Development of Experimental Techniques and Seakeeping Tests of Catamaran Model in Open Water

by Eduardo Manuel Gonzalez Bachelor of Science Ocean Engineering Florida Institute of Technology 2002

A thesis Submitted to Florida Institute of Technology in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Masters of Science in Ocean Engineering

Melbourne, Florida May, 2005

©Copyright 2005 Eduardo Manuel Gonzalez All Right Reserved

The author grants permission to make single copies________________________

We the undersigned committee hereby approve the attached thesis

Development of Experimental Techniques and Sea-keeping Tests of Catamaran Model in Open Water by Eduardo Manuel Gonzalez

_______________________________________ Andrew Zborowski, Ph.D. Professor and Program Chair Ocean Engineering

_______________________________________ Eric D. Thosteson, Ph.D., P.E. Assistant Professor Ocean Engineering and Oceanography

_______________________________________ Chelakara S. Subramanian, Ph.D. Associate Professor and Program Chair Aerospace Engineering

_______________________________________ Gorge A. Maul, Ph.D. Department Head Department of Marine and Environmental System

ii

rebuilt and restored and the propulsive and steering systems where redesigned to work at an optimal level. data acquisition. hull and motion analysis were done on the LOMAC multi-hull with it onboard instrumentation. The unfinished hull. The instrumentation sends near real time data wirelessly from a remote location using TCP/IP and wireless Ethernet (802. The presented project is a part of a larger project aiming at the development of the experimental facility for testing marine vehicles in coastal waters. Ph. an inclinometer. The purpose of this project is to design an instrumented remotely controlled model in order to establish the testing facilities to evaluate ship motions in waves.Abstract Title: Development of Experimental Techniques and Sea-keeping Tests of Catamaran Model in Open Water Author: Committee Chair: Eduardo Manuel Gonzalez Dr. calibration and data processing of the LOMAC multihull in conjunction with Douglas Guardino Data acquisition system. was reshaped. and GPS. The sensor package consists of two accelerometers. To acquire this data. Procedures were developed for model operation. Andrew Zborowski. used previously by a Marine Field Project group. Tests were successfully performed with different propellers in different wave conditions and propulsion. Once the LOMAC multihull was completed.11b) and is accessed using Telnet. The LOMAC (Littoral Operates Multi-Purpose Auxiliary Craft) catamaran model was selected as the test platform. iii . tests were done to evaluate the linear motions about three axes and the rotational motion about the longitudinal axis. the instrumentation designed and constructed by Doug Guardino was adapted and used aboard the LOMAC multi-hull.D.

................................................................1 LOMAC Multi-hull Model....................................................... VIII ACKNOWLEDGEMENT.................................44 STEERING SYSTEM TEST .......................................43 4.........................................................................................34 CATAMARAN MODEL TEST PREPARATION......................................................................................................................................................................2 Wireless Data Acquisition System..............................0 3......................................7 2..........................................5 FIBERGLASS WORK ...........5 LOMAC RECONSTRUCTION ................................................................................................0 INTRODUCTION..........................................34 OPERATION OF CATAMARAN MODEL .................17 PROPELLER SELECTION .5 2...............3 3........................................................................................................................................................................................2 1................................................................................................................. IX DEDICATION..............................2 2.................4 2.............................................................................................................10 4.........................2 4............3 4................1 4...........................................................................3 2........2 BACKGROUND ...............................................70 iv .......................................................................................2...............................................8 3...Table of Contents ABSTRACT..............................................................................................................................16 STEERING SYSTEM .............6 4.......................................41 TESTING AND RESULTS .............................0 4....................................................................0 2........................................................... IV LIST OF FIGURES...............57 PROPULSION TEST AND ANALYSIS .........................4 4.......................9 4.......................................1 GOALS ...........12 MOTOR CONTROLLERS AND BATTERIES ....................................................21 STEERING SYSTEM ............................................................................2 1.......................................................................................................................................................................................37 WIRELESS COMMUNICATION SETUP ...............................................................................................................................................26 RADIO CONTROL SYSTEM ..................2 3.........................................6 2............................................................................29 LOMAC INSTRUCTIONAL MANUAL ........................X 1.... III TABLE OF CONTENTS...........................................................27 DATA ACQUISITION AND COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS .....................................21 DRIVE SYSTEMS .........64 CALM WATER TESTS ......10 ACRYLIC DRY BOXES ........11 STATIC AND DYNAMIC STABILITY ASSESSMENT ...................................................................4 4...................................................................... VI LIST OF TABLES.................................................18 RESTORATION RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS ............................49 DATA ACQUISITION SYSTEM TEST ......................................................38 DATA PROCESSING .......................................................................................................................13 DATA ACQUISITION SYSTEM .................20 LOMAC SYSTEMS.........................................1 1...........................1 1............50 LOMAC DATA ACQUISITION TESTS ..................................7 4.............................................4 2........40 PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS ...................................1 2........................................................................................................8 4...1 3......................6 PROPULSION DRIVES .....2..........

........................................................................12 4....................0 6.....4........112 APPENDIX G: EXPERIMENTS SETUP..............................................113 v ..86 DISCUSSION..........109 APPENDIX E: PRO SURF HYDROSTATIC CURVES........................................................................................91 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..............................................................0 LITTORAL TEST...............................................................................................106 APPENDIX C: TEST PICTURES ..........................103 APPENDIX A: CAMPUS MAP .....................................................111 APPENDIX F: STATIC STABILITY ILLUSTRATIONS.107 APPENDIX D: CONSTRUCTION PICTURES .................................................................................................76 PLANING PERFORMANCE TEST.....................................................105 APPENDIX B: SAMPLE DATA FROM TEST........................................................................................................................................................................................................99 REFERENCES ...................................13 5........................................................................................

.............. 26 Figure 21: Futaba SkySport4 Transmitter and FP-R127DF Reciever ..................................................... 55 Figure 37: Truck Velocity during Test 1b ................. 26 Figure 20: Rudder System Diagram ........... 16 Figure 14: Data Acquisition System Size Improvement .................... 50 Figure 31: 2001 Dodge Ram 1500 2x4 ............................................. 51 Figure 32: Truck Trajectory during Test 1 ....................................................................................................................... 39 Figure 29: LOMAC Catamaran Model ............................. 35 Figure 26: Motor/Drive Connections ................................................................................................................................ 35 Figure 25: Propulsion System Connections............................................................................................ 23 Figure 18: JETI JES 600 Navy Motor Controller ............ Shafts and Tap Set .......................................... 27 Figure 22: Data Acquisition System .................................. 14 Figure 12: Comparison of Traxxas and JES System............. 17 Figure 15: Rudder Assembly .............................................. 53 Figure 35: Truck X Axis Acceleration and Inclination during Test 1 ................................................. 30 Figure 23: Data Acquisition System Parts Identification Picture ........................................................... 8 Figure 7: Deck Hatch Construction.............. 53 Figure 34: Truck Acceleration during Test 1............................................................................ 9 Figure 8: Graupner Speed 700 BB Turbo and Propeller Drive ........................................................ 12 Figure 11: Comparison of Traxxas and Initial Motor Controller System ................................................................... 6 Figure 4: Hull Fairing..................................................................................................... 6 Figure 3: Hull Imperfections 2........................................ 36 Figure 28: Wireless Communication System Setup.................................................................................................................................... 8 Figure 6: Restored Hull 2 ..................... 11 Figure 10: Acrylic Dry Boxes.............................................................................................. 15 Figure 13: Comparison of JES and Initial System ...................... 55 vi ...................................................................................................... 52 Figure 33: Truck Heading during Test 1 ......................................... 41 Figure 30: Location of Calm Water Test. 33 Figure 24: Propulsion System Connections Diagram ................................................................................................ 7 Figure 5: Restored Hull 1 ....................................... Couplings and Drive................ 20 Figure 17: Traxxas EVX 3014 Motor Controller................... 36 Figure 27: Servo/Rudder Connections ............... 54 Figure 36: Truck Trajectory during Test 1b ..................... 11 Figure 9: Installed Motor and Drive...............................................................................................List of Figures Figure 1: Excessive Trim on LOMAC Model .......................................... 24 Figure 19: Graupner Speed 700 BB Turbo. 18 Figure 16: Propellers........ 5 Figure 2: Hull Imperfections............................................................................................

......... 82 Figure 67: LOMAC Model Acceleration during Test 4b ................................................................................................... 89 Figure 78: Planning Performance in Littoral Conditions .................................... 61 Figure 43: LOMAC Model Heading during Test 2a.................................................................................................... 75 Figure 57: River Test Locations... 81 Figure 65: Trajectory of LOMAC Model during Test 4b ............... 56 Figure 40: Model Velocity Recorded on Test 2.................................. 58 Figure 41: Model Accelerations for Test 2........................... 88 Figure 77: Accelerations and Velocity Recorded during Test 5........................... 80 Figure 64: Velocity of LOMAC Model during Test 4b .............. 89 vii ...... 76 Figure 58: 17 ft Research Boat ................................... 65 Figure 49: Velocity of LOMAC Model during Test 3 ...... 72 Figure 51 : Trajectory of LOMAC Model during Test 3a....................Figure 38: Truck Heading during Test 1b ............. 87 Figure 74: Model Velocity Recorded during Test 5 .............................. 73 Figure 52: LOMAC Model Heading During Test 3a.. 61 Figure 44: Trajectory of LOMAC Model during Test 2b .................... 78 Figure 61: Model Velocity during Test 4a .................................. 83 Figure 68: Model Velocity Recorded during Test 4c............................ 74 Figure 55: Trajectory of LOMAC Model during Test 3c................. 60 Figure 42: Trajectory of LOMAC Model during Test 2a.......... 80 Figure 63: X Axis Acceleration and Model Inclination during Test 4a...... 63 Figure 47: LOMAC Model Heading During Test 2c ........................................ 86 Figure 73: Planning Performance in Calm Water during Test 5 ................... 78 Figure 60: LOMAC Model Heading during Test 4a.................................................................. 73 Figure 53: Trajectory of LOMAC Model During Test 3b............................... 72 Figure 50: LOMAC Model Accelerations Recorded during Test 3............................. 82 Figure 66: LOMAC Model Heading during Test 4b............................................................. 75 Figure 56: LOMAC Model Heading During Test 3c .............................. 84 Figure 70: LOMAC Model Heading during Test 4c.................................................................................................... 85 Figure 71: LOMAC Model Accelerations during Test 4c............. 77 Figure 59: Trajectory of LOMAC Model during Test 4a.................. 62 Figure 46: Trajectory of LOMAC Model during Test 2c.............. Shafts and Accessories .................... 84 Figure 69: Trajectory of LOMAC Model during Test 4c.... 56 Figure 39: Truck Accelerations during Test 1b ........................................................................................................................ 63 Figure 48: Propellers............................................................................. 85 Figure 72: Model X Axis Acceleration and Inclination during Test 4c........................................... 62 Figure 45: LOMAC Model Heading during Test 2b................................. 88 Figure 76: LOMAC Model Heading Recorded during Test 5....................................................................................................................................................................................... 74 Figure 54: LOMAC Model Heading During Test 3b................................................... 87 Figure 75: Trajectory of LOMAC Model Recorded during Test 5........... 79 Figure 62: LOMAC Model Acceleration during Test 4a ..........................................

.................................................................... 28 Table 5: Futaba Transmitter Configuration 2 ..................................................... 42 Table 8: LOMAC Model Parameters .................................. 25 Table 3: Futaba Transmitter Configuration 1 ...........................List of Tables Table 1: Traxxas EVX 3014 Motor Controller Specifications ............................................................... 68 Table 15: LOMAC Model Planing Speeds................................... 28 Table 6: Futaba Receiver Configuration 2....................................... 45 Table 10: LOMAC Model Form Coefficient................ 29 Table 7: Troubleshooting Procedures.................................. 23 Table 2: Graupner Speed 700 BB Turbo Specifications ........................................................ 65 Table 14: Propulsive Analysis and Parameters........................................................................... 44 Table 9: LOMAC Model Dimensional Ratios..................................................... 45 Table 11: LOMAC Model Centers............................................................... 50 Table 13: Propeller Thrust Data......................... 90 viii .................. 28 Table 4: Futaba Receiver Configuration 1....................... 48 Table 12: Turning Radius of Steering Systems ...............................................................................................................................

Rebecca Hasman. I greatly appreciate the help of Bill Battin for his advice and for letting me use his tools. Markus Holla and Vince Salvo for assisting me with field tests. Jose Vargas. Derek Tepley. Brandi Alderson. I wish to express my sincere gratitude to my parents for their support and encouragement. I am thankful to Dr. ix . Andrew Zborowski for guiding me throughout my undergraduate and graduate studies and for serving as my committee chairman.Acknowledgement I wish to express my sincere gratitude to Dr. Without these individuals this project would never have been realized. Nicole Botto. I am thankful to Nakul Saran for providing advice and sharing a work space and supplies and helping me with field test Special Thanks to Kurt Leyba for teaching me TCP/IP and Ethernet connection. Special thanks to Mike Walghren. Eric Thosteson and Dr. Chelakara Subramanian for serving on my thesis committee.

Dedication To my family who supported me. x .

fast.0 Introduction In the last decades. Dr. Once these tasks are completed. re-designing the steering and propulsion systems and minimizing the weight of the instrumentation package. and relatively inexpensive vessels that can operate in the littoral zone. is an experimental hull form intended for fast ocean transportation and/or multi-mission military use in the littoral zone.1. 1. maneuverable. and to evaluate the performance characteristics of the model by collecting data with an instrumentation package. Andrew Zborowski designed a small water-plane area single chine multi-hull that could be used in the littoral zone. Taking into consideration these requirements.C. there has been increased interest in small.A. the data obtained from the 1 . L. to redesign the systems within LOMAC. This involves re-shaping and re-constructing the model. which stands for Littoral Operated Multi-hull Auxiliary Craft.M.1 Goals The goal of this research is to restore the LOMAC multi-hull model.O.

1.1 LOMAC Multi-hull Model The process of development of the LOMAC catamaran hull began as part of a Marine Field Project presented by Cencer et al (Cencer 3). These 2 .instrumentation will be used to measure the model behavior in both calm and wave conditions. Due to insufficient time. 1.2 Background The LOMAC project is an ongoing project that began during the fall semester of 2002. The hull was design using Pro Surf and it was constructed using fiberglass and polyester resin on a male mold carved from foam. the senior design group was unable to finish the shaping procedure of the hull. This left multiple hull imperfections that affected the performance of the model. undergraduate and graduate students have contributed to the success of the entire project.2. Multiple faculties.

Doug Guardino built two motor controllers and an R/C controller interpreter as part of his graduate work. hull dents. and deformed chines. therefore maneuverability was limited. For propulsion. Similar to the motor controllers. un-even decks. The overall system did not meet expectations since the motors did not deliver enough power. however they were bulky and were heavy. a set of Graupner Jet Drive system and Graupner Speed 600 series motors where installed in each hull. 3 . The system was not successful because it worked under the assumption that differential power of the model would steer the model and there was not enough power to create a turning moment to act on the model. To drive these motors. lack the capacity to power the LOMAC model. The motor controllers worked excellently. Other disadvantages of this system were the fact that the jet drives had no reverse.imperfections included unbalanced hulls. These motors although good in reputation. the steering system was built by Doug Guardino. and the jet drives were incorrectly installed which made the drive system obsolete. internal leaks. excess resin in the bows.

The control system of the LOMAC model is a Futaba FP-R127DF FM receiver and a Futaba SkySport4 controller. 4 . an inclinometer. The sensor package employs two accelerometers on three axes. digital compass and the wireless Ethernet bridge. Its main purpose was to acquire data from sensors and send it from a remote location to a computer were the data would be processed. GPS board. it is a system that is highly adaptable to future changes in the model drive system. With multiple channels. LCD/inclinometer breadboard. 1. These are the PICNIC board. a digital compass. The sensor package is composed of five different sections. The communication is facilitated by the use of the stand alone TCP/IP stack and Ethernet controller in the Wiznet IIM7010A system (Guardino). and a global positioning system (GPS). accelerometer board. All of the boards are connected via a 40 pin IDE cable that pass power and access to the pins of the PICNIC to the other board and provides for future expandability (Guardino).2.2 Wireless Data Acquisition System The wireless data acquisition system was designed and constructed by Doug Guardino.

The restoring process. The model’ center of gravity was six inches off to the bow. The hull leaked through the jet drive into the motor and motor controller compartment. The model was also 20 lbs over the required weight and had a maximum velocity of less than 1 knot.2. Figure 1: Excessive Trim on LOMAC Model 5 . was well documented and it is described in details in this section. which made the s model trim excessively by the bow. which took place during spring 2004 through spring 2005. When the model was acquired. it was in unfinished conditions.0 LOMAC Reconstruction The first stage of this project involved the reconstruction of the LOMAC Multi-hull model.

leaks and to move the center of gravity further to the stern.1 Fiberglass Work The first step taken to improve the model was to remove hull imperfections. major reconstruction was needed since excessive polyester resin and micro-balloon compound from earlier construction had caused the center of gravity of the model to shift 6 inches towards the bow.Figure 2: Hull Imperfections Figure 3: Hull Imperfections 2 2. creating an excessive trim that would later 6 . This involved re-shaping both inside and outside surfaces of the hull and painting the model. In addition to fixing the leaks located at the bow of both hulls.

150 and 180 grit). self adhesive foam strips were attached to the under-side of the deck were it rest on the lip of the hull. pine wood to replace the older decks. The excessive polyester resin and micro-balloon compound were removed with the use of a dremel tool and the bows were re-shaped and strengthened with a fiberglass reinforced filler (bondo glass). 120. The painting procedure consisted of wet-sanding each paint layer with 150 grit sandpaper and 7 . The preparation of the model for the painting procedure consisted of sanding the outside hull surface with decreasing sandpaper roughness starting with 80 grit and finishing with 280 grit (80. To assure a water resistant seal between the decks and the hulls. The decks were then sealed with Interlux Pre-Kote primer and painted with Interlux one-part polyurethane “steel gray” paint.affect the planing performance of the model. the un-even freeboard was reconstructed and leveled using bondo-glass and new decks were constructed out of 1/8 in. Figure 4: Hull Fairing As part of the restoration project.

cleaning the hulls with Interlux Brush-Ease 433 after each layer was applied. The finished hull was then wetsanded with a 400 grit sandpaper to remove surface blemishes and minor scratches. This process was repeated for 2 layers of Interlux Pre-Kote primer and 4 layers of Interlux one part polyurethane “steel gray” paint. Figure 5: Restored Hull 1 Figure 6: Restored Hull 2 8 .

a set of openings were cutout on the decks to improve access to the on board systems. which was sealed with 3 coats of Interlux PrimeKote and 2 layers of Interlux one-part polyurethane “steel gray” paint. Then 0. the jet drives were removed and replaced with a straight shaft propeller drive in each hull. Stephen Wood. Figure 7: Deck Hatch Construction To improve the model efficiency. acrylic hatches were cut-out and placed on the openings. To install the new propeller drive. the onboard instrumentation could be visible at all time. A series of hatch frames were made out of balsa wood. To fit these frames.5 9 . ¼ in. With acrylic hatches. The finished decks included three hatches per hull. the jet drive openings were sealed using bondo-glass.An idea propose by Dr. two of which are removable for fast accessibility to the internal compartments.

inch holes were drilled in each hull at the angle the drive shaft would exit the hulls. This angle was estimated to be 16 degrees. After completing the drive installment, the same painting procedure explained earlier was followed for that section of the model.

2.2 Propulsion Drives
The existing Graupner jet drives were tested for propulsion efficiency and it was noticed that both jet drives had leaks and not enough thrust was being produced to overcome the resistance of the model. The drives were then

dismantled and inspected to identify possible reasons for the lack of propulsion. As a result, the drives were not properly assembled and the shaft had been bent in the assembling process. These jet drives were removed and a Graupner straight shaft propeller drive was installed in each hull, eliminating the leakage of the previous drive system. The motors were also upgraded from a set of Graupner Speed 600 with a 3:1 gear ratio to a Graupner Speed 700 BB with no gear ratio. The new Graupner Speed 700 BB Turbo was capable of delivering more torque and thrust. To secure the Graupner Speed 700 BB Turbo, motor mounts were attached to the hull using bondo-glass. To connect the motor to the propeller shaft, a set of flexible couplers were used rather than a conventional u-joint since these are known to

10

decrease the efficiency of motor drive systems. The propellers used for this application were a set of Graupner 4 blade propellers.

Figure 8:Graupner Speed 700 BB Turbo and Propeller Drive

Figure 9: Installed Motor and Drive

11

2.3 Acrylic Dry Boxes

A set of dry boxes were built using ¼ in. acrylic and adhesive caulk(Figure 8). The dimensions of the boxes were 17in. by 4in. by 4in and weighted 3 lbs each. The main purpose of these boxes was to keep the batteries and motor controller protected from water. Even though the restored model no longer had leaks, the deck seal was only water resistant therefore some precautionary measures needed to be taken in case water made it into the motor controller compartment.

Figure 10: Acrylic Dry Boxes

12

In an attempt to decrease the model design weight from 58lbs to 36lbs. the model total weight was of 39 lbs and it had a maximum velocity of 3. The model steering. did not create enough turning moment to make it turn effectively. a TRAXXAS motor controller and a plastic box. the lead acid batteries.5 mph.4 Motor Controllers and Batteries Initial test with the new motors and propeller drives demonstrated that the model was to heavy for proper operation. With the new Traxxas motor controller and Ni-MH batteries. during the marine field project of the summer 2004 semester (Connor 28).(Figure 11) This new system had been built by Casey Connor et al. and acrylic dry-boxes were replaced with a 6 cell 3000 Ni-MH (Nickel Metal Hydride) batteries. which consisted of using differential steering with the motors.2. 13 . motor controllers.

8 knots. The new motor controller system was installed within the model’ s hull. The motor controllers can be water cooled for improved efficiency. The model maximum speed with the Jes motor drive and Ni-Cd batteries was of 5. a set of 10 cell 2400 mAh Ni-Cd(Nickel Cadmium) batteries and Jeti Jes 600 Navy water cooled motor controllers replaced the 6 cell 3000 mAh Ni-MH and the Traxxas motor controller. The only negative aspect of the new system is that it does not have reverse operation and it operational time is shorter than with the Traxxas drive system. Figure 10 through 14 .Figure 11: Comparison of Traxxas and Initial Motor Controller System To increase the maximum velocity of the model. eliminating the use of a dry box in the deck of the model.

Figure 12 show the comparison on size of all three drive systems used during this project. Figure 12: Comparison of Traxxas and JES System 15 .

The instrumentation box initially weighted 16 lbs. The data instrumentation system was previously mounted on a ¾ in.Figure 13: Comparison of JES and Initial System 2. ply wood board and stored on an 11 in. pine 16 . This was done by re-arrange the data acquisition instrumentation in a smaller. box and the instrumentation was mounted on a 1/8 in. by 7in. by 7in. To decrease this weight. by 12 in. Thosteson.5 Data Acquisition System As suggested by Dr. the data acquisition system was reduced in size in an effort to decrease the model weight. more compact box. plastic box. by 12in. the existing plastic box was replaced by a 6in.

Figure 14: Data Acquisition System Size Improvement 2. a computer hub that was not been used was removed from the data acquisition package.wood board. The re-arranged data acquisition system was smaller. The new system consisted of both differential and rudder steering to create a turning moment on the model. The 17 . Also.6 Steering System A rudder system was necessary since differential steering did not supply the model with acceptable maneuverability. more compact and had a total weight of 10 lbs.

Dr. 3 set of 18 . Thosteson recommended replacing the nylon propellers with a metal propeller.2. With a large variety of propeller dimensions. The specifications of the steering system are further explained in Section 3.7 Propeller Selection To increase the model maximum velocity.rudder system was constructed using a Graupner rudder. types and materials. a stainless steel L support bracket and a Futuba S3004 high torque servo. Figure 15: Rudder Assembly 2. He argued that a plastic propeller would bend at higher revolutions decreasing it efficiency drastically.

In addition to this propulsive analysis.propellers were selected to test it performance. new. The addition of the more efficient Prather propeller made the model reach planning speed of over 7. (Figure 16) These propellers were compared to the existing 4 blade Graupner nylon propellers that had been used in previous trial tests. Prather 2 blade stainless steel propellers and Graupner 2 blade carbon fiber propellers. After a propulsive analysis and comparison between all 4 type of propellers. This increased the shaft efficiency by limiting the propeller slip on the shaft. 19 .3 knots. mounting adaptors better known as “drive dogs” were used to secure the propeller to the shaft. These propellers were Octura 3 blade brass propellers. longer shafts were constructed from 4mm stainless steel pipes to give the propeller a larger clearance from the hull. Also. the existing 4 blade propeller was discovered to be the least efficient of all and the Prather two blade propellers was determined to be the best option for model.

As a result. the model had a smoother surface.8 Restoration Results and Conclusions At the end of the model restoration. the model still trimmed toward the bow. Shafts and Tap Set 2. 20 . the fully equipped LOMAC catamaran would trim approximate 1 degree toward the bow. the trim on the model would be adjusted. The model was place in the water to observe how it would trim with the decreased weight and arrangement of new systems. more accessibility to it compartments. no leaks and new drive and steering system.Figure 16: Propellers. however it was a small enough trim that the addition of weight on the stern compartment of the model would solve the problem. By placing the data acquisition system aft of the longitudinal center of gravity. As a result.

The model maximum velocity recorded by the data acquisition system at the end of the restoration process was of 7.321 knots. This was achieved by using the Graupner Speed 800 Turbo BB motors, JES motor controller and 2700mAh 10 cell Ni-Cd batteries. Also, maneuverability of the model was greatly improved with the addition of rudders behind each propeller.

3.0 LOMAC Systems

The LOMAC model employs several systems for optimal operation. Theses systems are the drive, steering, radio control and data acquisition/ communication systems.

3.1 Drive Systems

During this research, the model was equipped with two drive systems. The first system consisted of a Traxxas 3014 motor controller with 6 cell 3000

21

mAh Ni-MH batteries and the second system used a JES motor controller with 10 cell 2700 mAh Ni-Cd batteries. Both systems powered a set of Graupner Speed 700 BB motors.

The Traxxas system was assembled by a marine field project group during the 2004 summer semester. The motor controller, which controls two motors at once, can be used with a maximum of 12 cells batteries. Among it features, it has Novak Electronics Smart Braking™ technology (Traxxas.com). This braking technology applies brakes to the motor between forward and reverse rotations. It also has 3 programming modes, which are: the normal mode with forward, brake and reverse, the racing mode with forward, and no brakes or reverse, and the marine mode with forward, 20-percent reverse and no brakes.

22

Figure 17: Traxxas EVX 3014 Motor Controller

Table 1: Traxxas EVX 3014 Motor Controller Specifications
Input Voltage: 12 cells (14.4 volts nominal) Published Motor Limit: 19 turns (550 size) On-Resistance: 0.006WBrakes with Novak Electronics’Smart Braking™ Three Drive Profiles Normal: Forward/ Reverse/ Smart Braking™ Racing: Forward/ Brakes/ (no reverse) Marine: Forward/ 20% Reverse/ (no brakes) Novak Electronics’One-Touch Set-Up Thermal Shutdown Protection Microprocessor based Gold plated battery connectors BEC Voltage: 5.0 DC BEC Current: 1.5 Amps

23

this motor controller does not have reverse. by 9/16in. including the wires (Hobby-Lobby). Unfortunately. which is water cooled. The JES 600 Navy also has Opto coupling which keeps the controller free from motor induced interference and a current limiter to prevent burnout. Figure 18: JETI JES 600 Navy Motor Controller 24 . Power Wire 14G/9"Input & Switch Harness 23G/9" (replaceable) Transistor Type HYPERFET III PWM Frequency 1000 Hertz The JES system consists of a JES 600 Navy motor controller that is powered by a10 cell Ni-Cd battery. The motor controller. and weights 1. by 1in. It is designed to be used with up 30 cells and the maximum current load for 10 cells or more is 60 amps (Hobby-Lobby). has dimensions of 2in. It has adjustment for setting the motor start point and a two color LED that indicates zero power and maximum power even without a motor connected (Hobby-Lobby).Rated Current Forward and Reverse: 160 Amps Braking Current: 320 Amps Continuous Current @ 100 F: 30 Amps Reverse Delay (after Smart Braking): 0 sec.5 oz.

5 A 65 A 75 % 67 mm 42.6 V 14. efficiency without gearbox Length of case.2 mm 14 mm 5 mm 320 g 25 . The specifications of the motors are shown in Table 1. These motors are suitable for drive systems of model boats over 30 lbs.The motors selected for the LOMAC model are the Graupner Speed 700 BB Turbo.4 V 15000 rev/min 2A 12. excl. efficiency Current drain when stalled Max. shaft Diameter Free shaft length Shaft diameter Weight 9. Table 2: Graupner Speed 700 BB Turbo Specifications Nominal voltage Operating voltage range No-load rpm No-load current drain Current drain at max.

2.2 Steering System The steering system of the LOMAC Model consists of using differential steering and rudder steering.25 in. by 1. The rudder assembly consists of a Graupner rudder with dimensions of 2.Figure 19: Graupner Speed 700 BB Turbo.5 in. Couplings and Drive 3. The effectiveness of this system is shown in Section 5. Figure 20: Rudder System Diagram 26 . Each rudder pivots on an external mounted hinge located at the stern of each hull. Differential steering can be controlled by simply applying different amount of thrust to each motor to create a turning moment on the model.

3 Radio Control System The LOMAC model is operated using a Futaba Sky Sport 4 transmitter with a FP-R127DF receiver. This 4 channel system has a range of approximately 1300 ft and controls the power delivered to each motor and the servo motors controlling the rudder system.3. Tables 2 through Table 5 show both configurations of controls for the LOMAC model. Figure 21: Futaba SkySport4 Transmitter and FP-R127DF Receiver Channel Location Movement Controls 1 2 Left Left Right-Left Up-Down Not used Port Motor 27 .

3 4 Right Right Up-Down Right-Left Std Motor Servo Motors Table 3: Futaba Transmitter Configuration 1 Channel Controls 1 2 3 7 Port Servo Std Motor Port Motor Std Servo Table 4: Futaba Receiver Configuration 1 Channel Location Movement Controls 1 2 3 4 Left Left Right Right Right-Left Up-Down Up-Down Right-Left Port Servo Port Motor Stbd Motor Stbd Servo Table 5: Futaba Transmitter Configuration 2 Channel Controls 1 Port Servo 28 .

Separate rudder control will be useful for decreasing the forward motion of the model if necessary. configuration 2 must be used. In the case that the operator prefers having separate rudder control.4 Data Acquisition and Communication Systems 29 . 3.2 3 4 Std Motor Port Motor Std Servo Table 6: Futaba Receiver Configuration 2 The only difference of the configurations is that configuration 1 uses one channel to control both servo motors connected to the rudder system.

Figure 22: Data Acquisition System The PICNIC is the communication system that gets the data from all the sensor systems.2. the data acquisition system is comprised of six sections. The location of each component is shown in Figure 21.2. controlling the TCP/IP functions. (Guardino) 30 . LCD/inclinometer breadboard. As mentioned in Section 1. digital compass and the wireless Ethernet bridge. GPS board.The data acquisition system (Figure 20) was built during the fall 2003 semester by Doug Guardino as part of his graduate work. These are the PICNIC board. (Guardino) It gathers the sensor data by use of the analog channels or the I2C bus and also controls the IIM7010A via the I 2C bus. accelerometer board.

31 . the GPS system sends one set of data every second. the inclinometer will calibrate to zero regardless of the inclination at which it is when it get initialized. The inclinometer is an optical encoder that displays it inclinations in degrees times 10. Every time the system is started.The Accelerometer Board. Position and velocity are always acquired while the heading is only acquired when the GPS is in motion. It uses a PIC to read one of the many sentence from a GPS making that sentence available on-demand to another PIC via the I2C bus. This GPS records position. These channels are use to calibrate the center and the gain of each accelerometer axis. (Guardino) Overall. acquires data 25 times a second. The accelerometers are read by the PICNIC directly using the analog inputs. The board includes two channels for each accelerometer axis. velocity and heading. which uses analog acquisition.

4 GHz and complies with IEEE 802. It is also used in the system to backup the GPS heading data since the GPS will only provide heading data while the model is moving. Since the pic microcontroller does not support trigonometric functions.50. The digital compass board is connected to the system’ accelerometer s board. The . The IP address of the Ethernet bride located in the sensor package is 192. which has frequency band of 2.168. these values can be used to find the actual heading (Guardino). by using geometry.com). 32 . therefore all values are positive and heading values can only range between 0-90 degrees. instead of 0-360 degrees.1. has an outdoor range of 980 ft and a data transfer rate of 11 Mbps. The wireless communication of this data acquisition system is supplied by a Linksys wet11 wireless Ethernet bridge.11b. Unfortunately.(Linksys. the compass only read magnitudes.The digital compass outputs its heading via two analog values that represent the magnitudes of the North/South and East/West components.

Figure 23: Data Acquisition System Parts Identification Picture 33 .

data processing and model maintenance.1 Catamaran Model Test Preparation The propulsion system of the multi-hull model was designed to be simple in nature. see Figure 23 and 24. As a result. To properly setup the propulsion system of the model. 34 . perform model operation. no complex connections are required and the preparation of the system can be completed within 60 seconds. 4. create a wireless connection between the instrumentation package and a computer.0 LOMAC Instructional Manual The following section of this report serves as an instructional manual for the use of the LOMAC multi-hull model and the instrumentation package built by Doug Guardino.4. record useful data. It will help users to prepare the hull. perform all necessary internal connections.

Figure 24: Propulsion System Connections Diagram Figure 25: Propulsion System Connections 35 .

Figure 26: Motor/Drive Connections Figure 27: Servo/Rudder Connections 36 .

4. it is crucial that the Transmitter is set at zero speed in channel 2 and 3. The following step by step instruction will properly calibrate the motor controllers. Turn on the model (on/off switch is located on starboard hull). Beeping will stop. Make sure Channel 2 and 3 are at zero. To operate the motor speed. the motor controller will set zero speed to the initial setting of the Transmitter. Immediately after turning on both model and transmitter. use vertical motion in the transmitter.3. 1. The Model is now set to respond to the Futaba Sky Sport 4 Transmitter. Slightly move both channel 2 and 3 in the Transmitter below zero and return to zero. Therefore. the motor controllers will beep. Turn on the Futaba Sky Sport 4 Transmitter 3.2 Operation of Catamaran Model The operation of the model is performed with the FUTABA sky sport 4 shown in Section 3. It is important for the operator to know that every time the model is turned on. The operation of the model is simple. located to the left of the transmitter. 4. 2. 37 . Channel 2.

1). the two rudders will be controlled in one or two channels. Depending on what configuration you use on the receiver (see Section 2. which is located to the right of the transmitter. To control the rudders as one unit use channel 4(horizontal movement on transmitter right lever) and to control the rudders individually use channel 1 for the port rudder and channel 4 for the starboard rudder. 38 . Doug Guardino recommended using Telnet over Hyperlink since Microsoft Office Excel imported the data from Telnet better than the data from Hyperlink. Individual motor control gives increased maneuverability by creating differential steering. The instructions can be only apply in computer with Windows XP operating system.3 Wireless Communication Setup The data acquisition system communicates to any computer using TCP/IP and can be access in a computer with the use of Telnet or Hyperlink.controls the port motor while channel 3. The following step by step instructions show how to communicate between the data acquisition package and the computer via a wireless connection. 4. controls the starboard motor.

168. Type open 192. type Telnet and click Ok. 6. click Ok. In the “Open” box. 5. In the Telnet window. Telnet will initialize. 2. 8. Increase the buffer size from 80 to 150.Figure 28: Wireless Communication System Setup 1. 7. Turn on computer and start windows XP. 3.txt where x will be the name of the data file. Make sure properties are applied to current window only.1. press Enter 39 . 4. Right click the upper left corner of the Telnet window and go to Properties. press Enter. Go to the Start menu and click Run.50. click Ok. Turn data acquisition package on. type set logfile x. 9.

choose Tab. File. 1. Data should now be streaming. In the “Delimiters” box. 40 . 3. 5. GPS data displays a “Hello World” message. 6. choose Delimited. 11.4 Data Processing The data obtained from the sensor package via Telnet is saved in the computer as a txt. Go to Data>Import External Data>Import Data. click Next. import the data to Microsoft Office Excel. Comma and Space.10. Semicolon. To convert the data to a useful form.( “A” stands for “acquiring data”) 4. click Next. 4. 2. Choose the txt. 12. NOTE: Make sure the GPS readings on Telnet display an “A” before starting any tests. Open Microsoft Office Excel. file that is being imported. restart the data acquisition system until “Hello World” is no longer displayed. If. A connection should now be open between the data acquisition system and the computer. In the “Original Data Type” box. click ok. The following instructions show step by step of how to do this data import. Click Finish.

they are experimental systems that are capable of working improperly from time to time.4. This section includes the solution to every problem encountered during this research. Figure 29: LOMAC Catamaran Model 41 .5 Problems and Solutions Even though the systems used in LOMAC catamaran model work properly.

Make sure the coupling is properly fastened. Make sure Motor is properly align with shaft. GPS gives no position coordinates( displays a “V”) Data Acquisition Data Acquisition Drive System Fails to turn on. Change receiver batteries Rudders Motors Motors Motor Only one rudder work Do not work. make sure the motor is properly fasten in it bracket. Check receiver batteries Ensure that all receiver connections are proper. does not work properly Shut down during testing Excessive noise. Motor Does not responds when it is suppose to respond. and ensure that the motor is properly align with the shaft.1. Motor Following the motor controller beeping after turning it on. coupling and shaft. Receiver/Transmit ter Model does not respond Charge batteries Check connections Make sure receiver antenna is fully extended Motor Controller If there is current going thought the motor controller but motors do not work Make sure the connection on the transmitter is not reversed. Water leak is present in the shaft housing. Calibrate Propellers. the motor accelerates without control. Drive System Vibrate Excessively. Restart the system. Leave the GPS on for 5 minute and then check if the “V” changes for “A”( acquiring) Data Acquisition Data Acquisition GPS does not initialize. Make sure that the instrumentation box is leveled when turned on. Charge Battery. Drive System Shaft or motor slips in the coupling connection Clean coupling with WD-40 and ensure that the connection are tight between the motor.Table 7: Troubleshooting Procedures Component or System Rudders Problem Solution Do not work. Inclination data is not calibrated. 42 . Check connection on servo-receiver Charge batteries Check connection between motor/motor controller/battery Check coupling connection. delayed control response. Remove the white cap from the shaft enclosure and fill enclosure with EP bearing grease (Pennzoil). Restart the model and follow the calibration procedure from Section 3. Charge transmitter batteries. works sometimes.

After all the systems performed optimally. (Figure 57) 43 . Finally the third section of the graduate work involved sea trials of the LOMAC model with the onboard data acquisition system on calm and littoral conditions to obtain near real-time data of the motions of the model. a test with different propellers were conducted to identify the most efficient propeller. The first section included tests using a truck to acquire proper acceleration data from the data acquisition system. The tests were conducted in three sections. These tests were conducted at 2 different locations. The second set of test involved the trials of the refurbished LOMAC multi-hull model. The main goals of these tests were to achieve planning speed of the model and to familiarize with the model controls and maneuverability.Testing and Results Several tests were performed during the course of this project. Florida. These locations were the wave tank pond located at the Florida Institute of Technology(Figure 30) and areas in the Indian River adjacent to the SR-192 causeway in Melbourne. These test trials were done at a freshwater pond at the university premises.

63 28.36 64.31 5.24 4.03 226.3 in. lbs. in.37 64.2 in.80 20.80 58. The model dimensions and given parameters were organized in a table and the dimensional ratios and form coefficients were calculated.4. Unfortunately. in. in.19 14.27 2. (Gilmer and Johnson 43-47) Table 8: LOMAC Model Parameters Parameter Length Over All Length Over All Length at Waterline Length at Waterline Hull Beam Hull Spacing Beam Over All Draft (light ship) Draft (batteries & drives) Draft (data acq system) Displacement (light ship) Displacement (batteries & drives) Displacement (data acq system) Volume of Displacement at Tf Area of Mid-ship Section at Tf Area of Max Section at Tf Area of the Waterplane at Tf Symbol LOA LOA LWL LWL B s BOA TL TL TF ?L ? ?F ? AM Ax Aw Fall 2003 5.40 5.6 Static and Dynamic Stability Assessment The static and dynamic stability assessment was done for the LOMAC multi-hull during the Marine Field Project of 2003. ft.19 62.48 Spring 2005 5.72 11. in.46 36. The results which are shown in Table 7 were obtained using Definition 1 through Definition 10. in. the model underwent an extensive reconstruction process which included re-shaping and the re-design of internal systems.95 11.90 1039.33 5. in.80 43.19 62.2 in.12 31.13 3.10 3.37 23.30 46.27 2.16 226.2 44 .37 23.95 11. in.78 694.05 23.06 Units ft. This led to the necessity to perform the stability assessment once more. lbs. in. lbs. in.58 5.25 5.

64 6.50 0.68 12.47 2.59 0.46 2.88 0.53 0.41 Table 10: LOMAC Model Form Coefficient Parameter Block Coefficient Prismatic Coefficient Vertical Prismatic Coefficient Waterplane Area Coefficient Max transverse Section Coefficient Mid-ship Section Coefficient Volumetric Coefficient Symbol CB CLP CVP CWP CX CM ? /L3 Fall 2003 0.00 Spring 2005 0.57 0.86 0.93 0.56 260.Table 9: LOMAC Model Dimensional Ratios Parameter Length/Beam Ratio Length/Beam Overall Ratio Length/Draft Ratio Beam/Draft Ratio Beam Overall/Draft Ratio Symbol L/B L/BOA L/T B/T BOA/T Fall 2003 10.52 216.15 1.94 0.84 0.00 Block Coefficient CB ? ? LBT Definition 1 Prismatic Coefficient CP ? CVP ? CWP ? ? LAx ? TAW AW LWL B Ax B x Tx Definition 2 Vertical Prismatic Coefficient Definition 3 Water-plane Area Coefficient Definition 4 Maximum Transverse Section Coefficient C x ? Definition 5 45 .17 1.87 0.68 17.16 4.54 Spring 2005 10.

using the length of the string and the distance between the mast and the weight at the end of the string. it will be assumed that the transverse center of gravity is at the center of the beam. In order to determine the longitudinal center of gravity. The inclination angle is determined with the use of basic trigonometry. A small weight on a string is then attached to the mast creating a pendulum. A fish scale was then attached with fishing line to the bow and the model was then leveled.Midship Section Coefficient CM ? AM BT Definition 6 Another set of important stability parameters are the centers of gravity of the model. vertical and transverse center of gravity. To determine the vertical center of gravity. Since the model must be symmetrical. The Metacentric height of the model is then obtained using Definition 10 and the vertical center of gravity (KG) can be calculated with Definition 11. Known amounts of weights are then applied at the deck of the model to create a righting arm and an inclination angle. The center of gravity consists of the longitudinal. the inclining experiment was performed. This experiment consists of mounting a mast at the transverse centerline of the model. The inclination or heeling angle is then plotted at three different weight intervals and the slope is then identified. The KM value was obtained from Pro Surf hydrostatic curves from 46 . (Definition 7) The location of the LCG with respect to the aft perpendicular is then calculated with Definition 8(Appendix G). the hull was balanced on a pivot point with a known distance to the aft perpendicular. The distance from the pivot point to the longitudinal center of gravity (LCG) was then calculated with moment balance.

Moment Balance LCG Location Fa ? Wx Definition 7 Definition 8 LCG ? x ? p ? ? ArcTan GM ? w l Heel Angle Definition 9 Metacentric Height wt ? Tan? Definition 10 Vertical Center of Gravity Metacentric Height KG ? KG ? GM Definition 11 Definition 12 GM ? KG ? slope ? Vertical Center of Gravity Center of Buoyancy ? 0 KG 0 ? wkg 0 ? T?5 C ? KB ? ? ? B ? 3 ? 2 CWP ? ? ? BG ? KG ? KB Definition 13 Definition 14 Center of Gravity/Buoyancy Distance Definition 15 47 . The distance between the vertical center of gravity (KG) and the vertical center of buoyancy (KB) is then obtained with Definition 15. a more accurate GM and KG must be calculated. (Cencer) Due to changes in KG from the addition of weights. To obtain the distance between the keel and the center of buoyancy. the Moorish equation (Definition 14) was used.“LOMAC: Littoral Operated Multi-purpose Auxiliary Craft”. These new values are obtained with Definition 12 and Definition 13 respectively.

in. s 1982).The dynamic stability of the model depends on how well the vessel can right itself as well as the radius of gyration about it axes and it determines how stable the vessel is while in motion.9542 Spring 2005 68. in.07 62.55 18. degrees degrees sec 48 . aft in.17 70.78 4. 2004) Due to time constraints. in.(Connor et al. aft in.25 30.9498 Units in.58 3. Avg Roll Frequency Coeff Average Roll Frequency Symbol GM BM KB KM* BG LCG VCG LCB VCB F FF K ? Fall 2003 61.37 72.2028 0. in.94 25. in.2028 0.31 23.37 -1.56 2.03 -2.32 3.12 0.62 1.30 65. Roll Period ? ? kB GM Definition 16 Table 11: LOMAC Model Centers Parameter Metacentric Height Metacentric Radius Vertical Center of Boyancy Keel to Metacenter Distance Distance between VCG and VCB Longitudinal Center of Gravity Vertical Center of Gravity Longitudinal Center of Boyancy Vertical Center of Boyancy Aproximate Trim Angle Trim Angle with Data Acq Sys. 2004) The roll frequency is dependent upon the ship’ beam and the metacentric height (Gillmer and Johnson. Finally.48 1. in.30 -4.11 2.05 -0.80 0.(Connor et al. The static and dynamic stability assessment was done following the procedures from “LOMAC Monohull”. the longitudinal trim on the model was obtained with the use of the data acquisition system. the determination of the radius of gyration will not be included in the scope of this project.63 4.

Three circular trajectories would be measured using a tape measure. rudder steering and the combination of both differential and rudder steering. 49 . This velocity corresponds to the speed of the model using only one motor for propulsion. This experiment was conducted in the Florida Institute of Technology Wave Tank Lake (Figure 30).7 Steering System Test To determine the effectiveness of the steering system. The turning radiuses of the different steering methods are shown in Table 12. The circles would be done using differential steering. however. this was not possible since the system was non-operational at the moment of the experiment. The experiment consisted of driving the model through a full circle at a velocity of 3-4 knots. the model was tested with the use of the differential.4. rudder and differential/rudder steering. Recording the circular trajectory with the data acquisition system would have been a more accurate option.

0 ft.8 Data Acquisition System Test The objective of this test was to familiarize with the data acquisition system and to check that all sensors were functioning correctly. 4. 8.5 ft. the data acquisition package was secured into the front passenger seat of a Dodge 50 . In the test. 4.5 ft.Figure 30: Location of Calm Water Test Table 12: Turning Radius of Steering Systems Approximate Turning Radius at V= 3-4 knots Differential Steering Rudder Steering Differential/Rudder Steering 14.

Ram 1500 (Figure 31). However. position. inclination. the GPS did not acquire data for 49 seconds. Figure 31: 2001 Dodge Ram 1500 2x4 The test consisted on logging data while driving from the Link building to the wave tank building on the campus of Florida Institute of Technology in Melbourne. during the test. Florida (Appendix A). It was notice that the sky was mostly cloudy. The GPS antenna was placed on the roll bar of the truck to maximize signal reception. heading and velocity readings were collected. All sensor work properly and acceleration. cloud cover would be taken in 51 . therefore it was concluded that the weather conditions affected the GPS signal. In future testing.

Position and Trajectory for Data Acquisition Test 1 8037. In Figure 32. The digital compass also malfunctioned by not recording the east/west vector of the heading. With the exception of that section of the data.7 2803.75 2803.85 2803.9 2803.45 8037. Figure 34 shows the four accelerometer outputs. Notice how the data taken while the truck drove through Country Club Road is erratic. In Figure 35 the inclination data revealed a trend which is best understood when overlaid with the acceleration data on the X axis.3 2803.55 8037.95 2804 Figure 32: Truck Trajectory during Test 1 52 . Inspection of the acceleration data reveals that the accelerometers are not calibrated.4 8037.6 2803.5 Longitude West 8037.8 Latitude North 2803.35 8037.65 2803. the data collected was accurate. the trajectory and position of the truck as the data was been collected is shown.consideration before conducting tests.

5 -2 Time (sec) Figure 34: Truck Acceleration during Test 1 53 .Truck Heading Recorded by Data Acquisition System 400 350 300 Heading (degrees) 250 200 150 100 50 0 0 50 100 150 Time (sec) 200 250 300 350 Figure 33: Truck Heading during Test 1 Truck Accelerations Recorded by Data Acquisition System 1 0.5 -1 -1.5 0 0 Accelerations (g) 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Z1 Axis Y Axis Z2 Axis X Axis -0.

8 30 25 0.4 Acceleration (g) 15 inclination (degrees) 10 0. 54 .6 20 0. For this test.Truck X Axis Acceleration and Inclination Recorded by Data Acquisition System 0.4 Time (sec) -15 Figure 35: Truck X Axis Acceleration and Inclination during Test 1 A second data acquisition system test was performed to prove that the GPS lack of signal reception during the first test was caused by cloud cover. there was no cloud cover and the GPS recorded data flawlessly.2 -10 -0.2 5 X Axis Acceleration Inclinometer 0 0 28 56 84 112 140 168 196 224 252 280 308 0 -5 -0.

3 8037.4 8037.85 2803.55 2803.6 2803.65 2803.7 2803.75 2803.25 2803.95 2804 Latitude (North) Figure 36: Truck Trajectory during Test 1b Truck Velocity Recorded by Data Acquisition System 45 40 35 30 Velocity (knots) 25 Velocity 20 15 10 5 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 Time (sec) 120 140 160 180 Figure 37: Truck Velocity during Test 1b 55 .Truck Trajectory Recorded by Data Acquisition System 8037.9 2803.5 8037.8 2803.35 8037.45 Longitude (West) Trajectory 8037.55 8037.

5 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 Acceleration(g) -0.5 Z1 Axis Y Axis Z2 Axis X Axis -1 -1.5 -2 Time(sec) Figure 39: Truck Accelerations during Test 1b 56 .Truck Heading Recorded by Data Acquisition System 350 300 250 Heading (degrees) 200 Heading 150 100 50 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 Time (sec) Figure 38: Truck Heading during Test 1b Truck Acceleration Recorded by Data Acquisition System 0.

record accurate data from the data 57 . several observations were noted. 4. both of which are of a positive value. To compensate for this problem. Unfortunately. a North/South component and an East/West component.9 LOMAC Data Acquisition Tests The model sea trials were performed in the freshwater pond in front of the Florida Institute of Technology wave tank (Figure 30). The method requires the data acquisition package to travel a full 360? degrees in the course of the test to be properly calibrated (Guardino).During both test all sensors functioned and accurate data were transmitted from the data acquisition package to the computer. Even though the system performed acceptably. This prevents the reading from exceeding a value of 90 degrees when the ATAN2 function is used to find the true heading. According to Guardino. a heading of 0 degrees will be recorded. the digital compass provides two readings. The GPS bases it heading readings on change in position. The primary goals of this test was to understand the model controls. the method used to process the heading data has a problem. therefore if the data acquisition package is stationary. the digital compass records a reading regardless of whether the system is in motion or not.

33 knots. the model was controlled through a series of turns in the pond. In addition. the data acquisition system was used to trace the perimeter of the lake. By tracing the perimeter of the lake.acquisition system and to observe how the model maneuvered in calm water. easier interpretation of the model trajectory would be allowed. Model Velocity Recorded by Data Acquisition System 6 5 4 Velocity (knots) 3 Model Speed 2 1 0 0 64 128 192 256 320 384 Time(sec) 448 512 576 640 704 768 Figure 40: Model Velocity Recorded on Test 2 During the 13 minute test. the maximum velocity of the model was of 5. The control configuration A discussed in Section 3.3 in which each motor is connected to a different channel and both rudders are connected in one channel. 58 . For this test. Achieving planning speed was a secondary goal.

proved to be adequate. Since the model is in motion most of the time. and the digital compass is troublesome. and the digital compass and inclinometer failed to record data. the digital compass was removed. b & c) is because it proved to be a simpler. During these tests. the acceleration data was not calibrated (Figure 41). The data collected from the GPS was accurate and is shown in Figure 42. The digital compass was initially installed to serve as a backup system for the GPS when the model is not in motion. Several observations were taken during this test. Since the GPS heading reading was accurate and the model would always be in motion. The model could turn 180 degrees within a 10 ft radius. 59 . more readable method to analyze and display the data. The inclinometer was fixed after the first sea trial and accurate readings were obtained. The accelerometers were then calibrated as close as possible to where it needed to be and the gain was set at an optimal level. the digital compass was removed. 44 and 46. making it a highly maneuverable vessel and the trim of the model with the added weight of the data acquisition system was acceptable (nearly zero degrees). It must be noted that the reason why the test is divided in three sections( a.

6 -0.8 Time (sec) Figure 41: Model Accelerations for Test 2 60 .2 -0.2 Acceleration (g) 0 0 96 192 288 384 480 576 672 768 Z1 Axis Y Axis Z2 Axis X Axis -0.Model Accelerations Recorded by Data Acquisition System 0.6 0.4 0.4 -0.

385 Trajectory Lake Perimeter 8037.395 8037.71 2803.715 2803.72 2803.695 2803.39 Longitude West 8037.725 Figure 42: Trajectory of LOMAC Model during Test 2a Model Heading Recorded by Data Acquisition System 350 300 250 Heading (degrees) 200 GPS Heading 150 100 50 0 40 50 60 70 80 Time (sec) 90 100 110 120 Figure 43: LOMAC Model Heading during Test 2a 61 .375 8037.69 2803.37 2803.705 Latitude North 2803.7 2803.38 8037.Model Trajectory Recorded by Data Acquisition System 8037.685 2803.

39 Longitude West 8037.385 Model Trajectory Lake Perimeter 8037.37 2803.71 2803.Model Trajectory Recorded by Data Acquisition system 8037.695 2803.715 2803.38 8037.685 2803.395 8037.7 2803.72 2803.725 Figure 44: Trajectory of LOMAC Model during Test 2b Model Heading Recorded by Data Acquisition System 350 300 250 Heading (degrees) 200 GPS Heading 150 100 50 0 378 388 398 408 Time (sec) 418 428 Figure 45: LOMAC Model Heading during Test 2b 62 .69 2803.705 Latitude North 2803.375 8037.

71 2803.695 2803.38 8037.Model Trajectory Recorded by Data Acquisition System 8037.37 2803.39 Longitude West 8037.375 8037.69 2803.395 8037.7 2803.705 Latitude North 2803.72 2803.725 Figure 46: Trajectory of LOMAC Model during Test 2c Model Heading Recorded by Data Acquisition System 350 300 250 Heading (degrees) 200 GPS Heading 150 100 50 0 420 430 440 450 460 470 480 490 500 510 Time (sec) Figure 47: LOMAC Model Heading During Test 2c 63 .385 Model Trajectory Lake Perimeter 8037.685 2803.715 2803.

4. These were a set of Graupner carbon fiber two blade propellers. four pairs of propeller were tested. The model was then run at full speed for a ten second interval and the thrust in pounds was recorded. a set of Graupner nylon four blade propellers. 64 . The results of the propeller test are shown in Table 13. (Figure 48) The test was conducted on the swimming pool of Southgate Apartment at the campus of Florida Institute of Technology (Appendix A). For this test. a set of Octura brass three blade propellers and a set of Prather stainless steel two blade propellers. This process was done three times and an average value for thrust was taken for each set of propellers. the model was attached to a scale with 50 lbs braded fishing line (Appendix H).10 Propulsion Test and Analysis The purpose of the propulsion test was to determine the thrust delivered by each propeller and to determine which propeller was more efficient for the model. For the experiment.

8 16.3 15.Figure 48: Propellers.9 16.20 13.3 13.80 16.45 3rd Trial (lbs) 14.50 After the thrust of each propeller was determined.5 (lbs) 14. (Gillmer and Johnson 1982) 65 .7 16 15.20 15.3 15.2 13. Definitions 17 through Definition 33 were used to determine the parameters shown in Table 14.1 13.55 Total Thrust (lbs) 14. Shafts and Accessories Table 13: Propeller Thrust Data Propellers 1st Trial 2nd Trial (lbs) Graupner 2 Blade Graupner 4 Blade Prather 2 Blade Octura 3 Blade 14. a propulsive analysis was done for each set of propeller.

Advance Coefficient J? vA nD Definition 7 Thrust Coefficient KT ? KQ ? T ? n2 D 4 JK T 2? ? 0 Definition 8 Torque Coefficient Definition 9 Torque Q ? KQ ? n2 D5 Definition 10 Propeller Loading ?K ? PL ? ? T ? 4 ?J ? P D SHP ? THP ? 1 4 Definition 11 Pitch/Diameter Ratio Definition 12 Shaft Horsepower 2? nQs 550 Tv A 550 Definition 13 Thrust Horsepower Definition 14 Propeller Horsepower PHP ? 2? nQ (THP ) Tv A RT vS 550 Definition 15 Effective Horsepower EHP ? Definition 16 Shafting Efficiency ? S ? PHP SHP Definition 17 Hull Efficiency ? ? H ? ? EHP (1 ? t ) ? THP (1 ? w ) ? ? B 0 Definition 18 Relative Rotative Efficiency R Definition 19 66 .

? D Propulsive Efficiency ? EHP ? ? H ? 0? PHP S R Definition 22 Propulsive Coefficient EHP ? ? D? SHP ? ? H ? 0? R? S Definition 23 67 .C .Propeller Efficiency Total Resistance ? B ? ? 0? R Definition 20 Definition 21 RT ? (1 ? t )T ? P.

94 15.22 7.06 2.4 1.36 0.11 3.97 12.20 6. in.17 10.18 128.4 1.10 0.71 14.80 6.46 2.37 2.8 12.70 17.95 0.02 0.0.62 2.11 4.35 0.17 0.09 0.8 12. ft.11 4.38 6.97 0. % assumed assumed assumed mph ft/sec knots mph ft/sec knots assumed assumed % slugs/ft3 lb.17 2.94 16.44 0.52 0.87 10.01 8.19 128.17 0.33 7699.95 0.17 0.28 0.74 0.17 0.17 0.14 128.86 4.C.33 7699.48 0.20 3.89 1.Table 14: Propulsive Analysis and Parameters Propeller Parameters Blades Pitch Pitch 2 Diameter Diameter 2 Rev per Sec Rev per Min Pitch x Rev Apparent Slip Ratio Water Density Thrust Torque Thrust Coefficient Torque Coefficient Advance Coefficient Open Water Prop Efficiency Propeller Loading Pitch/Diameter Ratio Speed of Advance Speed of Advance Speed of Advance Speed Speed Speed Wake Speed Thrust -deduction factor Shaft Horsepower Propeller Horsepower Thrust Horsepower Effective Horsepower Efficiency behind Propeller Shafting Efficiency Relative Rotative Efficiency Hull Efficiency Total Resistance of Model Quasi-propulsive Efficiency Propulsive Coefficient P P D D n n pxn Sa ? T Q Kt Kq J ?0 pl P/D Va Va Va V V V w t SHP PHP THP EHP ?B ?S ?R ?H Rt ?D P.30 2.34 1.35 0.4 1.60 0.98 0.14 1.94 14.98 0.33 12.40 9.96 0.+/.68 0.44 9.98 0.97 1.24 10.25 2.56 1. rev/sec rev/min 68 .61 0.80 0.4 1.95 0.29 0.51 0.97 13.13 0.24 0.81 5.92 1. ft.71 1.69 0.44 Prather 2 3.07 2.30 0. No.20 128.95 0. assumed assumed .33 7699.96 0.16 1.62 6.97 12.40 0.11 3.8 19.8 23.67 0.2 lb.44 11.37 1.60 7.50 Graupner 4 1.25 8.06 0.33 7699.17 1.61 hp hp hp hp % % % % Lb.50 2.65 0. in.64 3.94 13.80 3. Graupner 2 2.04 0.42 0.45 5.98 0.17 0.25 0.93 4.38 0.04 0.50 2.50 16.95 0.94 0.86 20.32 0.95 0.57 11.29 0.98 0.00 13.64 0.53 0.20 2.10 0.46 0.68 1.69 2.97 14. lb-ft.76 11.63 Octura 3 3.88 0.16 2.45 0.

A more accurate prediction could be done by performing multiple iterations of this analysis. The propulsive parameters of each propeller were then calculated and compared (Table 14).13 it is discuss how freshwater tests limited the maximum velocity acquired by the model. was used. the more effective the propeller will be for the model. it was discovered that the previously used Graupner 4 blade propellers was the least effective propellers. instead of saltwater. The predicted velocity of each propeller was higher than any velocity reached experimentally. This leads to the conclusions that the larger the pitch/diameter ratio is. giving the Prather propellers the largest and the Graupner 4 blade propeller the least. it was discovered that the pitch/diameter ratio coincide with the propeller thrust.After conducting the thrust experiment. 69 . After completing this analysis. Also. This is mainly due to the fact that several conditions were assumed when developing the propulsive analysis. the freshwater density. In Section 4. The Graupner 2 blade propellers delivered the most thrust followed by the Octura 3 blade and the Graupner 2 blade propellers.

The efficiencies of the propellers are also comparable in the calculations of required horse power (hp).2 G (Figure 50). Previously. the model was fully-planing.95 hp to push the model at 12 knots while the Graupner 4 blade propeller requires 2. 4. It was concluded that the 70 . however the acceleration.The efficiencies of each propeller also yield results that showed the Prather propeller being the most effective with an open water efficiency of 71% and a quasi-propulsive efficiency of 67%.33 knots. At this speed.5.11 Calm Water Tests In Section 5. The data acquisition system recorded heading. The Prather propeller was estimated to require 1.33 knots (Figure 49). a set of 2 blade Prather Propellers were selected as the most efficient propellers for the catamaran model. was off by +/. the model had achieved a maximum velocity of 5.74 knots. The new set of propellers gave the model a maximum speed of 7. trajectory and velocity accurately (Figure 51 through Figure 56). The previously used Graupner propellers had efficiencies below 56%. although accurate.0.44 hp to push the model at 6. This second sea trial was also performed in the wave tank lake at the Florida Institute of Technology campus.

accelerometers could not be calibrated mechanically (adjusting the y-intercept potentiometer) and could only be calibrated by altering the program within the pic microcontroller. The inclinometer worked properly during this test. It displayed data in the LCD screen of the data acquisition system. Unfortunately, the inclination data was not sent through the wireless communication therefore no data was recorded.

During this test, the model was controlled over a series of loops and sprints. The test was divided into three sections to simplify the data analysis. Figure 51, 53 and 55 display the trajectory of the model at each of the three tests while Figure 52, 54 and 56 display the heading of the model recorded by the GPS.

71

Model Velocity Recorded by Data Acquisition System
8

7

6

5 Velocity (knots)

4

Model Velocity

3

2

1

0 0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360 400 440 480 520 Time(Sec)

Figure 49: Velocity of LOMAC Model during Test 3

Model Accelerations Recorded by Data Acquisition Package
0.4

0.3

0.2

Acceleration (g)

0.1

Z1 Axis Y Axis Z2 Axis

0 0 100 200 300 400 500

X Axis

-0.1

-0.2

-0.3 Time (sec)

Figure 50: LOMAC Model Accelerations Recorded during Test 3

72

Model Position Recorded by Data Acquisition System
8037.395

8037.39

Longitude West

8037.385 Position Lake Perimeter 8037.38

8037.375

8037.37 2803.685

2803.69

2803.695

2803.7

2803.705 Latitude North

2803.71

2803.715

2803.72

2803.725

Figure 51 : Trajectory of LOMAC Model during Test 3a

Model Heading Recorded by Data Acquisition System

350

300

250 Heading (degrees)

200 GPS 150

100

50

0 342

347

352

357 Time (sec)

362

367

Figure 52: LOMAC Model Heading during Test 3a

73

685 2803.38 Position Lake Perimeter 8037.37 8037.71 2803.69 2803.715 2803.Model Position Recorded by Data Acquisition System 8037.72 2803.705 Latitude North 2803. (Heading) 100 50 0 193 198 203 Time (sec) 208 213 218 Figure 54: LOMAC Model Heading During Test 3b 74 . Avg. Mov.39 8037.395 8037.725 Figure 53: Trajectory of LOMAC Model during Test 3b Model Heading Recorded by Data Acquisition System 350 300 250 Heading (degrees) 200 Heading 150 2 per.7 2803.365 2803.695 2803.375 8037.385 Longitude West 8037.

69 2803.38 Position Lake Perimeter 8037.Model Position Recorded with Data Acquisition System 8037.715 2803.695 2803.37 8037.71 2803.705 Latitude North 2803.375 8037.725 Figure 55: Trajectory of LOMAC Model during Test 3c Model Heading Recorded by Data Acquisition System 350 300 250 Heading (degrees) 200 Heading 150 100 50 0 400 405 410 415 420 Time (sec) 425 430 435 440 Figure 56: LOMAC Model Heading during Test 3c 75 .7 2803.395 8037.72 2803.365 2803.385 Longitude West 8037.39 8037.685 2803.

4.12 Littoral Test Once the LOMAC model was tested in calm water. To facilitate the operation of these tests. The first test was performed north east of the SR-192 causeway while the second test was performed south of the SR-192 causeway (Figure 57). the model was taken to the Indian River for littoral tests. a 17 ft aluminum boat was used (Figure 58). Figure 57: River Test Locations 76 .

the model performed a series of sprints and loop in a 150 ft by 100 ft area.Figure 58: 17 ft Research Boat The location of the first test was selected because the wave action was minimal and wind was not present.728 knots. The velocity data recorded by the data acquisition system reveals the highest ever recorded velocity which was a velocity of 7. The wind and wave action were not a factor on the model velocity since the model sprinting maneuvers were always done perpendicular to the wind and wave action. During this test. 77 . These maneuvers are shown in Figure 59. (Figure 61) Several field observations were taken during this test.

605 8034.35 Latitude North 2805.61 Series1 8034.345 2805.6 8034.34 2805.62 8034.365 Figure 59: Trajectory of LOMAC Model during Test 4a Model Heading Recorded by Data Acquisition System 400 350 300 Heading (degrees) 250 200 Model Heading 150 100 50 0 0 20 40 60 Time (sec) 80 100 120 140 Figure 60: LOMAC Model Heading during Test 4a 78 .615 Longitude West 8034.36 2805.Model Trajectory Recorded by Data Acquisition System 8034.625 8034.335 2805.355 2805.595 2805.

(Figure 62) Although not calibrated. 79 . the data reveals the accelerations increasing at the beginning of each sprinting maneuver. (Velocity) 4 3 2 1 0 0 20 40 60 Time (sec) 80 100 120 Figure 61: Model Velocity during Test 4a The acceleration data was also recorded during this test.Model Velocity Recorded by Data Acquisition System 9 8 7 6 Velocity (knots) 5 Velocity 2 per. During the last sprinting maneuver. creating a larger oscillating acceleration data. the model was navigated through its own wake. Avg. Mov.

2 Acceleration (g) 0.3 10.1 -10.1 Z1 Axis X Axis 0 -0.1 0.0 0.0 Figure 63: X Axis Acceleration and Model Inclination during Test 4a 80 .1 20 40 60 80 100 120 Z2 Axis Y Axis 0 -0.Model Accelerations Recorded by Data Acquisition System 0.2 5.0 Inclination (Degrees) Acceleration (G) 0.0 -0.3 -0.4 -0.5 0.2 -0.0 0.0 -0.0 -0.5 Time (sec) Figure 62: LOMAC Model Acceleration during Test 4a X Axis Acceleration and Model Inclination Recorded by Data Acquisition System 0.4 15.3 0.3 Time (sec) -20.2 -15.0 X Axis Acceleration Inclination 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 -5.4 0.

(Velocity ) 3 2 1 0 0 20 40 60 Time (sec) 80 100 Figure 64: Velocity of LOMAC Model during Test 4b 81 . Model Velocity Recorded by Data Acquisition System 7 6 5 Velocity (knots) 4 Velocity 2 per. the data acquisition system was oriented so that the inclinometer would measure the inclination in the longitudinal axis(x axis). Velocity. accelerations trajectory and heading graphs for this tests are shown in Figure 64-71. During these tests. the acceleration and inclination in the x-axis would be directly related since the model increase its angle of attack as it increase velocity and as the model reaches planning velocity. The main goals of these tests were to successfully operate the model in littoral conditions and to obtain inclination data. the angle of attack decreases and so does the acceleration.The second set of tests took place south of the SR-192 causeway. The inclination data is shown in Figure 72. In theory. Avg. Mov.

605 8034.Model Trajectory recorded by Data Acquisition System 2805.615 8034.36 Velocity (knots) 2805.38 2805.345 2805.625 Figure 65: Trajectory of LOMAC Model during Test 4b Model Trajectory Recorded by Data Acquisition System 400 350 300 250 200 Model Trajectory 150 100 50 0 0 20 40 60 Time (sec) 80 100 120 Figure 66: LOMAC Model Heading during Test 4b 82 .595 8034.37 2805.375 2805.35 2805.34 8034.61 Latitude North 8034.6 8034.365 Longitude West 2805.62 8034.355 2805.

3 0.4 0.1 20 40 60 80 100 120 Z2 Axis Y Axis 0 -0.Model Accelerations Recorded by Data Acquisition System 0.2 -0.25 6 Inclination(Degrees) Acceleration(G) 0.3 -0.2 0.3 8 0.1 -2 0.4 Time (sec) Figure 67: LOMAC Model Acceleration during Test 4b X Axis Acceleration and Inclination Recorded by Data Acquisition System 0.1 Acceleration (g) Z1 Axis X Axis 0 -0.15 0 0.35 10 0.05 X Axis Acceleration Inclination -4 0 0 20 40 60 Time(sec) 80 100 -6 Figure 68: Model X Axis Acceleration Recorded during Test 4b 83 .2 4 2 0.

609 8034.35 2805.605 8034.Model Velocity Recorded by Data Acquisition System 4.358 Latitude North 2805.5 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Time (sec) Figure 69: Model Velocity Recorded during Test 4c Model Trajectory Recorded by Data Acquisition System 8034.364 Figure 70: Trajectory of LOMAC Model during Test 4c 84 .354 2805.5 3 Velocity (knots) 2. Avg.604 Model Trajectory 8034. (Velocity) 2 1.362 2805.608 8034.36 2805.352 2805.599 2805.607 8034.606 Longitude West 8034.356 2805. Mov.602 8034.601 8034.603 8034.5 1 0.5 Velocity 2 per.5 4 3.346 2805.6 8034.348 2805.

1 -0.3 0.2 Acceleration (g) 0.Model Heading Recorded by Data Acquisition System 350 300 250 Heading (degrees) 200 Heading 150 100 50 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 Time (sec) 60 70 80 90 100 Figure 71: LOMAC Model Heading during Test 4c Model Acceleration Recorded by Data Acquisition System 0.4 0.2 -0.1 Z1 Axis Y Axis Z2 Axis X Axis 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 -0.3 Time (sec) Figure 72: LOMAC Model Accelerations during Test 4c 85 .

1 -1 0 0 -0. The primary goal of this test was to collect data that could show the angle of attack of the boat changing as the model went from displacement to fully-planning. A new test was done for the calm water test while data from Test 4a (Section 5.2 -16 18 36 54 72 -6 X Axis Acceleration Inclination -0.X Axis Acceleration and Incliantion Recorded by Data Acquisition system 0. To obtain the angle of attack. the data acquisition system was oriented so that the inclinometer could record the inclination on the longitudinal axis. For the calm water 86 .4 Time (sec) -21 Figure 73: Model X Axis Acceleration and Inclination during Test 4c 4. This test was performed in both calm (Figure 73) and wave (Figure 78) conditions for comparison.4 0.5 14 0.1 -11 -0.3 9 0.7) was used for the littoral test.3 -0.13 Planing Performance Test The LOMAC model underwent planning performance test on the spring 2005 semester.2 Acceleration (G) 4 Inclination(degrees) 0.

4 306 58 0 Time (sec) Figure 75: Model Velocity Recorded during Test 5 87 .6 24.2 74.1 41.4 49.28 16.8 33. Mov. Avg. (Figure 77) Model Velocity and Angle of Attack vs Time 9 12 10 8 7 6 6 Inclination (degrees) 4 Velocity (knots) 5 2 0 -2 3 -4 2 -6 1 -8 -10 0 16 32 Time(sec) 48 64 Velocity 8 Angle of Attack 4 60 per. (Angle of Attack) 0 Figure 74: Planning Performance in Calm Water during Test 5 Model Velocity Recorded by Data Acquisition System 9 8 7 6 Velocity (knots) 5 4 3 2 1 0 108 116 124 132 141 149 157 166 174 182 190 199 207 215 224 232 240 248 257 265 273 282 290 298 8.1 99.5 82.test.7 66. an acceleration graph was plotted with the model velocity to observe how the velocity increases as acceleration increases.8 91.

708 2803.39 8037.716 Figure 76: Trajectory of LOMAC Model Recorded during Test 5 Model Heading Recorded by Data Acquisition System 350 300 250 Heading (degrees) 200 150 100 50 0 0 10 20 30 Time (sec) 40 50 60 Figure 77: LOMAC Model Heading Recorded during Test 5 88 .384 8037.712 2803.374 2803.376 8037.388 8037.696 2803.692 2803.Model Trajectory Recorded by Data Acquisition System 8037.704 Latitude (North) 2803.38 8037.7 2803.378 8037.386 Longitude (West) 8037.382 8037.

0 4 0.0 -4. (Y Axis) 20 per.0 4. Mov. Mov.3 7 0. Mov. Mov.4 9 8 0.0 7 8. Time 14.0 9 8 10.0 -10.1 5 0 0 10 20 30 40 4 3 -0.Model Accelerations Recorded by Data Acquisition System 0.2 1 -0. Avg. (Z1 Axis) 0. (Z2 Axis) 20 per. (X Axis) 20 per. Mov.0 -8.2 6 Acceleration (g) Velocity (knots) Z1 Axis X Axis Z2 Axis Y Axis Series5 3 per. Avg.0 2 -6.1 2 -0.0 0 -2.0 Angle of Attack (degrees) 6. Mov. Avg. Avg.0 Time (sec) 1 20 40 60 80 3 6 Velocity (knots) Velocity Angle of Attack 60 per.0 12.3 Time (sec) 0 Figure 78: Accelerations and Velocity Recorded during Test 5 Model Velocity and Angle of Attack Vs. (Angle of Attack) 0 Figure 79: Planning Performance in Littoral Conditions 89 . Avg. (Series5) 20 per. Avg.0 5 2.

Therefore the model was decelerated before it would reach the maximum velocity.658 knots* Littoral Conditions V< 4.30 knots V> 7.10 knots 4. Table 15: LOMAC Model Planing Speeds Calm Conditions Approximate Displacement Velocity Approximate Semi-Planing Velocity Approximate Fully-Planing Velocity Approximate Maximum Angle of Attack Maximum Recorded Velocity V< 4.3 knots in wave conditions.15 knots 4.728 knots* *At maximum power with both 10 cell Ni-CD fully charged.The results of this test show that the fully planing speed of the model is at 7. Also note how the maximum velocity is within 0. the model velocity was limited due to the testing facilities (freshwater lake). The model was unable to maintain a maximum velocity for more than 4 seconds due to the size of the lake. The main reason why the salt water tests recorded higher velocity than the freshwater tests is because at the freshwater test.15 knots in calm conditions and 7. This show how efficient the hull shape is since it does not get greatly affected by wave conditions. 90 .30 knots 6 degrees 7.15 knots V> 7.10 knots < V < 7.1 knots for calm and wave conditions.15 knots 5 degrees 7.15 knots <V< 7.

The first system was the Traxxas drive system. In the end. The main purpose of this procedure was to finish the hull. Re-designing the drive and steering system of the model led to the success of this graduate work. All objective were completed by fairing and re-shaping the hull.5. the model still trimmed by the bow. and increased maneuverability. 91 . however. which used 6 cell 3000 mAh Ni-MH batteries. The Traxxas drive system had the advantages of longer range. Two drive systems were tested within the scope of this research. however. The improved maneuverability was due to the reverse operation offered by the Traxxas motor controller. lower the weight and move the longitudinal center of gravity closer to the stern of the model. maximum velocity and acceleration were lower than those in the second drive system. the addition of on-board systems and the data acquisition system would correct that trim angle.0 Discussion The reconstruction of the LOMAC catamaran model and re-design of its new systems was highly successful.

2700 mAh Ni-Cd batteries. differential steering was now a useful method of turning the model. By eliminating this excessive trim. Initially. The steering system of the model was design to further improve the existing steering system. the model will be balanced and will navigate more efficiently at planing speed. the range of the model was reduced due to the increased current draw from the motors allowed by the JES motor controller. Also. making it impossible to properly test the model in the wave tank pond. This will eliminate the 1 degree bow trim that the model has. the Traxxas drive system is better for further research. The new system employed the combination of rudders and differential steering. the JES motor controllers did not have reverse like the Traxxas motor controller. however.The second system was the JES drive system. therefore maneuverability was limited. To improve on the steering system. the maximum velocity and fastest initial accelerations were reached. Unfortunately. giving the model a turning radius of 14 feet. rudders were added to 92 . the thrust in the model was not enough to propel it and was even less efficient in turning the motor around. In the initial system. In the present conditions. However. the model maneuverability using only differential steering was still unacceptable. which was powered with a pair of 10 cell. With this system. an addition of 2 10 cell batteries on the JES system will not only duplicate the operational time of the model. the model relied on the use of differential steering to be maneuverable. but it will also trim the model further to the stern. By re-designing a more efficient drive system.

The purpose of this experiment was to recalculate several of the static stability parameters. The test performed during this research involved different aspect of naval architecture. The 2005 experiment included a fully loaded LOMAC model. it was necessary to perform this experiment again.each hull. First. static stability experiment. the 2003 experiment was performed on the LOMAC model with no drive or steering system within the hull. most of the other parameters yield similar results. This improved the maneuverability drastically to less than a 5 ft turning radius. The striking similarities between both tests are due to the fact that the 2003 model was tested with nothing on board and the model itself was heavier than the restored 93 . The experiment was performed in the same manner as it was done by Mark Cencer et al. Since the model had been reconstructed and the center of gravity had been moved further to the stern. and sea trials in both calm and littoral conditions. with drive and steering. the model can be steered at high velocity with the rudders without decreasing maximum velocity performance with the use of differential steering. In addition to the turning maneuverability. The result show that although the longitudinal center of gravity was moved approximate 5 inches to the stern. This included propulsion analysis. The first test performed was the static stability experiment. Several differences between both experiments were present.

2005 model. heading. the model did not reached planning speed. the data acquisition succeeded in recording trajectory. This lack of velocity was caused by the amount of current allowed by the motor controller to go through the motors and the efficiency of the propeller. except the data acquisition system.3 knots was reached in calm water conditions. The first sea trials were conducted using the Traxxas system and 4 blade nylon Graupner propellers. The data acquisition system successfully recorded most of the trajectory. accelerations and inclination. The propeller was mainly design to operate at lower revolutions. Once all model systems were operational. The propeller in use was the 4 blade nylon propeller by Graupner. A second test was performed in a day were the cloud cover was minimal. 94 . however. the data acquisition system was tested by recording the movement of a Dodge Ram Pickup truck. Unfortunately. the 2005 model was tested with all systems on board. The low pitch propeller became flexible under high revolutions. which decreased the efficiency of the propeller. the model had not exceeded the 2 knot mark. cloud cover proved to affect the reception of the global positioning device. velocity. Previously. The propeller efficiency was the other problem that led to lower velocity. An average maximum velocity of 5. The Traxxas motor controller can deliver up to 30 amps continuous current while the JES NAVY 600 can deliver 60 amps maximum current. During this test.(Cencer 2003) However.

The JES system utilize 10 cell NiCd batteries and also allows the motor to draw more current from the batteries. One negative aspect of this system is the decreased operational time due to the increase current draw by the motors. These were made out of brass. During these test. Fortunately. therefore some cavitation existed. The Octura three blade propellers followed the Prather propellers in efficiency. In both three and four blade propellers. to the Graupner 4 blade propeller. The Graupner 4 blade propeller proved to be the least efficient propeller of all four. This was due mainly to the material it was made and the application it was made for (low revolution propeller). The replacement of the drive system from the Traxxas to the JES system and the conversion of propellers proved to be a major step in obtaining the planning speed. which are shown in Section 5. the revolutions per minute (rpm) were to high for the design rpm. they had a smaller pitch than the Prather propeller. cavitation is kept to a minimal.6.3 knots.A propulsive analysis was done for 4 different pairs of propellers to determine the most efficient one. By using a 2 blade propeller. however. therefore the propellers suffer from minimal deformation at higher revolution. Contrary. these propellers are made of stainless steel. this problem 95 . the model exceeded the theoretical planning velocity of 7. The experiment led to the selection of the Prather propellers which had the highest pitch and only 2 blades.

the model was navigated in the Indian River.becomes an advantage with the addition of two more identical 10 cell batteries. The approximate height of the waves encounter by the model during the river tests were of 0. This addition will further improve the overall performance of the LOMAC multi-hull model. the operational time of the model would increase by 100% and the added weight in the motor compartment would improve the less than -1 degree trim angle. With this addition. Increased thrust and decreased draft were minor changes but they could affect the performance of the model by increasing the model velocity by a fraction of a knot. therefore increasing the thrust delivered by the propeller and decreasing the model draft. The lack of space in the pond prevented the model to maintain a high velocity for extended period of time. Also littoral tests were conducted in saltwater. 96 . which is denser than freshwater. all systems performed flawlessly and a maximum velocity of 7. The model was also tested in littoral conditions.6 knots was achieved. It was expected for the model to reach a lower maximum velocity due to the increased wave action. At these tests. To perform these tests. two factors were not considered.2 to 0. However.4 ft. Calm water tests were performed in a small freshwater pond.

3 knots which was the theoretical value for the model planing and the trim at high velocity was approximately -1 degree (1 degree toward bow).728 knots were achieved in the last calm (Figure 73) and littoral tests (Figure 78) respectively.658 and 7. The angle of attack and velocities of the LOMAC catamaran model as it travel from displacement to fullyplaning also yield similar results in both calm and littoral tests (Table 15). The oscillations were present in the littoral test and were related to the wave action during the test. semi-planing. and fully-planing mode.After conducting all necessary testing to prove the effectiveness of the LOMAC model and systems. The 97 . The acceleration. the model reached planing speed at approximately 7. It was observed that wave action did not affect the velocity of the model since the velocity in both calm and littoral tests were within 0.1 knots of each other. the fully-planing velocity and the average trim of the model at high velocity could be measured and compared to theoretical values. By collecting such data. Maximum velocities of 7. inclination and velocity values resemble striking similarities with the exception of an increased oscillated acceleration values. a planning experiment was performed. This test was done in both calm and littoral condition. This experiment consisted on using the inclinometer (previously oriented in the y axis) in the x axis to measure the angle of attack as the model went through displacement. As a result.

98 . proving the effectiveness of the model in wave conditions.model was minimally affected by the wave tests.

The model’ range is limited to the radio controlled range of approximately 980 feet. The model.0 knots with the Traxxas system. The differential/rudder system gives the model a turning radius of less than 10 ft. s All systems are in working conditions.7 knots with the JES system and 6. however. An upgrade of motors from the Graupner Speed 700 BB Turbo to the Speed 800 BB Turbo would add torque and thrust. which will make the model 99 . The accelerometers require calibration since the potentiometers used for calibration do not have the range to calibrate the accelerometers to zero.6. is now capable of attaining maximum velocity of 7.0 Conclusions and Recommendations The reconstruction and evaluation of the LOMAC catamaran model concluded in March 2005. During the reconstruction of the model. which went through a reconstruction of the hull and re-design of the internal systems. several recommendations have been suggested to be able to improve the performance and appearance of the model. The operational time of the vessel is of approximately 32 minutes using the Traxxas system and 24 minutes using the JES system. the digital compass data output requires extensive data processing before obtaining a useful set of data.

a larger fiberglass rudder can be designed and manufactured to increase the turning moment on the model. therefore a set of bigger Prather propellers would improve the velocity of the model. To increase maneuverability.8 inches. Also.have a better initial acceleration and a higher maximum velocity. The system that requires the most improvement is the data acquisition system. The addition of 2 more 10 cell 2700 mAh Ni/Cd batteries connected in parallel would increase the model operational time to approximately 48 minutes. Operational time for the model using the Graupner Speed 800 BB Turbo and 4 10 cell batteries would be of approximately 40 minutes due to the increase current draw from the larger Speed 800 motors.6) is the Prather 255S model which has diameter of 2. Making the system smaller enough to fit within the LOMAC model is very important since it will decrease the wind resistance and lower the center of gravity of the model.4 inches and a pitch of 3. pitch=2. if the motors in use are the Graupner Speed 700 BB Turbo. An excellent replacement for the Prather 250S model (diameter =2. the system could be used in smaller and less stable mono-hull models such as the catamaran model.3. The spacing between the propeller and hull was increased after the propellers were assigned. The size reduction could be accomplished by eliminating some components and by replacing other 100 .

components with smaller components that can perform the same operation. For example. the breadboard that connects the inclinometer and LCD screen to the PICNIC board can be replaced with a smaller circuit board. The addition of several sensors would make the system more effective at recording ship motions. Replacing the linear accelerometer with accelerometers that can measure both linear and rotational acceleration would highly also improve the effectiveness of the data acquisition system. the LCD screen is no longer required in the system. the LCD can be eliminated or replaced by a smaller LCD screen. The addition of a software program that could analyze the data as it is collected by the data acquisition system would give the operator a better understanding of the behavior of the model during tests. all sensors are properly calibrated. This would prevent the operator from having to spend hours organizing the data for further review. Therefore. 101 . Once. oriented in the X-axis would help understanding how the boat inclines in a three-dimensional environment. Installing an inclinometer. The lead acid battery used to supply the power to the system should be replaced with a smaller NiCd or NiMH battery that can weigh up to 50% less.

In the future. research on beach topography. wave studies.During this project. the LOMAC catamaran model surpassed expectations by reaching planning velocity and by successfully recording accurate data from a variety of sensors. Among them. The system proved to be simple. the LOMAC catamaran model could be use for many applications. and catamaran ship responses. 102 . efficient and easy to operate.

from http://www. Melbourne. Littoral Combat Ship.hobby-lobby.com/boatcont. Florida: Florida Institute of Technology. 2004.htm 103 . from http://www.htm. December 2003. 2005. Guardino.htm Jes Jeti Navy 600 WWW motor Controller Specifications. Retrieved January 10. Florida: Florida Institute of Technology. 2005.hobby-lobby. from htttp://www.com/prather. 2004. Retrieved January 10. Maryland: Naval Institute Press.hobby-lobby.com/scopesniper/props.traxxas.htm Graupner hydro Drive WWW Specifications. Prather Propellers WWW Specifications. Graupner WWW Speed 700 Specifications Retrieved September 12.References Gillmer.com/speed700.htm Octura Propellers WWW Specifications. Melbourne. from http://www. DMES.html Graupner Propellers WWW Specifications. from http://www. Thomas C. Doug.geocities. 2004. Littoral-Operated Multipurpose Auxiliary Craft. Mark et al. DMES. Introduction to Naval Architecture. 1982. Retrieved January 10. and Johnson.aeromarinerc. February 2003 Cencer. (2005) “Florida Tech Campus Map”. United States Navy Warfare Development Command. July 2003. Florida Institute of Technology. from http://www. Retrieved September 12. Retrieved December 27.htm.com/hydrodrives.hobby-lobby. Annapolis. Traxxas WWW EVX 3014 Motor Controller Specifications Retrieved November 8.com/grboatprop. University Publications. 2004.com/products/accessories /trx_accessories_evx. Design of Wireless Data Acquisition for Field Testing of Hull Models. 2005. from http://www. Bruce.

mapquest. Retrieved January 12th.linksys. Retrieved February 2. Florida Map. from http://www. from http://www.com 104 .Linksys WWW Router Specifications.asp?grid=33&scid=36& prid=602 Mapquest.com/products/product. 2005.com WWW Melbourne. 2005.

Appendix A: Campus Map 105 .

127 -0.078 0.2 2.181 -0.52 1.6 0.112 -0.147 -0.078 0.68 0.142 -0.9 3.176 0.5 3.137 -0.5992 Velocity (knots) 0 Heading (degrees) 0 A 2805.1 0.24 0.083 -0.142 0.08 0.083 -0.6 1.142 0.078 -0.161 -0.36 0.102 X Axis (g) 0.196 0.083 -0.102 -0.56 Z1 Axis (g) -0.6 2.156 0.32 0.156 0.083 -0.0 3.225 Z2 Axis (g) -0.0 6.181 0.186 0.12 1.137 -0.04 1.171 -0.3 1.151 0.196 0.4 3.24 0.063 -0.147 -0.186 -0.215 0.098 0.171 -0.151 -0.225 0.098 -0.1 0.4 2.52 0.088 0.147 -0.181 -0.107 0.225 0.3 0.21 0.6 Signal A or V A Latitude North 2805.191 0.147 0.107 -0.147 0.107 -0.161 -0.5 2.132 0.16 1.176 0.068 0.137 -0.16 0.102 0.88 0.088 -0.117 -0.3 6.0 0.161 -0.122 0.068 -0.56 0.068 -0.176 -0.147 0.151 0.3 3.0 0.151 -0.186 0.04 0.083 0.5992 0 0 106 .137 0.196 0.44 1.142 0.2 0.127 0.102 0.166 -0.08 1.181 0.2 0.21 0.166 0.215 0.132 -0.127 -0.078 -0.2 0.8 0.181 0.078 -0.117 -0.098 -0.8 3.151 -0.21 0.147 -0.7 4.151 0.132 -0.112 -0.3 2.083 -0.166 -0.4 0.147 -0.171 0.92 0.9 2.Appendix B: Sample Data from test Time (sec) 0 0.6 5.053 -0.117 0.151 -0.349 8034.349 Longitude West 8034.156 -0.166 0.112 -0.4 1.84 0.122 0.2 3.5 2.186 0.72 0.142 -0.181 -0.122 -0.156 0.196 0.0 2.2 1.44 0.122 -0.36 1.24 1.098 -0.132 0.21 0.4 6.21 0.127 0.147 -0.9 1.137 0.2 0.166 0.28 1.12 0.151 Y Axis (g) 0.22 0.073 -0.142 -0.127 0.181 -0.058 -0.191 0.96 1 1.2 3.166 0.117 -0.21 0.181 0.083 -0.48 0.102 -0.122 0.151 0.22 0.24 Digital Compass X Y Vector Vector 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 2 5 1012 1011 1011 1014 1012 1012 1012 1012 1013 1013 1011 1014 1011 1011 1015 1012 1012 1012 1012 1013 1012 1012 1013 1014 1013 1014 1013 1012 1013 1012 1011 1013 1011 1011 1012 1012 1011 1012 1011 1012 Inclination (degrees) 23 23 22 23 24 25 26 29 32 36 39 42 45 46 47 48 48 49 51 55 58 60 59 57 56 55 55 54 53 53 52 52 53 55 60 69 77 83 86 89 0.64 0.7 3.137 -0.102 0.171 0.161 -0.181 0.32 1.127 0.2 3.76 0.137 -0.093 -0.6 0.28 0.137 -0.068 -0.0 3.2 3.205 0.9 2.48 1.102 -0.161 0.161 -0.6 3.147 -0.063 -0.132 0.078 -0.171 0.0 -0.181 -0.088 -0.171 0.1 3.088 0.

Appendix C: Test Pictures 107 .

108 .

Appendix D: Construction Pictures 109 .

110 .

Appendix E: Pro Surf Hydrostatic Curves 111 .

Appendix F: Static Stability Illustrations 112 .

Appendix H: Experiments Setup Thrust Determination Experiment Static Stability Test 113 .

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful