pass from the greater of spec. heel angle 0.0 deg 0.0 to the lesser of spec. heel angle 30.0 deg 30.0 angle of max. GZ 39.1 deg lower heel angle 0.0 deg required GZ area at lower heel angle 4.8700 m.deg higher heel angle 30.0 deg required GZ area at higher heel angle 3.1510 m.deg shall be greater than (>) 3.1510 m.deg 22.2004 Pass +604.55

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

0 40 80 120 160

Max GZ = 1.493 m at 39.1 deg.

Heel to Starboard deg.

GZ

m

L-6

BLA

Heel to Starboard degrees -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0 110.0 120.0 130.0 140.0 150.0 160.0 170.0 180.0 Displacement tonne 180.6 180.6 180.6 180.6 180.6 180.6 180.6 180.6 180.6 180.6 180.6 180.6 180.6 180.6 180.6 180.6 180.6 180.6 180.6 180.6 180.6 180.6 Draft at FP m 6.958 7.025 6.979 6.959 6.979 7.026 6.958 6.764 6.450 5.964 5.011 2.060 N/A -14.132 -11.008 -9.943 -9.394 -9.054 -8.859 -8.769 -8.751 -8.750 Draft at AP m 6.996 7.360 7.537 7.584 7.537 7.360 6.996 6.421 5.632 4.472 2.295 -3.953 N/A -19.846 -13.777 -11.662 -10.528 -9.785 -9.270 -8.947 -8.846 -8.851 WL Length m 28.866 28.657 28.072 27.978 28.072 28.659 28.867 28.851 28.824 28.835 28.843 28.897 29.186 29.876 30.616 31.390 31.353 31.230 31.157 31.124 31.118 31.117 Immersed Depth m 6.080 6.771 7.136 7.254 7.136 6.771 6.080 5.113 3.969 3.014 2.892 2.679 2.514 2.755 2.900 2.954 2.916 2.784 2.528 2.118 1.515 1.039 WL Beam m 7.178 7.886 8.417 8.316 8.417 7.886 7.178 5.626 5.621 5.342 6.551 3.672 4.509 3.672 3.849 4.176 4.721 5.473 5.784 6.569 8.473 8.347 Wetted Area m^2 255.575 274.103 290.144 287.833 290.135 274.145 254.838 247.833 243.334 236.325 220.154 206.815 204.556 200.351 200.887 202.976 205.594 209.721 219.579 238.409 271.122 271.277Waterpl. Area m^2 146.668 167.083 184.815 185.948 184.815 167.080 146.662 129.387 116.518 106.300 97.062 91.588 93.997 92.501 95.902 104.227 117.172 133.734 148.396 173.218 212.032 209.496Prismatic Coeff. 0.536 0.532 0.533 0.532 0.533 0.532 0.536 0.537 0.551 0.580 0.629 0.671 0.675 0.668 0.666 0.666 0.689 0.726 0.770 0.813 0.847 0.849 Block Coeff. 0.150 0.115 0.104 0.104 0.104 0.115 0.150 0.212 0.274 0.379 0.400 0.620 0.532 0.583 0.516 0.455 0.408 0.370 0.387 0.407 0.441 0.653 LCB from zero pt. (+ve fwd) m -17.073 -17.079 -17.082 -17.082 -17.082 -17.077 -17.072 -17.057 -17.041 -17.019 -16.999 -16.983 -16.977 -16.981 -16.984 -16.993 -17.007 -17.027 -17.043 -17.059 -17.065 -17.064 VCB from DWL m -0.847 -0.765 -0.647 -0.599 -0.647 -0.765 -0.847 -0.882 -0.918 -0.974 -1.025 -1.053 -1.061 -1.059 -1.027 -0.978 -0.921 -0.863 -0.787 -0.669 -0.502 -0.421 GZ m -1.737 -1.408 -0.748 0.002 0.752 1.411 1.740 1.863 1.814 1.674 1.440 1.135 0.763 0.376 -0.024 -0.404 -0.731 -0.962 -1.084 -1.057 -0.649 -0.002 LCF from zero pt. (+ve fwd) m -17.104 -17.128 -17.284 -17.327 -17.284 -17.126 -17.104 -16.898 -16.518 -16.215 -16.051 -16.101 -16.461 -15.953 -15.675 -15.598 -15.614 -15.889 -16.217 -16.640 -17.384 -17.416 TCF to zero pt. m -1.164 -0.592 -0.128 0.000 0.128 0.592 1.164 1.355 1.101 0.858 0.675 0.517 0.190 -0.025 -0.276 -0.530 -0.768 -0.921 -0.773 -0.412 0.201 0.000 Max deck inclination deg 30.0 20.0 10.1 1.2 10.1 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0 110.0 120.0 130.0 140.0 150.0 160.0 170.0 179.8 Trim angle (+ve by stern) deg 0.1 0.6 1.0 1.2 1.0 0.6 0.1 -0.6 -1.5 -2.8 -5.0 -11.1 N/A -10.5 -5.1 -3.2 -2.1 -1.4 -0.8 -0.3 -0.2 -0.2 Key point Type Immersion angle deg Margin Line (immersion pos = -18.657 m) 32.4 Deck Edge (immersion pos = -18.657 m) 33.6 Code Criteria Value Units Actual Status Margin %Part 170, Stability requirements for all inspected vessels 170.173: c5 - Area 0 to angle of GZmax Pass from the greater of spec. heel angle 0.0 deg 0.0 to the lesser of spec. heel angle 30.0 deg 30.0 angle of max. GZ 41.8 deg lower heel angle 0.0 deg required GZ area at lower heel angle 4.8700 m.deg higher heel angle 30.0 deg required GZ area at higher heel angle 3.1510 m.deg shall be greater than (>) 3.1510 m.deg 30.7869 Pass +877.05

-2

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

0 40 80 120 160

Max GZ = 1.865 m at 41.8 deg.

Heel to Starboard deg.

GZ

m

M

 

APPENDIX M:  WATER BALLAST PUMP CALCULATION

Preliminary Water Ballast Pump Sizing

From Fundamentals of Fluid Mechanics, Munson et al, Table 1.6 - Approximate Physical Propertiesof Some Common Liquids (SI Units):

ρsw 1030kg

m3:= Density of seawater at 15.6°C

νsw 1.12 10 6−⋅

m2

s:= Kinematic viscosity of seawater at

15.6°C

Pv 1.77 103⋅

N

m2:= Vapor pressure of seawater at

15.6°C

γsw ρsw g⋅:= γsw 10.101kN

m3⋅= Specific weight of seawater at

15.6°C

Filling requirements

Volume 4m3:= Assumed largest tank volume -

derived from Rhino model

Timefill 10min:= Time to fill largest tank

QVolumeTimefill

:= Q 400L

min⋅= Required flowrate

Pipe system characteristics

εp 0.002mm:= Aluminum pipe roughness - fromengineeringtoolbox.com

Velmax 4.5ms

:= From ASHRAE for water in pipesto minimize erosion viahttp://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=30500

Dmin4 Q⋅

π Velmax⋅:= Dmin 4.343cm⋅= Minimum pipe diameter based on

maximum fluid diameter anddesired flow rate

Dassume 1.05 Dmin⋅:= Dassume 4.56 cm⋅= Assumed diameter

Vel Velmax:= Vel 4.5ms

=

Lp 12m:= Assumed longest pipe length

M-1

Major Losses

RedVel Dassume⋅

νsw:= Red 1.832 105

×= Reynolds Number

f64

RedRed 2100<if

"transition" Red 4000<if

1

1.8− log6.9Red

εp

Dassume

3.7

⎛⎜⎜⎜⎝

⎞⎟

⎠

1.11

+

⎡⎢⎢⎢⎣

⎤⎥⎥⎥⎦

⎡⎢⎢⎢⎣

⎤⎥⎥⎥⎦

2otherwise

⎡⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢⎣

⎤⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥⎦

:= Darcy Friction Factor, if turbulent,then Haaland Equation, Equation8-75, Heat and Mass Transfer,Çengel

f 0.016=

HMaj fLp

Dassume⋅

Vel2

2g⋅:= HMaj 4.358 m= System major head loss

Minor Losses

From Fundamentals of Fluid Mechanics, Munson et al, Figure 8.25, Exit Flow and Losscoefficient:

Ksharp_exit 1.0:= Sharp Exit Loss Coefficient

From Fundamentals of Fluid Mechanics, Munson et al, Figure 8.2, Loss Coefficients for PipeComponents:

Fully-Open Gate Valve LossCoefficientKgate 0.15:=

Regular 90° Elbow LossCoefficient, Estimated fromScrewed and Flanged

Kelbow 0.9:=

Tee Branch Flow, Threaded LossCoefficientKtee_branch 2.0:=

Swing Check Valve LossCoefficientKcheck 2:=

M-2

Assuming one sharp exit, one gate valve, two elbows, one tee branch and one check valve:

KT Ksharp_exit Kgate+ 2Kelbow+ Ktee_branch+ Kcheck+:=

KT 6.95= Total K value

HMin KTVel2

2g⋅:= HMin 7.176 m= System minor head loss

Total System Head Loss

HTot HMaj HMin+:= HTot 11.533 m= Total system head loss

Pump power

Assuming that the system is all at the same elevation

ηPump 85%:= Assumed pump efficiency

PwrPumpHTot Q⋅ γsw⋅

ηPump:= PwrPump 0.914 kW⋅= Pump Power

ηMotor 95%:= Assumed motor efficiency

PwrMotorPwrPumpηMotor

:= PwrMotor 0.962 kW⋅= Required Motor Power

M-3

N

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX N:  ENGINE AND GENERATOR SPECIFICATIONS

N-1

N-2

N-3

N-4

N-5

N-6

N-7

N-8