Approximation of the Calm Water

Resistance on a Sailing Yacht

Based on the Delft Systematic
Yacht Hull Series
J.A. Keuning & U.B. Sonnenberg
Report 1177-P Project Code: 953

January 1999

T U Delft Faculty of Design, Engineering and Production

Ship Hydromechanics Laboratory

Delft University of Technology Department of Marine Technology
 THE F O U R T E E N T H
C H E S A P E A K E
S A LL I N G
Y A C H T S y M P O SI U M

JANUARY 30, 1999

THE CHESAPEAKE SECTION OF

THE S'PCIETY OF 'NAVAL ARCHITECTS
AND ENGINEERS

UNITED5TATES
SAILING ASSOCIATION

. NAVAL ACADEMY
S|lLING SQUADRON

\
THE CjrlPSAPEAKE BAY
^^YACHT RACING
ASSOCIATION
 T A B L E OF CONTENTS

Papers Presented on Saturday, January 30,1999

Developments in the I M S VPP Formulations

Andrew Claughton, Wolfson Unit MTIA, University of Southampton, U K 1

Experimental Technique for the Determination of Forces Acting on a Sailboat

Rigging
F. Fossati, Politecnico di Milano, Milano, Italy
G. Moschini, Politecnico di Milano, Milano, Italy
D. Vitalone, Harken Italy S.p.a., Lurago Marinone, Italy 21

Fullscale Hydrodynamic Force Measurement on the Berlin Sailing

Dynamometer
Karsten Hochldrch, Technical University of Berlin, Beriin, Germany
Hartmut Brandt, Technical University of Berlin, Berlin, Germany 33

USS Constitution Preparations for Sail 200

Howard Chatterton 45

In Search of Power, Pace and Windward Performance In Square Rigged

Sailing Ships
Philip Goode 61

The Windward Performance of Yachts in Rough Water

Jonathan Binns, Australian Maridme Eng. Coop. Research Centre (AMECRC), Perth, Australia
Bruce McRae, Australian Maritime Eng. Coop. Res. Centre (AMECRC), Launceston, Tasmania
Giles Thomas, Australian Maritime Eng. Coop. Research Centre (AMECRC), Perth, Australia 75

A 1997-1998 Whitbread Sail Program - Lessons Learned

Robert C. Ranzenbach, G L M Wind Tunnel, Univ. of Maryland, College Park, Maryland, USA
Per Andersson, G L M Wind Tunnel, Univ. of Maryland, College Park, Maryland, USA
David Flynn, G L M Wind Tunnel, Univ. of Maryland, College Park, Maryland, USA 87
 T A B L E OF CONTENTS

Papers Presented on Friday, January 29,1999

at the SNAME SC-2 "Sailing Craft" Panel Meeting

Sailing Yacht Design Using Advanced Numerical Flow Techniques

Caponnetto et al, Hydraulic Machines Laboratory, Ecole Poly. Fed. de Lausanne, Switzerland 97

Parametric Design and Optimization of Sailing Yachts

Stefan Harries, Teclinical University of Berlin, Berlin, Gennany
Glaus Abt, Teclinical University of Berlin, Berlin, Germany 105

An Investigation of the Structural Dynamics of a Racing Yacht

Frederic Louarn, Department of Ship Science, University of Southampton, UK
Pandeli Temarel, Department of Ship Science, University of Southampton, UK 123

Use of C F D Techniques in the Preliminary Design of Upwind Sails

Patrick Couser, Formation Design Systems, Fremantlem, Westem Australia
Norm Deane, VP of the Intemational Mirror Class Association, Hobart, Australia 143

On the Application of RANS Simulation for Downwind Sail Aerodynamics

William Lasher, Penn State Erie, The Behrend College, Erie, Pennsylvania, USA 157

Wind Tunnel Testing of Offwind Sails

Robert Ranzenbach, G L M Wind Tunnel, Univ. of Maryland, College Park, Maryland, USA
Chris Mairs, G L M Wind Tunnel, Univ. of Maryland, College Park, Maryland, USA 171

Approximation of the Calm Water Resistance on a Sailing Yacht Based on the

'Delft Systematic Yacht Hull Series'
J.A. Keuning, Ship Hydromechanics Lab., Delft Univ. of Tech., Delft, The Netherlands
U.B. Sonnenberg, Ship Hydromechanics Lab., Delft Univ. of Tech., Delft, The Netherlands 181

Bibliography of Previous Chesapeake Sailing Yacht Symposia Papers 201

ii
 THE 14th CHESAPEAKE SAILING YACHT SYMPOSIUM

14th C S Y S Committee Members

Steering Committee
John J. Zseleczky General Chairman
Stephen R. Judson Papers Committee Chairman
Joseph O. Salsich Treasurer
Volker Stammnitz Publicity Chairman
Aim Ljone Publicity
Nancy Harris Internet
Edy Walsh Arrangements
Gregory J. Opas Publications Chairman
Rhonda D. Kane Publications
Michael G. McLaughlin Publications
Bruce Johnson CBYRA Representative
Karl L. Kirkman US Sailing & NASS Representative
Richards T. Miller Advisor
Robert W. Peach Advisor
C. Gaither Scott Advisor

Papers Committee
Diane Burton
David A. Heigerson
Andrew R. Kondracki
J. Otto Scherer
Jolin J. Slager
Thomas H. Walsh

ill
 THE 14th CHESAPEAKE SAILING YACHT SYMPOSIUM

The Fourteenth Chesapeake Sailing Yacht Symposium was co-sponsored by:

The Society o f Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, 601 Pavonia Avenue, Jersey City, NJ 07306

The United States Sailing Association, P.O. Box 209, Newport, Rl 02840-0209

The Chesapeake Bay Yacht Racing Association, 612 Third Street, Annapolis, M D 21403

The U.S. Naval Academy Sailing Squadron, The Robert Crown Sailing Center, U.S.N.A., Annapolis, M D 21402

The Fourteenth CSYS was held in the Francis Scott Key Auditorium
on the campus of St. John's College in Annapolis, Maryland, USA.

The S N A M E SC-2 "Sailing Craft" Panel meeting was open to all CSYS attendees and was held
in Conference Room 103, Rickover Hall, U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, Maryland, USA.

© Copyright 1999 by The Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers

iv
Approximation of the Calm Water Resistance on a Sailing Yacht Based on the
'Delft Systematic Yacht Hull Series'
J.A. Keuning, Ship Hydromeclianics Lab., Delft Univ. o f Tech., Delft, The Netherlands
U.B. Sonnenberg, Ship Hydromechanics Lab., Delft Univ. o f Tech., Delft, The Netherlands
ABSTRACT
Over the past years a considerable extension has been
given to the Delft Systematic Yacht Hull Series (DSYHS)
The DSYHS data set now contains infonnation about both
the bare hull and appended hull resistance in the upright
and the heeled condition, the resistance increase due to
the longihjdinal trimming moment of the sails, the
sideforce production and induced resistance due to
sideforce at various combinations of forward speeds,
leeway angles and heeling angles. New formulations for
the relevant hydrodynamic forces as function of the hull
geometry parameters have been derived to be able to deal
with a larger variety of yacht hull shapes and appendage
designs. During the past two years some results of this
research have already been published. In die present
paper an almost complete picftire of the relevant
expressions which may be used in a Velocity Prediction
Program (VPP) will be presented.
i INTRODUCTION
The Delft Systematic Yacht Hull Series is a very
extensive series of systematic yacht hulls consisting of
some 50 modeis by now, all of which have been tested at
the Delft Shiphydromechanics Laboratory of the Delft
University of Technology over the last 25 years.
The aim of these investigations which led to the testing of
these 50 models of the DSYHS was the developments of
equations that could be used as an approximation method
for the assessment of the most important hydrodynamic
forces acting on a sailing yacht. The shape of the yacht
designs has changed considerably over these 25 years
which necessitated the change in the shapes of the hulls
tested as well as in the approach and/or method of
analysis of the measured data of the DSYHS. Therefore
over the total span (in time) of the DSYHS Üiree different
parent models have been used. In it's sort the DSYHS is
probably the largest systematic series with such a high
degree of consistency in both the model shapes and
measurement techniques, procedures and analysis.
181
Based on the equations derived from the results of the
DSYHS a Velocity Prediction Program was to be
developed, which should enable designers of sailing
yachts to evaluate their designs and the possible design
variations on their performance in an early design stage.
In conjunction with this DSYHS a number of smaller
systematic series have been tested aimed at solving
specific problems not (fully) covered by the DSYHS. In
this respect the research on appendage drag and sideforce
production should be mentioned. Due to the rather large
development in the appendage design and layout in the
last decades the standard appendages of Ihe DSYHS did
no longer do justice to these new design trends. This
research was aimed to derive formulations for the forces
on the appendages separately, so lhat a larger variety of
designs could be dealt with and was based on a series
model experiments containing some 13 different keel
configuration placed underneath one particular yacht hull
and on a series of experiments with 6 different keels
underneath two systematically different hulls.
Inevitably also the approach towards the assessment of the
forces involved has changed over the past 25 years, which
led to additional tests with all the models, also with those
already previously tested, for instance to measure bare
hull resistance and the change in resistance due to trim
and heeling alone.
All these changes mentioned above have led to a
substantial new set of polynomial expressions suitable for
the approximation of the calm water resistance forces
involved in the sailing yacht equilibrium in calm water.
During the last decades a considerable number of publica-
tions on the these subject of calculating the hydrodynamic
forces on the sailing yacht have been published by
Gerritsma et al., all of which may be found in the List of
References at the end of this paper. A part of the newly
derived fonmulations have already been presented in some
recent publications of the Delft Shiphydromechanics
Laboratory. In the present paper however the new
calculation schedule and the complete set of equations that
goes with this schedule will be presented.
 The method by which the hydrodynamic forces have Figure 2. Relative Resistance Contributions
been decomposed in separate components is presented
in Figure 1 as a kind of flow chart. The decomposition
is as follows:

Figure 1. Graphic Representation of Resistance

Components

Upnghi RciijtaYice kaiJiuKeorHiill ResLSU/Keot'Hull wiJi

o f H u l l wilh Keel with Keel w i Kect md Rudder with
ind Rudder Rudder with Heel
= R[(f> Hed ind Le«wiy
•Rl9p

Tncïïörür Upnght Resiiunce kesiitinceorMüll

Resistance of Hull with Keel wilh Keel Uld
Hull ind Rudder Rudder with Heel

RcsidLu/y" mi E5;TÜ
Rcsistuicc Frict. Resiittnce Resiitince
= A RJhtp
Hull due 10 Heel iue to Side Force
Hull Hull ind Keel
Viicotu
Rcsiiiince Delti
Keel Reiiitmce
due to Heel
VlKOlll Hull
TkTS
Rdisiince
Reiiitance
Rudder
due to
Rejiduary Tnmming Moment
due to Heel
RejuUnce
Keel
Keet

The upright resistance of the bare hull is the starting point

of the calculation scheme. In this condition the frictional
resistance and the residuary resistance are calculated.
Then the resistance of keel and rudder are determined in
the same condition also as the summation of a viscous and
a residuary part. Then the yacht is heeled over and the
'deltas' of the frictional resistance of the hull and the
residuary resistance of the hull, the keel and the rudder
are detenmined. Subsequently the yacht assumes leeway Model 25

and the induced resistance due to the side force is
calculated as a function of heeling angle. Finally the
change in resistance due to the trimming moment of the
crew, adjusting its longimdinal position along the length
of the yacht to counteract the bow down trimming
moment caused by driving force of the sails in particular
at die running and reaching courses, will be brought into
the calculation. Finally the summation of all these
components yields the total resistance of the yacht in calm
water. For each of these components expressions will be
presented in the following paragraphs.
In fonnula the total resistance as a sum of the various
components can be written as:
( 1)
Rlifp, = RJhif + Rvkr + Rrh + MrhB + ARrhif, + Rrk + Mrjhp + Ri
To give an impression of the magnimde and the
contribution of all these different resistance components
to the total resistance of a sailing yacht with a waterline
length of 10 m, under 10° heel, a leeway angle of 3° and
with a 4 men crew sitting in the cockpit aft, the relative
contributions to the total resistance for Sysser models 1
and 25 are presented in Figure 2. Each line adds the
component as labelled in die legend:
Noticeable is die different influence of the resistance
caused by the trimming moment. For model 25 the total
resistance decreases when the crew compensates the
forward trimming moment of the sail force. While for
model 1 this influence is limited to an resistance increase
in the middle speed range only.
2 DESCRIPTION OF THE DSYHS
The original parent model chosen for the Delft Systematic
Yacht Hull Series in 1974 was the well known "Standfast
43" designed by Frans Maas at Breskens, The Nether-
lands. The Standfast 43 was a typical contemporary
racing yacht design. From this parent model (model 1),
21 other systematically varied designs have been derived
(model 2 to model 22) using, as far as feasible, an affine
transformation technique. A l l models were consequently
tested in the towing tank over a period of 10 years. This
sub-series of the DSYHS is known as "DSYHS Series 1".
After 10 years the typical yacht designs started to differ
considerably from the lines of this original parent and
therefore it was decided in 1983 to introduce a new parent
model into the DSYHS according to the lines presented to

182
 the Delft Shiphydromechanics Laboratory by Van der The principal hull parameters varied within DSYHS are
Stadt Design at Wormerveer, The Netherlands. From this presented in Table 1.
second parent hull, model 25, another 6 new variations
were derived known as sub-series "DSYHS Series 2" Table 1. The Range of Hull Parameters Tested in the
(model 23 through model 28) and later another 12 models DSYHS
based on the same parent with special emphasis on very
light displacement and higher Length to Beam ratios Ranges
(model 29 through model 40; "DSYHS Series 3"). Lwl
Length - Beam Ratio Bwl 2.73 to 5.00
Finally in 1995 yet another parent model was introduced
Bwl
into the DSYHS according to the lines presented tc the Beam - Draft Ratio Tc 2.46 to 19.38
Delft Shiphydromechanics Laboratory by Sparkman and Lwl
Stephens from New York, United States of America, Length - Displacement Ratio VcJ< 4.34 to 8.50
known as the "IMS 40" especially designed for research
and which was intended as some "average" Intemational Longitudinal Centre of Buoyancy LCB 0.0 % to •8.2 %
Measurement System (IMS) design. From this third
Longitudinal Centre of Floatation LCF -1.8 % to •9.5 %
parent model, model 44, another 9 variations have been
tested sofar and is now known as sub-series "DSYHS Prismatic Coefficient Cp 0.52 to 0.60
Series 4" (model 42 through model 50).
In general it is believed that by this significant variety in Midship Area Coefficient Cm 0.65 to 0.78
Aw
hull shapes a sufficiently large area of possible yacht
Loading Factor 3.73 to 12.67
designs is being covered by the DSYHS to make its
results and the derivations therefrom applicable to a large
diversity of yacht designs. A complete oversight of the hull shape parameters of each
of the 50 models of die Delft Systematic Yacht Hull
Nevertheless new additions to the DSYHS in the fumre Series is presented in Table 2.
may still be necessary to keep up with (inevitable) This Table is of particular interest because it illustrates
developments in yacht design. the range of values of the various hull shape parameters
To give an impression of the hull shapes, the bodyplan of (and parameter combinations) Üiat have been varied and
the three parent models are presented in Figure 3. tested within the Series which yields an indication of the
range of applicability of the formulations derived from
Figure 3. The Parent Hull Forms of the DSYHS these data.

2 - 1 TEST SETUP

All models have been tested in the tt\ towing tank of the
Delft Shiphydromechanics Laboratory with a length of
145 meter, width of 4,5 meter and depüi of 2.5 meter.
The model size widiin the DSYHS ranges between 1.6
meter waterline length for Series 1 to 2.00 meter
waterline lengüi for die other models (Series 2, 3 and 4).
A l l models have been tested as bare hulls (unappended) in
the speed range from Fn = 0.10 to Fn = 0.60 to
measure resistance, sinkage and trim in the following
conditions:

- upright with no trim correction for the driving

sail forces
- upright with trim correction for die driving sail
forces
- heeled to 20 degrees heel wiüi no correction for
trim due to sail forces

In addition the majority of the models have been fitted

with a keel and rudder, identical for all models and
according to the plan as presented in Figure 4. For the
sake of consistency throughout the series all these models
Sysscr44 have been fitted with physical the same keel and rudder.

183
 Table 2. Huil Form Parameters of DSYHS
Lwl/Bw Bwl/Tc Lwl / LCB LCF Cb Cp Cw Cm Aw/
Sysse r VOLCIf i % % VOLc'2/3

1 3.15J 3.992 4.77£ -2.2£ -3.3; 0,365 0.564 0.68E 0,646 4.976
2 3.62C 3.04: 4.77e -2.3C -3.3^ 0,367 0.567 0.691 0.646 4.349
3 2.747 5.34£ 4.77S -2.3C -3.3: 0,37C 0.572 0.696 0.647 5.776
4 3.50S 3.947 5.097 -2.25 -3.3: 0,367 0.568 0.691 0.646 5.119
5 2.747 3.957 4.366 -2.4' •3 4C 0 361
6 3.155 2.979 0.55Ê 0.683 0.647 4.719
4.339 -2,4C •3.42 0.363 0.561 0.686 0.646 4.091
7 3.155 4.953 5.143 -2,29 •3.36 0.362 0.561 0.685 0.646 5.743
8 3.279 3.841 4.775 -2,40 -3.32 0.379 0,586 0.707 0.647 4.921
9 3.049 4.131 4.776 -2,20 •3.34 0.353 0,546 0.672 0.646 5.026
10 3.155 3.992 4.775 Ü.OÜ -1.91 0.365 0.564 0.694 0.646 5.017
11 3.155 3.992 4.775 -1.98 ^.97 0.365 0,565 0.682 0.646 4.928
12 3.509 3.936 5.104 -0.01 -1.93 0.364 0,564 0.693 0.647 5.149
13 3.509 3.936 5.104 -5.01 -5.01 0.364 0,564 0.681 0.646 5.057
14 3.509 3.692 5.104 -2.30 -3.47 0.342 0,529 0.657 0.646 4.879
15 3.165 3.683 4.757 -2.29 -3.45 0.343 0,530 0.658 0.646 4.708
16 3.155 2.810 4.340 -2.30 •3.48 0.342 0,529 0.657 0,646 3.926
17 3.155 4.244 4.778 -0.01 •1.79 0.387 0,598 0.724 0,647 5.241
18 ^ 3.155 4.244 4.778 -5.00 4.89 0.387 0,599 0.712 0,647 5.152
19 3.155 3.751 4.777 0.01 -2.06 0.342 0,530 0.664 0,646 4.802
20 3.155 3.751 4.778 -4.99 -5.09 0.342 0.530 0.651 0,646 4.712
21 3.509 4.167 5.099 -2.29 -3.22 0.387 0.598 0.718 0,547 6.322
22 2.732 4.231 4.337 -2.29 •3.22 0.387 0.599 0.719 0,647 4.947

23 3.472 4.091 5.001 -1.85 -5.29 0.394 0.547 0.673 0,721 4.850
24 3.497 10.958 6.935 -2.09 -5.84 0.402 0.543 0.670 0,739 9.215
25 4.000 5.388 6.003 -1.99 •5.54 0.399 0.548 0.671 0,727 6.048
26 3.994 12.907 7.970 -2.05 •6.33 0.407 0.543 0.678 0,749 10.791
27 4.496 2.460 5.011 -1.88 -5.24 0.395 0.546 0.677 0,724 3,780
28 4.500 6.754 6.992 -2.05 •5.95 0.400 0.544 0.672 0,736 7,305

29 4.000 10.870 7.498 -4.59 -7.63 0.413 0.549 0.671 0,751 9,437
30 4.000 7.082 6.500 ^.56 -7.66 0.413 0.549 0.672 0,751 7.096
31 4.000 15.823 8.499 ^.53 -7.81 0.412 0.548 0.674 0,752 12.172
32 4.000 10.870 7.498 -2.14 -6.22 0.413 0.549 0.687 0,751 9.651
33 4,000 10.870 7.498 -6.55 •8.73 0.413 0.549 0.659 0,751 9.266
34 4.000 10.373 7.491 -4.37 -7.55 0.395 0.522 0.649 0,757 9.106
35 4,000 11.468 7.472 ^.49 -7.58 0.440 0.580 0.694 0,758 9.686
36 4.000 10.163 7.470 •4.36 -7.29 0.390 0.551 0.663 0,707 9.249
37 4,000 9.434 7.469 4,42 -6.93 0.362 0.552 0.654 0.667 9.117
38 3.000 19.378 7.503 •4.53 •7.86 0.413 0.547 0.675 0.755 12.666
39 5.000 6.969 7.499 •4.55 -7.54 0.413 0.549 0.670 0.753 7.534

41 4.000 5.208 5.927 -Ö.16 -9.51 0.400 0.540 0.652 0.741 5.722

42 3.319 3.711 4.699 -3.28 •6.41 0.394 0.554 0.670 0.711 4.460
43 2.784 6.291 4.983 -3.28 •6.49 0.394 0.553 0.672 0.712 5.991
44 3.319 4.424 4.982 -3.29 -6.25 0.394 0.554 0.668 0.712 4.996
45 4.175 2.795 4.982 -3.28 -6.24 0.394 0.554 0.668 0.711 3;969
46 3.319 5.569 5.379 -3.29 -6.26 0.394 0.553 0.668 0.712 5.825
47 3.337 6.042 5.474 •6.02 -8.40 0.410 0.548 0.699 0.749 6.278
48 3.337 5.797 5.426 -0.65 •5.03 0.404 0.557 0.690 0.725 6.084
49 3.352 6.307 5.523 -6.34 -8.43 0.421 0.566 0.699 0.743 6.359
50 3.333 6.342 5.521 -7.90 -9.14 0.419 0.639 0.688 0.777 6.291

This implies that the relative magnitude of die keel and Table 3. DSYHS Keel and Rudder Model
rudder on the full scale yachts with 10 meter waterline Dimensions
length is dependent on die model size and the scale factor
used. syrobol unit Keel Rudder
Profile N A C A 63,A015 0012
Root Chord tn 0.414 0.124
Figure 4. DSYHS Keel and Rudder Configuration Tip Chord
"m m 0.262 0.096
Span bk br m 0.219 0.266
Volume Vk Vr m' 0.00262 0.00O23
Wencd Area Sk Sr 0.1539 0.0550
Swcepback Angle AJc Ar 45 5.4

All diese appended models have been tested in the

following conditions:

184
 upright with no trim correction for driving sail forces On die hull three strips are placed which are 4.0 cm wide
(Fn = 0.10....0.60) each and placed at equal separation with die first strip at
heeled, yawed and trimmed condition in a matrix the forward end of the waterline and the after most one
consisting of all combinations of approximately at station 6'/^ just forward of the leading
- 4 heeling angles (i.e. 0, 10, 20 and edge of die keel. On die keel and rudder one single strip
30 degrees) is placed close to die leading edge of the appendages and
at least three different speeds (i.e. ranging from diese have a widüi of 3.0 cm for the keel and for the
Fn = 0.25 to 0.45) rudder 2.0 cm. To correct for the extra resistance
4 different leeway angles (i.e. ranging from 0 originating from die presence of die strip itself all
to 12 degrees) resistance tests are carried out twice: once with half width
and once widi ftill width of die strips. The difference in
During the experiments the following values were resistance between these two conditions is used to
measured: determine die resistance of die strips. The model
- forward speed of the model resistance is obtained by subtracting die extra resistance
- resistance force from die strips from the measured model resistance.
- heeling angle
- heeling moment All model data are extrapolated to a ftill scale 10 m
- leeway angle wateriine lengdi yacht. The extrapolation is carried out
- side force and yawing moment according to Fronde's extrapolation technique.
- sinkage and trim (at speed)
- trimming moment
For die determination of die frictional resistance 'RT use
is made of die followmg expression:
The standard measurement technique developed for sailing
yachts experiments at the Delft Shiphydromechanics (2)
Laboratory has been used throughout the whole series.
This technique implies that the model is connected to the
towing carriage in such a way that it is free to heave, roll
and pitch but restrained in all other modes of motion. The where:
connection to the towing carriage is established by means
of two balanced arms siniated at equal distances fore and
aft of the longimdinal position of the Centre of Gravity of p density of water kg/m^
the model at deck level. A schematic presentation of die
V die fonvard velocity of die yacht m/s
measurement set-up is presented in Figure 5.
S the wetted area at zero speed m^
Figure 5. Test Set-up under Towing Carriage Cf friction coefficient

In die determination of die frictional resistance use is

being made of die well known ITTC-57 extrapolation
line, according to:

(3 )
0.075
(log(^)-2)'

in which die hull Reynolds number Rn is determrned by:

(4)

in which:

During die measurements the model is fitted with Lwl waterline lengdi m
carborundum strips for hirbulence stimulation, both on die
V kinematic viscosity mVs
hull and the appendages.

185
As may be seen from this expression for the reference
Prohaska plol Uprighl
length necessary for the determination of die Reynolds
Number 'Rn' 70% of die waterline lengdi is taken. For
the appendages the average chord lengdi is used for die
determination of the Reynolds Number. 1.5

For the upright conditions a so-called Prohaska plot is P

made to determine die formfactor of the hull. As a typical
example of such a Prohaska plot of die DSYHS in Figure 0.5

6 the plots are presented for die diree parent models of

the Series. From diese figures it may be concluded diat
the formfactor is generally small. In general die C J . • i , ,
formfactor using this described turbulence sthnulation
Fn«4/cr
technique and derived from die Prohaska plots has been
found to be in die range from ' k ' = 0.03 to 'k' = 0.07 Plot for Sysser 44
in most cases and only in one or two exceptional cases 'k'
exceeded these values. Since no well based or generally accepted formulation is
known (nor could it be derived from die results widi die
DSYHS) determining die formfactor 'k' as function of die
hull geometry parameters of any arbitrary hull, it was
Figure 6. Prohaska Plots for the Parent Model Hull
decided, from die beginmng of the series, not to use a
Measurements
formfactor for die calculation of the viscous resistance in
die extrapolation procedure. This would make such a
Prohaska plol Uprighl
calculation mediod of 'k' necessary in order to be able to
calculate die resistance of a specific yacht under
consideration.

3 C A L M WATF.R RRSISTANCF

0 5
hi CANOEBODY RESISTANCE

0 J . , ,

0 1 2 3 As shown in die flow component chart for die definition

Fn»4/Cf
of die various resistance components (Figure 1) die fu-st
Plot for Sysser 1 resistance to be assessed is die bare hull canoe body
resistance.

3-1-1 UPRIGHT RESISTANCE

First die resistance in die upright sailmg condition will be
calculated. Two separate parts of die resistance m die
upright condition will be considered: i.e. die frictional (or
viscous) resistance and the residuary resistance.

3-1-1-1 VISCOUS RRSTSTANrP

The frictional resistance of die bare hull is determrned

usmg die followmg expression:

( 5 )
Plot for Sysser 25

in which:

186
 3-1-1-2 RESIDUARY RESISTANCE
p density of water kg/m^
V die forward velocity of die yacht m/s
Sc the wetted area of die hull at Based on the experience gained widi previous expressions
zero speed m2 for die determination of the residuary resistance of die
Cf friction coefficient hull of a sailing yacht, see Ref. 1, Ref 2 and Ref 3, die
following expression for the residuary resistance of a
The wetted area of die hull is considered to be known yacht hull in the upright condition at one specific Froude
from die hydrostatic calculations. I f this is not die case number has been found to yield sufficient accuracy as
die wetted area of die hull Ln die upright and zero speed, well as "robustness":
condition may be approxhnated by the following
(7)
expression derived from regression using die hydrostatic
calculations carried out for all the models of die DSYHS;
(6; Rrh I LCB Vc'^ Bwl] Vc^
- = a.+\ a, — -I-a, • Cp + Qj • ——ha, --^^-^ • -^-^ +
Vc-p-g Lwl Aw Lwl j Lwl

.c = r i . 9 7 . 0 . 1 7 1 . ^ ] . f M 5 f ( , , . , , , ^ . ( Vc« LCB,, (LCB,

V Tc j {CmJ ^ ' + a,-Cp'
Sc i-CF,„ ' I Lwl Lwl

in which:
in which:

Bwl beam of waterline m Rrh residuary resistance of

Tc draft of canoe body m canoe body N
Vc volume of displacement
Cm midship section coefficient - of canoe body
Vc volume of displacement of canoe P density of water kg/m^
g acceleration of gravity m/s^
Lwl length of waterline m Lwl lengdi of waterline m
Bwl beam of waterluie m
LCBfpp longitudinal position centre
Fully turbulent flow along the hull bodi during the
ofbuoyancy to fpp m
experiments as in real life is assumed and dierefore die
LCFfpp longitudinal position centre
friction coefficient Cf is detennined using die ITTC-57
of notation to fpp m
extrapolation line. Aldiough die choice of 70% of die
fpp forward perpendicular
waterline lengdi as die reference length in die Reynolds
(ordinate 10)
Number, as shown before, is quite justifiable for die hull
geometry's of Series 1 die choice remains debatable.
Cp prismatic coefficient -
Aw waterplane area at zero
Particularly for Lhe more contemporary shapes of Series
speed
2, 3 and 4, 90% of the waterline lengdi would appear
Sc wetted surface canoe body
more appropriate. For the sake of consistency however
at zero speed
70% of Lwl has been used throughout die whole DSYHS
for the determination of die frictional resistance. It should
be noted that this dierefore effects also the magnitude of Some principal considerations which led to die presented
the residuary resistance part. shape of die parametric terms contained in the polynomial
are:
1 The parameters m die terms are coupled with the
As explained before no "form" factor 'k' is used m die displacement length ratio to make diem dependent
DSYHS for the transformation of the frictional mto die on displacement. The terms are composed in such
viscous resistance of die hull. This decision is based on a way that their supposed contribution to die
die absence of a generally accepted formulation of die residuary resistance has a similar trend as die
form factor as a function of hull parameters for an displacement length ratio.
arbitrary hull. Such a fonnulation could also not be 2 The beam to length ratio is introduced for all
derived from die results of the DSYHS. This implied diat speeds involved as an contributmg factor.
'k' = 0 was die best approach leaving any differences in 3 The beam to draft ratio is replaced by die ratio
die viscous resistance due to hull shape m die residuary between the displacement and die wetted area of
resistance. the hull, which term is considered to yield more
robustoess and less sensitivity to small changes in
midship section shape.

187
 4 The LCB-LCF separation is introduced as a number of models tested within die DSYHS has increased
possible measure of hull distortion. therefore leading to differences in die coefficients
5 Higher order terms of boüi Cp and LCB are compared to diose presented before. Also diis time not all
introduced to yield optimum values of Cp and models of the DSYHS have been included in the
LCB as function of speed within the range covered regression but only 39 out of die total of 50 models
by the polynomial. available have been used, leaving some of die more
extreme or highly distorted models out.
The coefficients of this polynomial expression have been
determined at constant forward speeds and are presented The coefficients 'ao' to 'ag' are presented in Table 4 for
for a number of different Froude numbers using a least 11 different Froude numbers from Fn = 0 10 to Fn =
square fit through die measured data. Since die original 0.60.
presentation of this expression in 1996, Ref. 3, die

Table 4. Coefficients for Polynomial: Residuary

Resistance of Bare Hull
Fn 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60
-0.0O14 0.0004 0.0014 0.0027 0.0056 0.0032 -0.0064 -0.0171 -0.0201 0.0495 0.0808
0.0403 -0.1808 -0.1071 0.0463 -0.8005 -0.1011 2.3095 3.4017 7.1576 1.5618 -5.3233
h 0.0470 0.1793 0.0637 -0.1263 0.4891 -0.0813 -1.5152 -1.9862 -6.3304 -6.0661 -1.1513
-0.0227 -0.0004 0.0090 0.0150 0.0269 -0.0382 0.0751 0.3242 0.5829 0.8641 0.9663
a* -0.0119 0.0097 0.0153 0.0274 0.0519 0.0320 -0.0858 -0.1450 0.1630 1.1702 1.6084
0.0061 0.0118 0.0011 -0.0299 -0.0313 -0.1481 -0.5349 -0.8043 -0.3966 1.7610 2.7459
-0.0O86 -0.0055 0.0012 0.0110 0,0292 0.0837 0.1715 0.2952 0.5023 0.9176 0.8491
^7 -0.0307 0.1721 0.1021 -0.0595 0.7314 0.0223 -2.4550 -3.5284 -7.1579 -2.1191 4.7129
^1 -0.0553 -0.1728 -0.0648 0.1220 -0,3619 0.1587 1.1865 1.3575 5.2534 5.4281 1.1089

Rialfhixy RniliMic* Bar* HuN

The resistance curves obtained for the models widiin the M M x n d i C«(culM*d 10 m 1*1 a
lOOOO moa 23
DSYHS using this polynomial expression all showed quite
satisfactory correlation widi the measured data and they 24
9000
do so over the entire speed range. As a demonstration of
,r 20
this fit, the measured and calculated residuary resistance
eooo
curves of the diree parent models of die series, some a 27

additional models of Series 2 and four models not €

°^ *000
caJc —•
belonging to the DSYHS are presented in Figure 7. 33

1000
/ 24

Figure 7. Comparison Hull Residuary Resistance 2fl

1
Measured and Approximated 0 t > ^ ^ ^ rr- ^ ' ,- - 1 , \ , 1 _ ,
0.6
2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55
Fn 27

Models of Series 2
RMkkJwy RMiiUncf B«ra Hull
RwhJuwy RMtmnca Oar* Hul
msai: •
10000 mea ' 329
10O0O _

/ ' 3S«
eooo. *
/
332
oooo 6000 . /
?
117
e
°= «00. ^ «000 .
329

/ ' .-^^^ 27- 2000 . _. 366

0 I 0 \, 232
0.2 0,25 0.3 0.33 0.4 0.45 O.S 0.55 0.6 0.3 0,25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.35 0,6
Fn Fn 117

Parent DSYHS Models Non DSYHS Modeis

188
 3-1-2 CHANGE IN RESISTANCE DUE TO HKKI. Bwl beam of waterline
Tc draft of canoe body
When the yacht heels over there will be a change in the Cm midship section coefficient
resistance of the yacht. In real circumstances this heeling
will be caused by die arthwarth forces on die sails. This
implies lift forces on die hull and its appendages also and With the coefficients 'Sg' to ' S j ' being determined using
dierefor die induced resistance component will be a large a least square fit regression analysis in Table 5:
part of the change in total resistance. However to be able
to calculate diis induced resistance more accurately fu-st
an attempt has been made to assess the change in Table 5. Coefricients for Polynomial: Wetted Surface
resistance due to heel alone, i.e. no sideforce mvolved. under Heel
This resistance change is split in a viscous and a residuary
5 10 15 20 25 30
part, each being treated separately. 35
h -4.112 -t.522 -3.291 1.850 6.510 12.334 14.648
Sl 0.054 -0.132 -0.389 -1.200 -2.305 -3.911 -5.182
h -0.027 -0.077 -0.118 -0.109 -0.066 0.024 0.102
6.329 8.738 8.949 5.364 3.443 1.767 3.497

3-1-2-1 CHANGE IN VISCOUS RESISTANCE

A typical result of diis expression is shown in Figure 8
for one "average" and two "more extreme" models of die
DSYHS. Both the accuracy of the fit using die polynomial
The change in viscous resistance due to heel of die canoe
expression for such widely different hulls as die
body is solely attributed to a change in wetted area of the
significant difference in die magnimde of die change of
yacht hull. This implies no change in viscous resistance,
wetted area itself is clearly demonstrated.
i.e. no change in formfactor, is taken mto account. This
approach originates from two considerations: Figure 8. Calculation of Wetted Surface
Measured and Calculaled Welted Surface
30

28
1 A formfactor is not taken into account in die - ^ m fTlOdol 1Ö

upright condition as well. 28

2A model 3 !
2 A change in form factor due to heel alone can
FT 22
hardly be established based on towing tank model 28

measurements alone. The model could be towed

W 18 - ° a calculaled
wiüi heel and widiout total sideforce (possibly
implying a small drift angle) but this does not
18 , °
M .
mean that diere is no sideforce distribution along
the lengdi of die model which sums up to zero. 12 .
— ! .

This implies a possible "mix up" between a 10

a .5 10 15 20 !! 30 33
complicated induced resistance component and a Heeling Angle PHI [DEG|
possible change in formfactor.
3-1-2-2 CHANGE IN RESIDUARY RESISTANCE
Based on die hydrostatic calculations which have been
carried out for all models of die DSYHS die change in Due to the asymmetry of the hull when heeled and a
wetted area of he hulls with heeling angle has been corresponding change in the distribution of displaced
determined. This change m wetted area of die yachts volume along the lengdi a change in residuary resistance
could be approximated widi a high degree of accuracy by will most probably occur.
die following expression:
To asses this change in resistance two possible
(8) approaches have been tried:

To use die same polynomial expression as used for

the upright resistance of the canoe body but
1+1
Tc [Tc ) determine new coefficients based on die measured
data under heel. The result is not a change in
residuary resistance but the changed residuary
in which: resistance due to heel.

189
 The change of residuary resistance due to heel is fit was obtained using a dependency of die delta
determined from die measured data and a resistance on the heeling angle. The change is calculated
simplifled polynomial expression is formulated for to be equivalent widi die heeling angle to die power 1.7,
just this delta resistance alone. according to:

(11)
Bodi approaches have dieir pro's and con's. The results
ARrh^ =ARrh^,,„.-6.0-p'-
of die first approach have been published in Ref 5 but
predicting die total residuary resistance of die heeled hull
widi die upright geometrical properties of die upright hull widi die heel angle 'yj' in radians. The fit dirough die
seems less justifiable dian predicting die upright resistance experimental data for a few DSYHS models is shown in
widi die upright parameters and using only some of diese Figure 9 and Figure 10 and demonstrates to be quite
to predict die generally small change (delta) due to heel. satisfactory.
So die second approach is presented and used throughout
diis report, aldiough die differences widi die first
approach are generally small for die cases investigated. It should be noticed in Figure 9 and Figure 10 that die
delta part is small compared with the upright resistance.
The scale of the vertical axes in the graphs differ with
The change in residuary resistance of die canoe body due factor 10,
to heel is derived from die measurements at zero and 20
degrees of heel wiüi all models used for die upright
condition polynomial by determming die viscous Figure 9. Delta Resistance due to 20° Heel of Bare
resistance upright and heeled and subtracting diese from Hull
the total resistance of die hull upright and heeled
respectively. According to: D«IU R«>liL 0 » r t Hufl d u i 2tr h«*4
O
1000

(9)
•00 25

^Rrh<p Rrhtp mtas)

•Rrh^calc) SCO
29

The delta residuary resisumce at 20 degrees of heel (as an § 50

average sailing angle) could dien be approximated by a J" 700

polynomial expression given by:

' a—
25
( 10) -300 . " ""^ ' "^a

-*00 29
-H
0. I 0,S5 0.3 0.35 0.4 0,45 0,5 0,55 0.6 —
Fn 50
t^K-n- Lwl Bwl (Bwl\
> = U. + U, + li, — ^u,LCB + u^ LCB'
\ Tc )
Vc-p-g ^ ' Bwl ^ Tc
Figure 10. Residuary Resistance of Bare Hull at 20°
with die coefficients for Uq du-ough Uj Heel

Rtald. R i t l i L B a n Hull 20 daq haal

mea» and c a t (Rrh • dRrtiW) lOm M a
Table 6. Coefficients for Polynomial: Delta 10000 _
m e i a : ^3

Resistance Hull due to 20° Heel

CocfTlc ents ajc multiplied bv 1000
Fn 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55
"o .0.0268 0.6628 1.6433 -0.8659 •3.2715 -0.1976 1.5873
U| .0.0014 .0.0632 -0.2144 -0.0354 0.1372 •0.1480 •0.3749
u, .0.0057 .0.0699 -0.1640 0.2226 0.5547 -0.6593 -0.7105
0.0016 0.0O69 0.0199 0.0188 0.0268 0.1862 0.2146
-0.0070 0.0459 •0.0540 •O.5800 -1.0064 -0.7489 •0.4818
u' -0.0017 -0.0OO4 •O.0268 •0.1133 -0.2026 •0.1648 -0.1174

The dependency on die heeling angle which is necessary

to obtain values of die resistance mcrease due to heel for
any odier angle of heel has been determined using a much
smaller database of measurement data. In general a good

190
 hl APPENDAGE RESISTANCE
The resistance of the bare hull and die appendages are
dealt with separately. The viscous resistance of die
appendages has been found to be independent of the heel
angle and therefore only one expressions is fonnulated for
die calculation of this viscous part. Based on die DSYHS
experiments with systematic keel variations underneadi
various hulls it was concluded diat the residuary
resistance of die appendages is significantly influenced by
the (immediate) presence of die free surface and dierefore
definitely has a heeling dependency. So die residuary
resistance of the appendages is determined in die upright
condition first and a delta resistance due to heel is
formulated thereafter.
3-2-1 UPRIGHT APPENDAGE RESISTANCE
3-2-1-1 VISCOUS RESISTANCE
The viscous resistance 'Rv' of the appendages is
considered to be a summation of die frictional resistance
and "other" viscous effects accounted for by die
introduction of a "form" factor.
( 12)
R v = R f - { \ + k)
For the calculation of die frictional resistance ' R f use is
made of the following expression:
( 13 )
Rf = j-p-V'-S-C/
in which
( 14 )
(log(Rr,)-2f
originates from the ITTC '57 extrapolation line and is
valid for a fully turbulent flow. For die determination of
the Reynolds number 'Rn' die average chord length ofthe
appendage may be used or, i f the appendage is span wise
divided in several segments, the local chord lengdi of
such a section.
No attempt is being made here to take into account more
complex dependency on die cross section profiles of die
appendage and so possibly for mixed flow, i.e. a
191
combination of laminar and turbulent flow over die chord
of the appendage. There are no principal procedural
problems however for taking diese mixed flow
possibilities in account except maybe the conect
formulation of die frictional and form effects.
The viscous and formdrag is taken into die calculation by
making use of the well known formulation for 'k' as
given by Hoemer's "Fluid Dynamic Drag" Ref 7 and
generally accepted in the aeronautical sciences, which
determines die formfactor a sole function of the relative
thickness of die sections, according to:
Each of die appendages, i.e. keel and rudder(s), is
treated in a similar manner using die same fonmulations.
For the "straight course" upright resistance a possible
wake effect from die keel on the rudder may be intro-
duced. From experiments, in which die wake behind die
keel on sufficient distance aft of the keel has been
measured on a 3.5 meter Lwl model, an acceptable mean
reduction value of 0.80 times the free stream velocity has
been found for the water velocity over the rudder, see
Ref. 8 and Ref. 9. The general applicability of this value
may be disputed however and because the rudder will
only be in the wake completely if the yachts sails with
absolutely no heel and no leeway, die necessity of such an
approach is also questionable.
3-2-1-2 APPENDAGE RESIDUARY
RESISTANCE
The very existence of a significant residuary resistance of
the appendages beneaüi the hull in the upright condition
has long been disputed. A report in 1975 by Beukelman
and Keuning Ref 10 however already showed an
influence of the keel sweepback (i.e. longimdinal
distribution of the displaced keel volume over Üie length)
on the upright resistance of a yacht. From analysis of die
results of die experiments widi bare hull and die appended
model within die DSYHS, in which series one and die
same keel has been tested underneadi a wide variety of
hulls, it became obvious diat a residuary resistance of the
appendages should be taken into account.
Straight forward comparison of die appended and
unappended results widiin the DSYHS however
necessitated the subtraction of two big quantities to
produce the residuary resistance of die keels. This yielded
too much scatter in die relatively small keel residuary
resistance component to justify a reliable assessment.
 Therefore an additional Delft Systematic Keel Series
(DSKS) has been set up, in which so far a family of 6
different Iceels has been tested underneadi two lACC type
hulls with different Beam to Draft ratio's. These
experiments are extensively described in Ref. 9 and Ref.
4. Also the results of recent investigations on die DSKS
by R W M Meulemans, Ref 12, are included. Therefore
this research will only be summarised briefly here.
During diese experhnents widi the DSKS the resistance-
and liftforces on the appendages were measured directly
and separately as well as the forces on the model as a
whole. The tests program contained experiments both
widi die bare hulls as widi die hulls equipped widi die
various appendages. The standard measurements and test
program of the Delft Shiphydromechanics Laboratory
have been used during diese experiments. The profiles
and main dimensions of die keels used in die experiments
are presented in Figure 14 and Table 7 and for die two
model hulls in Figure 11, Figure 12 and Table 8.
Figure 11. Drawing of l A C C Model 329 Hull
development and future extensions are foreseen, which
are intended to lead to an increased reliability of the keel
residuary resistance assessment.
Anodier systematic keel series has been tested, which
consisted of a series of 13 widely different keels
underneadi one and die same hull, described in Ref 11.
This series is refered to as the Delft Various Keel Series
(DVKS).
In diis series die hull of a IOR type maxi has been used
to compare die usual IOR type keel wiüi a number of
altematives bodi for racing and cruising, like an Elliptical
keel, keels widi Winglets, Cend-e boards, Shallow Draft
keels , Upside-down keels etc. etc.
In die present assessment of the keel residuary resistance
only die IOR-, die Upside-down- and the Shallow Draft
keel are being used because the odiers are not sufficiently
consistent with the rest of the keels used. A side view and
the main particulars of these keels are presented in Figure
15 and Table 7. The particulars of die IOR type hull.
Model 232, are presented in Table 8.

Table 7. Main Form Parameters of Keels

YachI Keel AR TR A
DSYHS Model 1 Slandard DSYHS keel 0.63 0.63 43.0 15.0
DSYHS Model 23..28
DSYHS Model 43
Model 117 20' sweep back version 0.94 1.00 20.0 15.0
Model 232 'IOR' keel 0.92 0.51 28.0 12.5
'Shoal Draft' keel 0.28 0.79 33.0 11.0
Up Side Down' keel 0.92 1.98 28.0 12.5
Model 329 'lACC 1' 1 1.62 0.73 4.0 lO.O
Figure 12. Drawing of l A C C Model 366 Hull Uld 3 0.70 0.84 7.2 6.6
Model 366 'lACC 2' 4 0.70 0.84 7.2 15.0
[10 configurations) 5 1.62 2.30 4.0 10.0
5 1.62 0.40 4.0 10.0
//// i t /

1 1 \—1

Table 8 M a i n H u l l Form Parameters of Different

Mod 66
Yacht Test Series
Yacht Lwl Bwl Lwl LCB LCF Cb Cp
Bwl Tc Vc'" % %
1'
DSYHS Model 1 3.15 3.99 4.78 -2.3 -3.3 0.36 0.36
DSYHS Model 28 4.50 6.75 6.99 -2.1 -6.0 0.4O 0.54
DSYHS Model 43 2.78 6.29 4.98 -3.3 -6.3 0.39 0.55
The parameters tested for dieir influence on this residuary Model 117 3.19 5.27 5.05 -4.2 -1.6 0.42 0.58
resistance of the keel in the upright position were: die Model 232 3.35 5.22 5.46 -4.2 -4.5 0.4O 0.35
Model 329 'lACC I ' 4.52 4.82
span of the keel, the displaced volume and the vertical 6.63 -5.0 -6.4 0.34 0.53
Model 366 'lACC 2' 3.73 3.00 6.63 -5.0 -6.4 0.34 0.33
height of the centre of buoyancy of the keel, die beam to
draft ratio of the hull and the taper ratio of the keel. In
This selection was supplemented widi die measurements
die analysis die keel resistance was determined as die
carried out widi the standard DSYHS keel undemeadi die
difference between the resistance of die appended and die
diree parent models and the half span standard keel as
unappended condition, so possible interference effects
tested undemeath Model 1.
between hull and appendage are contained in die keel
resistance component. These results are used to develop So the expression for the residuary resistance of the keel
the polynomial expression for the keel resistance. is derived from the following data:
The IOR-, die Shallow- and the Upside-down keel in die
Delft Various Keel Series (DVKS), 5 of die 6 keels tested
It should be noted that diis DSKS is still under
in the Delft Systematic Keel Series widi die lACC type

192
hulls (DSKS) and die parent models of die DSYHS of The plan views of these keels are presented in Figure 13
which Model 1 with half span keel also. through Figure 15, in which figures all die keels are
shown in correct relative size.

Figure 13 DSYHS keel (model Lwl = 2.0 m), DSYHS half span (model Lwl = 1.6 m)
and Model 117 keel

Figure 14 Keels of die Delft Systematic Keel Series

Figure 15 Keels of die Delft Various Keel Series

Table 9 Coefficients for Polynomial: Residuary Resistance of Keel

Fn 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60
A. -0.00104 -0.00550 -0.01110 -0.00713 -0.03581 -0.00470 0.00553 0.04822 0.01021
A, 0.00172 0.00597 0.01421 0.02632 0.08649 0.11592 0.07371 0.00660 0.14173
Aj 0.00117 0.00390 0.00069 -0.00232 0.00999 -0.00064 0.05991 0.07048 0.06409
A) -0.00008 -0.00009 0.00021 0.00039 0.00017 0.00035 -0.00114 -0.00035 -0.00192

193
 The following expression yielded a quite satisfactory fit Figure 16. Total Upright Resistance, Measured and
through all the data and is based on die relation between Calcuiated for Model 43
keel and hull volume, die taper ratio of die keel, the
Beam to Draft ratio of die hull, die vertical distance of
the centre of buoyancy of the keel volume to die free
surface Zcb and the ratio of canoe body volimie to keel
volume.

( 16)

Rrk Tc + Zcbk Vc
A„ + A, •+ A.
Vk-p-g Bwl Vk

in which:

0» öRrtprt

Rrk residuary resistance of keel

Vk volume of displacement of keel Figure 17. Total Upright Resistance, Measured and
m-^ Calculated for Model 366.1
T total draft of hull with keel m TuLiI VjLlrt W t i i l n j i i n

Bwl beam of waterline m

Tc draft of canoe body m
Zcbk vertical position of centre
of buoyancy of keel m R«

Vc volume of displacement of
canoe body

For die lower Froude numbers the contribution of the

residuary keel resistance in the total resistance is not very
large, but it increases for the high speeds. The data set
however is still radier limited for such a delicate
resistance component and further research will certainly
contribute to increasing die reliability of diese
expressions.
With the data set described above the following
coefficients were found for die coefficients of die
polynomial expression:
Calculated- compared widi Total Measured Upright
Resistance for two models: See Figure 16 and 17
3iM CHANGE IN APPENDAGE RESISTANCR DTIF.
TO HEEL
The viscous resistance of die appendages is considered
not to be influenced by die heeling of die yacht. This is
a quite justifiable assumption. Things are different
however when considering die residuary resistance of die
appendages.
This residuary - or wavemaking resistance of die
appendages, in particular the keel, is strongly influenced
by die fact that the volume of the appendage is brought
closer to the free surface due to die heel angle of die
yacht. All experimental data strongly confirm diis change.
This was already clearly demonstrated by Beukelman and
Keuning in dieir paper of 1975 Ref 10 in which amongst
odiers photos of die heeled hull widi resulting die free
surface waves widi and widiout sideforce production of
die keels were shown.
The approach used for die assessment of diis resistance in
die present study is along two lines of diought.
Firstly the amount of wavemaking resistance of die keel
due to heel (no sideforce!!) is considered to be dependent
on how close die volume is brought to die free surface,
i.e. to be dependent on die beam to draft ratio of die hull
and die relative submergence of the keel volume, i.e. die
ratio between keel span and hull depth and secondly to
die amount of wavemaking of die hull itself, i.e. related
to die length displacement ratio. These influences of
course will be dependent on die heeling angle but in
addition to diis also on die speed of die yacht and hence
to its primary wave generation, i.e. die Froude number.

194
The following figure presents how the measurement data Table 10. Coefficients for Polynomial: Delta
from die 'heel and leeway' experiments have been split in Resistance of the Keel due to Heel
the components for pure Heeled Residuary Resistance
'Rr^j' and the Induced Resistance ' R i ' ;

H, -3.5837
Figure 18. Offset for Heeled Residuary Resistance H, -0.0518
and Slope for Resistance due to Sideforce H, 0.5958
HBSiduary K o a i s u n c » and Hesled horco
H4 0.2055
20 b«*. (or oo« valoaty

Some results of calculations executed with this polynomial

are presented in the following chapter in together with the
Induced Resistance Induced Resistance component in Figure 20 and up.
due to Sideforce

Heeled Residuary Resistance INDUCED RESISTANCE

at no Sideforce

. fit through msasuremants The results from previous studies on the induced
OOEtOO 5.06-KM 1.0E*07 I.SE+07 2.0E-KI7 2.5EMJ7 3.0E-M)7 3.5E-MJ7 resistance as presented amongst odiers by Gerritsma et
Fh*2 [N^2] al. in Ref 1 and Ref 2, have been completely revised in
the present study. This is primarily due to a change in the
Consequently to further separate the effects contributed by definition of the induced resistance itself and partly due
the keel alone, the resistance components associated widi to taking the effect of other parameters in assessing it into
the upright condition and the delta through heel of die account.
hull itself should be subtracted from this heeled residuary
resistance: In the initial approach the induced resistance was simply
defined as the difference in die total resistance of die
sailing yacht in its upright condition and sailing at die
^''^'P{„„os) = ^'P -Rr- hRrhtp same speed under heel and leeway (wiüi sideforce). By
doing so a number of changes in die total resistance were
Where 'Rr^p' and 'Rr' represent the values for the hull considered to be part of the induced resistance, which
with keel and rudder. Hence the following expression has were however not directly related to die sideforce
been used to approximate diese data: production itself.
( 17) In the present approach most of the components of die
ARrkp
Ch-Fn'-cp resistance difference between diese two conditions (i.e.
Vk-p-g
the upright and die heeled and yawed condition) are dealt
with separately, i.e, die changes in both die residuary-
where die following expression has been found for the and viscous resistance due to heel alone and no sideforce
assessment of Ch: involved are considered, as it is extensively described in
the previous chapters. The induced resistance is now
( 18) solely related to die actual sideforce generation of die huil
and die appendages.

The present approxunation mediod however is still based

T ' Tc ' T Tc
of which die coefficients H , through H4 have been
determined using a least square fit regression analysis.
These coefficients are presented in Table 10. The heeling
angle '^o' in radians.
The data set to determine die coefficients widi included
tests widi die following models: 24 models of die
DSYHS, 10 configurations of die DVKS and 3 configura-
tions of die DVKS.
' Vc'^'
on the same fundamental physical principles as they are
originating from the aeronautical sciences, i.e. the
"effective span" approach as presented in Ref 1. The
basic idea behind this approach is as follows;
As known from the aeronautical sciences the induced
resistance, i.e. die additional resistance component due to
die sideforce production of a wing widi finite span, is
related to the circulation around the foil and its geometry
by die following set of expressions :

195
 ( 19 ) ( 22 )
Fh'
Ri = Cr,rjpV-Alat iJ; = —
°' ''^ n-AR,-\pV'-Alat

Fh = C,-\pV'-Alat

n-Te'-\pV'
in which:
The induced resistance is proportional to the slope ' R C i '
(20)
of the line fitted through the measurement data as
Alat = ck-T illustrated in Figure 18

and: Now the effective span 'Te' of the hull widi appendages
is determined from the measurement data with:

Ri induced resistance N (23 )

Cpi induced resistance coefficient Fh'

Te =
Mat lateral surface of hull with Iceel \K-Ri-\pV'

Fh heeling force N
CL lift coefficient 1
Te:
ck mean chord of keel m n:-RCi-\pV'

T total span of hull with keel m

From the measurements it became obvious diat the
effective draft Te and its change widi heeling angle '<j)\
The induced drag coefficient Cpj is related to the loading was strongly dependent on die Beam to Draft ratio of thé
of the foil by: hull above it as well as widi die relation between die
(21 ) canoe body depdi and die keel span. In addition to this a
speed dependency was found. For each of die heeling
c angles tested, i.e. 0 ° , 10°, 20° and 3 0 ° , diis relationship
TTAR. could be satisfactory established with die following
expression:

(24)
AR =
Alat
Te_ TcV Rwl V
In the formulation the "effective" aspect ratio 'AR^' is T Y j +Ar — +A,-TR .{B.+B.-Fn)
used radier than die aspect ratio 'AR' itself. This
"effective" designation is meant to take account of the
Figure 19. Heeling Force and Sideforce
free surface effects. The effective span is in agreement
with die effective aspect ratio and is die equivalent total SF
effective draft of the hull plus keel combination 'Te'. The Fh:
cos(p)
addition "effective" originates from die fact that a
reduction (or sometimes increment) of die geometrical
aspect ratio is found which is dependent on die free Heeling Force 'Fh'
surface-, hull-keel interaction- and endplate effects
associated with die keel - hull combination moving wiüi
forward speed in and in die close proximity of die free Sideforce ' S F
surface (such as waves, pressure relief and "talk-over"
effects etc.).
Where 'TR' is die Taper Ratio of die keel:

With die expressions for AR^, C L and C^i combined die TR:
induced resistance may now be written as:
, with 'ck' being die keel chord.

196
 The coefficients of this expression have been detemiined Figure 21. Measured and Calculated Resistance at
using a least square fit regression analysis dirougJi die 30° Heel and Leeway for Model 25 at Fn = 0.32,
measured data. The data set included tests widi the 0.36 and 0.45
following models: 20 models of the DSYHS, 10
KislduaiY f l « i l i U n c t ind HMlad l-orct
configurations of die DVKS and 3 configurations of die 30 dtQ hMt. *adi Int a W10C31Y
0500
DVKS. The coefficients are presented in Table 11.
MOO

2500
Table U . Coefficients for the Polynomial: Effective
Span • JOOO

liOO
9 0 10 20 30 1000
A| 3.7455 4.4892 3.9592 3.4891
A? -3.6246 -4.8454 -3.9804 -2.9577
A, 0.0589 0.0294 0.0283 0.0250
o.oe*oo i.oe«j7 2.oe<oF ioe>o7
A4 -0.0296 -0.0176 -0.0075 -0.0272 FIT>2 [N«2|

Figure 22. Measured and Calculated Resistance at

Bo 1.2306 1.4231 1.5450 1.4744 30° Heel and Leeway for Model 33 at Fn = 0.32,
B, -0.72561 -1.2971 -1.5622 -1.3499 0.36, 0.41 and 0.45

HMlduary Uasiilanca and Hxllng Tore.

A typical illustration of the obtained accuracy of die fit to 30 4«g tt*^ f adl in* I vt4oatr

the measured data of die resistance due to heel of both the

hull and the appendages and the induced resistance is
presented in Figure 20 and following. In diese figures a
graphical representation is given of the resistance as a
function of the generated sideforce squared for 3 different
models belonging to die DSYHS, i.e. Model 1, 24 and 25
and two different angles of heel, i.e. 20° and 30°.

Figure 20. Measured and Calculated Resistance at - W for tacn vatodtY

20° Heel and Leeway for Model 1 at Fn = 0.30, O.OEHM 3,0€MM 1.oe«37 1.5E.07 2 OEM)/
0.35, 0.35 and 0.45 Ft\^2 1N>2|

M t J I d u a r y Haaialanca a n d Haallng l-ofca

30 <,*4 r>M< t B d , ana • v«4oa(y

Figure 23 Measured and Calculated Resistance at

20° Heel and Leeway for l A C C Model 329 with Keel
5 (Up Side Down) at Fn = 0.27, 0.35 and 0.39

X mtaturad . n fiy aach valocrty

O.OEKO 1.0EMJ7 iOEWJ? 3.0EWJ7 4.06M7 S 0E«I7

Fh'2 1N'2|

197
 5 CHANGE IN THE RRSf.STANCE DITF. TO
TRIM
The resistance data presented for the bare hull resistance
are obtained from die towing tank measurements carried
out with the models of the DSYHS during which tests no
correction has been applied for die longimdinal trimming
moment excerted on the yacht by the driving forces of the
sails. This is a customary routine in die testing of sailing
yachts but particularly so when testing a systematic series
of not acmally designed yachts of which no sailplan is
known. It is known however from tests carried out widi
actual designs diat in particular at die higher speeds a
considerable resistance increase may occur from this bow
down trimming moment of the sails.
So in the scope of die DSYHS testing it was decided to
test all die bare hull models of the series during the
upright condition tests over the whole speed range in two
situations:
1 one without a longimdinal correction moment and
2 one with such a moment.
The magnimde of diis longitudinal correction moment
obviously depends on two quantities, i.e. :
1 the magnitude of die driving force, i.e. die
resistance force, at die particular speed under
consideration. So die magnitude varies widi die
variation in speed.
2 the sailplan and more in particular the vertical
height of the Centre of Effort of die sails
The first could be approximated using the data obtained
from the tests carried out widiout die correction moment.
The second was approxhnated by assuming for all yachts
the height of die Centre of Effort of the sails at 65% of
the waterline length above die waterline.
No attempt has been made to test die models widi two or
more constant trimming angles (at zero speed!)
throughout the whole speed range, aldiough this should
have made a more general approach to assessing die
problem of die resistance increase possible. The necessary
amount of tank testing for such an approach however is
quite prohibitive.
An impression from die magnitude of diis resistance
increase due to trun may be obtained from Figure 24 in
which for diree models of die DSYHS widi increasing
198
length displacement ratio die difference between widi and
without is shown.
Figure 24. Influence of Trimming Moment on
Resistance of Hull for Models 1, 25 and 29
Rt»ld. R t i l i L d u « lo Trtfwnino UofTwnl
w * and w « i o u «ppJad moTMrt
laooo
no Irim:
100OO
..-^^ 1
BOOO
// 2S
6000 -
€ Jr 2ff
a.
4000 . Irimmad:
—^ 1
2000 .
23
-MOO I I I
0.2 0,25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6
Fn
An important reason for trying to find an approxmiation
for this influence originates from die fact diat when
comparing yachts from largely different size diis might be
an significant factor, influencing the performance. On a
smaller yacht, where the amount of crew weight is
proportionally larger, the crew might be capable to
compensate for a large extend or for a part die trimming
moment of the driving force by moving dieir weight aft
and so simulating the condition in the towing tank in
which no bow down trunming moment is applied. By
doing so they are capable to minimise diis increase in
resistance. On a bigger (or big) ship die relative
magnimde of the crew weight is (much) less and so diis
is generally impractical or not even feasible.
It should be noted that during die tests with die DSYHS
models all the models were absolutely free to assume the
sinkage and (stationary) trim conesponding to dieir
forward speed and only a correction moment has been
applied but no restriction on die magnimde of the trim
itself.
The data from the experhnents have been non-dimension-
lised using the following hypodiesis: die resistance
increase is not so much influenced by die trunming
moment itself The heavy yachts with a relatively high
displacement have a large (wave making) resistance and
so their correction moment is relatively high. Yet their
change in resistance is reladvely small. Their longitudinal
restoring moment is also relatively high (equal hull forms
supposed). So the change in longitudinal trun position of
die yacht might be the factor and dierefore die resulting
change in trun attitude should be related to die change in
resistance.
When die longitudinal metacentric height of die yacht is
known die longitudinal moment to produce one degree
change in trim may be easily calculated. Dividing die
trimming moment applied by diis yields a (nondimensio-
 nal) trim angle (at zero speed). The longitudinal meta- A typical example of die quality of the fit widi the
centric height of die models of the DSYHS is a known experimental data for a number of models is presented
quantity from die hydrostatic calculations. in Figure 25.

So the following quantity has been derived from die

Figure 25. Residuary Resistance due to Trimming
measurements:
Moment.
(25)
ARM/
ARrhQ Rt*jd. R H I I L d u t IO TrirrnVng M o m n I
Bara H J , no dm, m a n t c*c

W/
p-g-Vc.A:W7.tan(r) /A:,W7-tan(l°)

in which:

ARrhö delta residuary resistance

due to trimming N
0
e trimming angle
Vc volume of displacement of
canoe body m
MÖ longitudinal correction 0.2 0,25 0.3 0.33 0,4 0,45

moment applied Nm
K M l longitudinal metacentric
height m
Since the presented approximation method for die
The following expression has been found to give a resistance increase is derived from die measured data
satisfactory match with the experimental data: obtained from the upright conditions tests only, it is
(26) advised to use this correction in the running and reaching
conditions only.
This is a quite justifiable simplification because in most
Me, Tc cases the increase at upwind speeds at Froude numbers of
approximately 0.35 is only marginal in most cases. Also
in which: it should be noticed that the influence of die trim is only
obtained from the difference between die tests carried out
Aw waterplane area with no trim correction moment and those carried out
LCB longimdinal centre of with. The magnitude of the moment that may be applied
bouyancy meas. by die crew to counteract die trimming moment of the
from '/4 L w l % of Lwl sails may not exceed the siOiation witiiout bow down
LCF longitudinal centre of trimming moment, which is die resistance approximated
flotation meas. by the bare hull residuary resistance polynomial. So the
from '/2 L w l % of Lwl procedure is as follows:
- calculate the bare hull resistances
The coefficients Tg dirough T j have been calculated for - i f wanted, calculate resistance increase due to sail force
constant Froude numbers in the range from Fn = 0.20 - compensate by crew weight if this is possible between
through 0.60 and diey are presented in Table 12. For these two conditions
Froude numbers smaller than 0.20 the change in
resistance obtained by the experimental mediod described
is not significant considering the range of accuracy.

Table 12 Coefficients for the Polynomial: Delta

Residuary Resistance due to Trim

Fn 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60

To 0 0.00191 0.00150 0.00255 0.00188 0.00696 0.00628 0.00262 -0.00458
Tl 0 0.00142 0.00085 0.00266 0.00291 0.00334 0.00290 0.00333 0.00370
T, 0 0.00360 0.00270 0.00549 0.00583 0.00738 0.00721 0.00736 0.00723
T, 0 -0.00396 -0.00300 -0.00663 -0.00687 -0.00894 -0.00802 -0.00756 -0.00654
T4 0 -0.00035 0.0OOI6 0.00037 0.00110 0.00165 0.00133 0.00178 0.00172
T, 0 0.00068 0.00001 0.00004 -0.00031 -0.00050 -0.00024 -0.00044 -0.00066

199
 REFERENCES
Ref. 11 Gerritsma, J. and J.A. Keuning,
"Furdier Experiments with Keel - Hull
Ref. 1 Gerritsma, J., R. Omiinlc and A. Versluis,
Combinations", SNAME First Tampa Bay
"Geometry, resistance and stability of the
Sailing Yacht Symposium, 1986 St
Delft Systematic Yacht Hull Series", 7-Üi Petersburg USA.
HISWA Symposium, 1981, Amsterdam
Ref. 13 Meulemans, R . W . M . ,
Ref. 2 Gerritsma, J., J.A. Keuning and A.
"Benaderings methode voor de hydrodyna-
Versluis, "Sailing yacht performance in
mische dwarskracht en geïnduceerde weer-
calm water and in waves" ll'^
stand van een zeiljacht" Master diesis.
Chesapeake Sailing Yacht Sympo-sium
Delft University of Technology, Ship-
SNAME, 1993
hydromechanics Laboratory, 1998

Ref. 3 Keuning, J.A., R. Onnink, A. Versluis, A.

van Gulik,
"The bare hull resistance of die Delft
Systematic Yacht Hull Series",
Intemational HISWA Sympo-sium on
Yacht Design and Construction,
Amsterdam R A I , 1996

Ref. 4 Keuning, J.A. and B.J. Binkhorst,

"Appendage resistance of sailing yacht
hull",
13"' Chesapeake Sailing Yacht Symposium
1997

Ref. 5 Keuning, J.A. and U.B. Sonnenberg,

"Developments in the Velocity Prediction
based on the Delft Systematic Yacht Hull
Series",
RINA International Conference on die
Modern Yacht, 1998

Ref. 6 Gerritsma, J. and G. Moeyes,

"The seakeeping performance and steering
properties of sailing yachts", 3'''' HISWA
Symposium, Amsterdam, 1973

Ref. 7 Hoerner, S.F.,

"Fluid Dynamic Drag", 1965

Ref. 8 Keuning, J.A.,

"Wake measurements on a 3.20 meter
sailing yacht model". Report #698, Delft
Shiphydro-mechanics Laboratory, Delft,
1985

Ref. 9 Keuning, J.A. and G. Kapsenberg,

"Wing - body interaction on a sailing
yacht", SNAME 12 di Chesapeak Sailing
Yacht Sympo-sium, 1995, Anapolis, USA

Ref. 10 Beukelman, W. and J.A. Keuning, "The

Influence of Fin Keel Sweep-back on die
Performance of Sailing Yachts", 5-di
HISWA Symposium, 1975, Amsterdam

200