This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
MARITIME & COASTGUARD AGENCY
Research Project 534 Stability Criteria for Large Sailing Yachts Final Report
This report describes a review of the sailing vessel stability requirements of the Large Yacht Code, and considers the validity of their application to modern, very large yachts. The size of the largest yachts appears to be increasing, and is far beyond the scope of the database used in developing the method of assessment and criteria. Some designers of these vessels have experienced difficulties in complying with the stability criteria, and have put forward arguments in favour of a relaxation of the requirements. A study of the fleet was made, with stability data on a substantial sample of yachts provided by designers. The various parameters that affect stability under sail were examined, to determine any trends associated with size. This exercise concluded with the finding that, in general, the relationship between heeling moment and righting moment does not tend to vary with size, so that there is no justification for relaxing the requirements for larger yachts on the basis of size alone. The Wolfson Unit has conducted wind tunnel tests on many large yachts, and a database of test results was compiled to search for variations of heeling moment coefficient with size or rig type. Differences in the performance of different rig types could be identified, but no trends of heeling moment variation with size were found. Additional wind tunnel tests were conducted to confirm the assumptions regarding the maximum heeling moments that can be generated. In depth discussions with designers and rig suppliers enabled a review of design methods, design loadings and failure modes of rigs. It was concluded that rigs may be assumed to be sufficiently strong to transmit sufficient heeling moment to the yacht to result in a knockdown. Similarly, discussions provided information on the sail handling systems, their capabilities and their limitations. Anecdotal reports of specific incidents by designers and captains supported the majority view that automated sail handling systems should not be relied upon as a fail safe means of limiting the angle of heel in an emergency, when stuck unexpectedly by a severe gust or squall. In most cases there appears to be no justification for relaxing the existing criteria. It is recognised, however, that some vessels may have very high initial stability and/or small rigs, such that it would require unreasonably high wind speeds to cause a capsize. For such cases a criterion is proposed such that, if the anticipated wind speed to cause knockdown is greater than 40 knots, the range of stability may be less than 90 degrees. This is similar to the Code requirement for multihulls.
CONTENTS Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 3 Background ..................................................................................................................................... 3 Work Programme ............................................................................................................................ 3 Compilation of a Database............................................................................................................... 3 Consultation with Industry............................................................................................................... 4 Variation of Stability with Size ........................................................................................................ 4 Variation of Heeling Moment with Size and rig type........................................................................ 6 Wind Speeds Required to Cause Knockdown or Capsize................................................................ 10 Demands on Large Yachts ............................................................................................................. 12 Failure Modes of Modern Materials and Structures ........................................................................ 13 Safety Mechanisms and Systems.................................................................................................... 14 Incident Reports ............................................................................................................................ 15 Operational Restrictions for Non-Compliance................................................................................ 15 Consultation with Regulators ......................................................................................................... 16 Summary of Findings .................................................................................................................... 16 Recommendations ......................................................................................................................... 17 References..................................................................................................................................... 18
Over the last ten years, the physical size of the largest sailing yachts has grown significantly, taking them well beyond the size of vessels considered during development of the stability requirements incorporated in the Large Commercial Yacht Code. For some current projects designers are experiencing difficulty in attaining the requirements. It is unclear whether this is a function of individual design or is inherent in the size of the vessels, and thus whether the Code needs to address stability and safety of very large sailing yachts in a different manner. A preliminary study was conducted in 2004 to advise the MCA on the scale of the problem, and the scope of the research that might be conducted to develop revisions to the Code, if appropriate. That study was designated TA10/03 and was described in Wolfson Unit report 1740/02 dated June 2004. This report describes the subsequent phase of the work, which addressed the issues in more detail. The work was commissioned by a letter from Susan Nash of MCA, ref. MSA 10/9/199, dated September 2005.
The stability requirements of the Code were developed by the Wolfson Unit in 1989. A full description of the work was described in the report to the Department of Transport, Ref 1, and a more concise description was presented as a paper, Ref 2. Originally the requirements were developed for the Code of Practice for sail training ships between 7 and 24 metres load line length. For this purpose the Wolfson Unit considered stability information on a range of sailing yachts and sailing ships. The database included yachts principally in the range 7 to 24 metres, with a few examples up to 34 metres, and ships of up to 40 metres in length. The same stability requirements were included in the original large yacht Code, which applies to yachts in excess of 24 metres. Some yachts up to 90 metres are now being built in accordance with the Code, and so the validity of its application is in doubt. The Code was revised and reissued in 2005, and this later version frequently is referred to as LY2. The same stability requirements for sailing monohulls were incorporated, and additional requirements were introduced for sailing multihulls.
A list of objectives was defined, and an outline programme of work suggested, by the MCA. These are summarised briefly in the following list: 1. Confirm and expand the database assembled during the scoping study. 2. Investigate the variation of stability and heeling moment parameters with size and rig type, using wind tunnel data for a variety of large sailing yacht rigs. 3. Conduct a limited study of the failure modes of modern materials and structures and their effects on stability and safety. 4. Investigate whether modern safety mechanisms and systems affect the requirement for survival of a knockdown. 5. Engage in discussions with other regulators for the purpose of peer review of the proposals.
COMPILATION OF A DATABASE
A database of sailing yachts in excess of 35 metres, built over the last 35 years, was compiled for the scoping study. This was expanded to include yachts delivered since that work was conducted, and some examples of yachts under construction. Because of the short time interval between these two studies, the additions to the database did not influence the general findings of the scoping study. For completeness, some Figures from that study are reproduced in this report with the additional data included.
winch manufacturers. For reasons of styling and performance. 6 VARIATION OF STABILITY WITH SIZE The size at which the stability requirements of the Code start to influence the design to a significant extent is variable. Light displacement is good for performance but may result in low ballast ratio and a relatively high KG. and incorporate them where appropriate. o High beam/draft ratio. which is a highly respected publication with an extensive circulation among industry professionals. accentuating the problem. classification societies. 4 . Of the seven designers and builders of very large yachts that gave detailed information. and have most experience. because it is dependent on headroom requirements. Weight growth during the design or building phases may result in reduction of ballast to maintain the design draft. The first appeal resulted in considerable assistance with the collection of stability data. but most do not regard them as a problem because they consider the rationale behind the criteria to be valid. Only a small number of design offices have direct experience of very large sailing yachts. o Low displacement/length ratio. and this report attempts to represent the range of opinions. riggers and rigging systems manufacturers. Unfortunately they are detrimental to stability at large heel angles. o Low superstructure height and volume. builders and others.Figure 1 presents the length of yachts in relation to the year they were delivered. and a spacious interior. o High performance. Shallow hull draft enables access to a wide range of ports with the keel raised. two designers and one builder have experienced severe difficulties with compliance in the case of specific designs. while the later discussions concentrated on gathering opinions on the subject. The popular style for sailing yachts is for a single deck of accommodation below the main deck. Others find that the Code conflicts with other requirements of the project. and depends upon a number of parameters. These varied considerably. particularly detailed discussions took place with five of the designers and two of the builders who are most active. superstructures tend to comprise a single deck. and contribute to good stability at low angles of heel. All designers are aware of the constraints imposed by the Code. with mast height greater than yacht length. and other regulatory authorities. 5 CONSULTATION WITH INDUSTRY During this study. o Low freeboard/beam ratio. and correspondence. Figure 2 shows the distribution of the fleet in terms of length overall and demonstrates that. Most of these characteristics are recognisable as being desirable in terms of performance. o Lifting ballasted keel or unballasted centreboard. Some designers who have experienced difficulty with the criteria have identified particular characteristics that have an influence on the compliance: o Performance orientated design. Other individuals with whom discussions or correspondence took place included captains. and compromises the result. sail makers. Wide beam provides good initial stability and sailing performance. through meetings. During this second phase of the work. high aspect ratio rig. telephone calls. until which time the maximum length was under 60 metres. and discussions took place with designers. Subsequent design experience has led to a softening of this view in one case. The depth of this accommodation remains roughly constant regardless of the size of the yacht. and large areas of open main deck facilitate sail handling. Appeals for information were sent directly to designers and builders. mast manufacturers. and these experiences have led to strong views that the requirements of the Code are unduly conservative. and it is clear that the maximum size of yachts has increased significantly since 1999. designers. although yachts are approaching 100 metres. Owners seek performance and are attracted to forms that resemble those of modern racing yachts. the number of yachts over 50 metres remains small. in the large sailing yacht industry. builders and captains were circulated with requests for information and opinions relevant to the subject. and the previous scoping study. Publicity for the project was obtained by publication of an article in the periodical The Yacht Report.
Two examples have very large ranges of stability. there is considerable scatter but no trend with length for the fixed keel yachts. but is considered more likely to be the direct result of the reduction in the beam/length ratio illustrated in Figure 5. watertight integrity is assumed at all angles of heel. and was approved for operation under the Code in 2003 on the basis of an alternative method of assessment.Some of these performance related features. The apparent variation with size for the smaller yachts in this database is thought to be the result of greater scatter in the smaller vessel data. Figure 4 shows that the relationship between beam and length is particularly dependent on the keel configuration for the very large yachts. and shows that. This tends to be around 60 degrees for the large yachts and. their inclusion in the stability calculations is acceptable. but such a combination provides less stability at large angles than narrow beam with a high ballast ratio. For yachts below 50 metres there appears to be little difference between the beams of fixed and lifting keel yachts. The range of stability is highly variable. For example. and alternative criteria. and so the need to strive for light displacement should be less critical. The fact that they do not increase with size might be the result of KG increasing with size at a higher rate than simply in proportion to the length. again. this may be the result of the Code requirements.5 to 1. light displacement is desirable for small yachts because they need to operate in the semi-planing or planing regime to achieve high speeds. There is a distinct trend of decreasing beam/length with increasing length for the fixed keel yachts. provides considerable righting moment and is likely to result in positive stability at 90 degrees heel. but it does increase as a result in increasing displacement. Figure 6 presents the ratio of the square of the beam to the waterline length. but this does not extend to the largest yachts in the database. perhaps as a result of the Code requirements. the effective range is limited to the critical downflooding angle. demonstrating an increasing reliance on beam rather than ballast for the larger lifting keel yachts. The variation of displacement with length is presented in Figure 3. divided by the displacement. In the event of being pinned down by a squall for a prolonged period. Above 50 metres the yachts with lifting keels have significantly higher beams for a given length. The graph is plotted on the basis of length cubed and it is clear that most yachts fit a linear relationship. The beam/length ratios are presented in Figure 5. one is a modernised and refitted J-Class racing yacht. Very large yachts can operate in the displacement mode at speeds in excess of 20 knots. It appears from these data that there may be a trend for increasing GM and maximum GZ with size. 5 . which becomes immersed at large angles. Such additional buoyancy. but a constant value is maintained among the largest yachts with lifting keels. Figure 7 presents four stability parameters. between 80 and 180 degrees. despite the decreasing beam/length ratio. tends to increase in proportion with the length cubed. The initial stability is proportional to the product of the length and the cube of the beam. There are two notable exceptions. For the lifting keel yachts the ratio increases with length. To obtain such large ranges of stability. No trend was found in the variation of range of stability with year of build. therefore. GM and GZ are not non-dimensional parameters and might be expected to increase with the size of the vessel. rather than a real trend. which is similar to the values for the much larger yachts featured here. The righting moment therefore does not increase with size as a result of increasing GZ. one might expect to be size dependent. It is therefore proportional to the square of the beam. The wide beam provides stability at normal sailing heel angles and reduces the need for a high ballast ratio. One yacht has a range of stability substantially less than 90 degrees. study of a selection of yachts of about 10 metres overall length showed that their maximum GZ values lie in the range 0. The righting moment. and many of the large yachts have a range just above 90 degrees.0 metres. and their variation with length. one of which was designed and built as a racing yacht. Some of the very large yachts have substantial superstructures and. In fact. if they are of adequate strength and watertight integrity. and the other a recent high performance cruising yacht.
although there appear to be some practical limits as might be expected. with one. It appears that twin mast rigs become practical at lengths above 25 metres. 75 data points have been collated. which corresponds to Panama canal restrictions but. more than one data point was derived from one model. but there is considerable overlap in each case. These data do not include the areas of downwind sails such as spinnakers. structural considerations and operational requirements. The aerodynamic forces are referred to the wind frame of reference. C HF = C EH = HF 1 ρV 2 A 2 HM 1 ⋅ H F Height MAST Equation 1 Non-dimensional centre of effort height. In some cases. main mast height and sail area with vessel length. including – • Bermudan sloops • Gaff cutters • Ketches • Staysail schooners • Square rigger • Innovative and non-traditional Figure 8 to Figure 10 present the variations in the number of masts. encompassing maximum lift. The rig configurations varied. While some data were unsuitable for consideration. two or three masts. For larger yachts. and 3 mast rigs above 40 metres. maximum heeling force and maximum drag values. and shows that the transition from a single to a multi-mast rig enables greater sail area to be carried. Mast heights tend to be roughly proportional to the length of the yacht. Equation 3 Heeling and driving force coefficients Equation 4 6 . which might increase the total area by over 50%. Equation 2 Heeling moment coefficient. restrict the mast height in many cases. while the driving and heeling forces are defined with respect to the vessel frame of reference. Equations 1 to 4 below define the non-dimensional coefficients and the relationship between the aerodynamic lift and drag forces and the boat heeling and driving forces. Figure 10 demonstrates that sail areas tend to increase roughly in proportion with the square of the length. A common height limit appears to be about 63 metres. Data from the general database have been included with the wind tunnel test samples on these plots to maximise the definition of the trends. the linear relationship with length may be maintained.1 VARIATION OF HEELING MOMENT WITH SIZE AND RIG TYPE Performance tests data Wind tunnel tests have been conducted by the Wolfson Unit in support of the design of sailing rigs for a wide range of yachts and sailing ships. because different rig options or sail combinations had been tested. Data from such tests were used to create a database of lift.7 7. C HM = C HF ⋅ C EH C HF = C L cos(β ) + CD sin (β ) C DF = C L sin (β ) − CD cos(β ) Where β is the apparent wind angle. such as bridge heights. where this is exceeded. drag and centre of effort values. Heeling force coefficient. The data represent yachts ranging in length from 8m to 91m on the waterline.
Figure 14 presents typical lift and drag data to illustrate their variation with apparent wind angle. and the angle at which it occurs increases up to 50° apparent wind angle for a three mast rig. The effects of different rig types are illustrated in Figure 17. ranges from 1. The effects of different numbers of masts are shown in Figure 16. and this is for an unconventional square rig. The spread of maximum heeling force measured for a given sail and mast configuration depends upon the efficiency of the rig. relative positioning and overlaps of the sails. and this includes factors such as the aspect ratio of the rig.2 frequently is assumed in sailing vessel stability and rig design calculations. where the profile areas of the hull and superstructures frequently are included. At low wind angles the lift force component dominates. Single mast rigs have the potential to produce a larger heeling force coefficient.4 to 2. This contrasts with conventional stability assessments. In some cases these wind tunnel data may provide an optimistic value of the lift that can be generated by the sails.2 to be generated. and at large angles this reduces towards zero and it is the drag of the sails that is the major component. The measured coefficients are based on the forces generated by the sails alone. and the windage of the mast and rigging. Conventional analysis assumes a beam wind on flat sails. They show that there is no discernable trend in the variation of heeling force or heeling moment coefficient with length. the maximum force coefficient decreases. One data point exceeds the general maximum in each case.2 might be appropriate in such circumstances. and the maximum values remain constant in all cases. Such area calculation differences could account for 5% difference in the results. because the model sails can be sheeted harder than on the full size yacht. and a coefficient 1. and the range of values found within the database. give the characteristic curve shown in Figure 15. or “best fit”. and the sail area may be either developed surface area or projected area. the difference between the aerodynamic centre of effort and the geometric centre of the sail area was within 3% of the mast height. so that several data points have a common length. with the maximum occurring at approximately 35°. This shows the variation in wind heeling force with apparent wind angle. and it is interesting to note that these data reveal many cases where this is exceeded by a significant margin. and with real sails that are designed to deliver much higher aerodynamic efficiency than flat panels. but it is possible that novel and atypical sail plans or rigging styles may produce data beyond the bounds shown in Figure 15. but the majority of results were close to the mean. As the number of masts increases. which presents data for a square rigger and a staysail schooner. The limits were only reached for extreme and atypical configurations. compared to multi-mast rigs. line. It should be borne in mind that these are mean curves derived from a number of vessels. There are a number of factors that contribute to this difference. centre of effort height and heeling moment against the vessel length. but they show that there is the potential for heeling force coefficients much greater than 1. because the hull and superstructure forces are deducted in the wind tunnel measurement and analysis process. The overall effect of using a lower coefficient with the total area will depend on the relative magnitudes of the hull and sail areas. the plots include data for a number of rig configurations or sail combinations. for the latter. For some projects. These curves have been derived from a large number of rigs. In general. These data demonstrate that the maximum coefficient may be higher at other headings. The overall maximum heeling force coefficient generated. and comparisons between individual yachts might not yield the same results. as presented in Figure 15. derived from the wind tunnel tests. With the appropriate sine or cosine factor.2. This will account for part of the difference between the coefficients because the force coefficients for the hull and superstructure will be about 1. these combine to produce the driving and heeling forces and.2 Comparison with Conventional Assumptions A value for the heeling force coefficient of 1. both of which have three masts. 7. 7 . The database includes the results of tests analysed at different times using slightly different techniques.Figure 11 to Figure 13 present the variations of non dimensional heeling force.
The model was also progressively heeled to measure the moment at a range of angles. These measurements with sails sheeted hard but the wind on the beam represent the case of a vessel sailing to windward. When the current method of assessment was developed. are presented in Figure 19. and the forces and moments recorded at each angle. 7. This line has been drawn through the data points obtained at the heading where the sails were clearly beginning to stall. If the wind heading is increased without adjusting the sails. and is shown in Figure 18. and then. together with the data obtained for the purposes of developing the method of stability assessment. a 3 masted barque and the 3 masted staysail schooner shown in Figure 20. A second line shows the maximum heeling force that might be generated by over sheeting the sails. The schooner model was also tested for performance purposes. whereas for stability assessment it is normal to take moments about half the draft. because the heeling couple is due to the aerodynamic force on the sails reacted by the hydrodynamic force on the hull and keel. All data were scaled in the same manner as the performance data. This result is representative of a high performance single mast rig. These are overlaid on the optimum curve derived from the usual performance testing. The model was rigged as for performance tests. The tests were conducted in March 2006 in the low speed section of No1 wind tunnel at the University of Southampton. the heeling force remained relatively constant up to a beam reach with 90° apparent wind angle. The centre of effort for optimum and non-optimum sail sets is also presented. of 35 degrees apparent wind angle in this case. Tests were conducted to obtain the maximum heeling moment and determine its variation with heel angle. a small increase in the wind angle from the optimum produced a small drop in heeling force. on the lower graph in Figure 19.3 Maximum Heeling Moments To extend the existing performance test database. In general. and so the heeling force values presented here remain valid when considering the longer lever for stability purposes. which the sails are designed to maximise. heeling moment data were obtained from wind tunnel tests on two models. the lift decreases and the drag increases rapidly. as the wind angle increased further. accounting for wake blockage and downwash angles. so no sail trimmer would over sheet to a greater extent than this. the heeling moment is defined about the waterline. tests to produce as large a wind heeling moment as possible were conducted on a sloop rigged model. is less than the maximum possible with an optimum setting. The maximum heeling force produced with sails set for optimum performance at apparent wind angles of 25° and 45°. but rather than optimising the drive force for each wind heading. The centre of effort does not vary significantly with the sail setting or the apparent wind angle. The results for this rig show that the maximum heeling force produced by a non optimum sail setting. where the sails were pulled in tight. the sails were sheeted to the optimum configuration for each apparent wind angle. This model was provided by Hoek Design. which might occur with careless or inexperienced sail trimming. as for the recent tests. because the sail is stalled and the flow is separated. Although greater heeling moments are 8 . In these performance tests. This was achieved by sheeting the sails to suit an upwind heading. which are representative of upwind sailing angles. For both of the fixed sheeting cases. then struck by a gust from abeam. deriving the lever from those two measurements. Samples of the performance data are presented on Figure 21. which is recognised as a particularly hazardous scenario. The heeling force associated with the optimum sail settings is shown by a line passing through the optimum data points. so the heeling moment will behave in a very similar way to the heeling force.In the wind tunnel. or the centroid of the underwater profile. with the sails adjusted for each heading. The wind tunnel instrumentation measures the moment and the force directly. upwind sheeting angles were used. constant sail settings were maintained over a range of wind angles. The model was then rotated through a range of wind angles. The turntable on which the model was mounted was then rotated through a range of apparent wind angles. designed to perform well at very low apparent wind angles. and then the model was rotated upwind until the sails were luffed and downwind until they were beginning to stall. Figure 21 provides a good illustration of the effects of sheeting and wind angle on a multi-mast cruising yacht. even when stalled. but does not necessarily represent the maximum heeling moment. This is where the dominant component is the lift force.
The maximum heeling force coefficient typically has a value of about 2.4 Consideration of Wind Gradient It may be argued that. therefore. It is the gusts and squalls that pose a threat in terms of stability. 7. they might result from an unexpected gust from a greater wind angle than the mean wind. as was the case for the sloop rig. and a cascade of 8 sails compared with the sloop’s 2. The wind speed is independent of vessel size. When sailing at greater apparent wind angles the sails are eased in order to obtain optimum performance. This is considerably greater than the value of 1. These data indicate. so that the potential strength of gusts at low altitude are dependent on the energy available at higher altitudes. may be a factor. A squall is a small scale weather system that can have a local wind speed many times that of the ambient mean wind. The heeling moment is the product of the coefficient. while the product of centre of effort height and sail area is proportional to the cube of the length. as is the case with an aeroplane wing utilising slots to delay stall during take off and landing. If a vessel has a particularly high rig. the heeling force may be reduced by about 50% by fully easing the sheets. and degree of overlap. and the centre of effort height is close to the centroid of sail area. While high performance rigs have the potential to develop high heeling forces at their optimum sail settings when beating to windward. The third line represents this scenario. At low wind angles the optimum sail settings do not generate the highest heeling force. and the direction of the local wind may have a vertical downward component. the effects of wind gradient on steady sailing conditions are of no relevance to safety. perhaps for the same reason. The force coefficient for the sails fully eased. Under normal sailing conditions the sail plan and sheeting are adjusted to suit the wind conditions being experienced. The normal wind gradient is not likely to be present within a squall. At an apparent wind angle of 50 degrees. although different methods of analysis account for a small proportion of the difference. the square of the wind speed. 7. but the measurement of sail area. multi-mast cruising rigs may be more vulnerable to over sheeting and the effects of encountering an unexpected gust on the beam. The gusts therefore generally reduce the local wind gradient by increasing the velocity at low altitude. When sailing at small apparent wind angles. not determined by the calculation of predicted heeling moments. the centre of effort height and the sail area. 9 . Where there is a velocity gradient there is greater energy at higher altitudes than at sea level. and gust factors close to sea level potentially may be greater than at higher altitudes where the mean wind is greater. The maximum force coefficient is greater than for the single mast rig. The multi-mast rig has a lower aspect ratio. and the level of turbulence is related to this difference. The extent of squalls in terms of the horizontal and vertical dimensions is highly variable.5 Summary and Implications These data provide no evidence that the maximum heeling moment coefficients vary with size. Different rigs behave differently in terms of the effects of sail sheeting and heading. which is often assumed in traditional methods of stability assessment. and their characteristics are such that the normal wind gradient is likely to be eliminated. because of the wind gradient associated with the atmospheric boundary layer. this is equivalent to the larger yacht operating in a slightly stronger wind and the crew will adjust the sails accordingly. with relatively high heeling forces generated with winds on the beam. Since the selection and adjustment of the sails is in the hands of the crew. Gusts are generated as a result of the turbulence in the atmospheric boundary layer. is also presented on Figure 19. and so the reduction possible by fully easing the sheets is reduced. The potential range of forces that may be generated therefore lies between the uppermost curve and the line labelled “sails flogging”. that the wind heeling moment can be assumed to increase in proportion to the length cubed. and therefore is experiencing greater wind speeds than a smaller yacht sailing nearby. to the point where they are flogging. fully eased sheets reduce the heeling force by 25%. large yachts experience greater wind speeds because of their higher rigs. The large number of slots in this complex configuration may enable the rig to develop relatively high lift forces at angles where the sloop rig sails would stall.unlikely to be generated by over sheeting.2.
of a particular yacht. assuming an upwind sailing condition. has been derived as follows: The heel angle resulting from a steady wind heeling moment corresponds to the intersection of the righting and heeling arm curves. The heeling arm curve is defined by the formula: HAθ = HA 0 (cosθ ) 1.2 Upwind Sailing Scenario In each case the wind speed required to capsize the yacht. 8. and the GZ curve for the actual yacht is shown with a broken line on the plot. taking an existing yacht and assuming a reduced freeboard to derive a GZ curve with a range of 80 degrees. Calculations were conducted to estimate the wind speeds that might be required to capsize example yachts which have ranges of stability less than 90 degrees. we can attempt some predictions of the wind speeds that might result in knockdown to a particular angle. Armed with the wind tunnel data described above. two other yachts for which stability data and sail plans were available were considered. has been derived in a similar way. and HM = 0. 8 8. A range of stability of 80 degrees has been assumed.3 The heeling moment is the product of the heeling arm and the displacement. so the heeling arm at the point of capsize is defined where the heeling arm curve is tangential to the GZ curve. which is its arrival condition. Yacht A represents the yacht operating with a range of stability of 80 degrees in its worst operational condition.Wind gradient effects are not considered to be of relevance in the scenarios likely to be hazardous to a sailing yacht.75 Ahull is the profile area of the hull and superstructures 10 . sheeting. Prediction of heeling moment is discarded in favour of monitoring of the heeling moment by monitoring the heel angle. The third example.5ρ V 2 ( Asails hsails C sails + Ahull hhull C hull ) Where: ρ is the density of air V is the apparent wind speed Asails is the area of the full upwind sail plan. heading and wind speed that can result in a particular wind heeling moment. or capsize. rig and centre of gravity. giving the same sailing performance. is that there are an infinite number of combinations of sail area. but with a different deck and superstructure arrangement so that the large angle stability would be different. yacht C. however. whereas one with a lower range might not. so that the GZ curve up to 30 or 40 degrees would be the same. including sail overlaps hsails is the height of the centroid of the sail plan above half the draft Csails is the maximum sail heeling force coefficient.1 WIND SPEEDS REQUIRED TO CAUSE KNOCKDOWN OR CAPSIZE Example Yachts The reasoning behind the minimum requirements is that a yacht with a range of stability of at least 90 degrees is likely to recover from a knockdown. The basis of the existing method of assessment. In order to increase the number of examples. Stability data and a sail plan were available for only one large yacht that has a range of stability less than 90 degrees. This hypothetical yacht is represented by the solid line. and provision of information. Yacht B has a range of stability in excess of 90 degrees. The stability curves for the three yachts are presented in Figure 22. with their stability curves adjusted to reduce the range. It is quite possible that another yacht could be constructed with a similar hull shape. assumed to be 1.
In the case of yacht B. it is somewhat safer because the steady wind heeling angle would be 19 degrees in this case. increasing the wind speed to 28 knots. The range of stability will benefit from the buoyancy of rigging.0 These value of the sail force coefficient was selected on the basis of Figure 11. and could be eased to this extent sufficiently quickly. Here. A yacht may be knocked down and pinned at a large heel angle but. if it strikes unexpectedly when a large sail area is set and sheeted for upwind sailing. masts and other structures above the deck. being able to sail at steady angles up to 25 degrees without risk of capsize in a gust. The 11 . the gust factors are not limited to 1. This is a quite reasonable scenario. It represents common maximum values derived from a wide range of model tests. The maximum likely gust factor is 1. the wind speeds required to capsize would be 28. This angle of 15 degrees corresponds to the minimum requirement for the maximum recommended steady heel angle to prevent downflooding in gusts. and the yacht is likely to sail at lower angles most of the time.4 times the mean wind speed. The corresponding heeling arm curves are shown on the plots. By the same reasoning.4. would result in capsize. This would enable reduction of the gust heeling moment back to its mean wind level.5 knots would give a gust factor of 3. The curves show that. the relationship between heeling and righting moments is unlikely to fit this theory precisely at 90 degrees. Such squalls can occur in any season in light or moderate winds. yacht C is safer again. together with wind heeling curves corresponding to much higher wind speeds. regardless of the wind speed that prevailed prior to the squall. resulting in twice the wind force. For these three example yachts.4. B and C. but be degraded by any movement of loose items of equipment to the leeward side. If the possibility of squalls is considered. Figure 12 and Figure 15. increasing the wind speed to 29 knots. The benefits of a range of stability greater than 90 degrees are demonstrated by Figure 23. if the wind speed increases by fixed increments. renders the yacht vulnerable to capsize in a strong gust. but the actual yacht. and requiring 37 knots of wind to capsize. with a range well in excess of 90 degrees. Squalls with high wind speeds may occur during periods of light winds. In the assumed scenario. would result in capsize. any sail and wind combination on this yacht that results in a steady heel angle of 15 degrees. A gust factor of 1. as indicated by Figure 19. the curves for yacht C are shown again. a steady wind of 21 knots would result in a heel angle of 19 degrees. A. the yacht with a range of 80 degrees would be capsized by wind of 37 knots. and enable potential capsizing scenarios to be envisaged. 29 and 37 knots respectively. and a 10 fold increase in the heeling force. A squall of 40 knots during a period with a mean wind speed of 12. The yacht does not pass the range of stability criterion and is on the margin with regard to the heel angle criterion.hhull is the height of the centroid of the hull and superstructure area above half the draft Chull is the hull heeling force coefficient. The heeling arm curves corresponding to mean winds. Although the wind speed required to capsize is similar to that of yacht A. a steady wind of 20 knots would result in a heel angle of 15 degrees. it is possible that a gust or squall could cause a sudden increase. Although full sail would not be retained if the wind increased to such speeds. cannot be capsized by wind heeling. It is quite possible.4. Although these values have been derived from specific assumptions regarding sails set and the force coefficients. and suggests a relatively low level of safety. provided significant downflooding can be prevented. are included on the plots. therefore. Easing the sheets in this scenario might enable the heeling moment to be reduced by up to 50%. if the sails were fully eased and flogging. This relationship between steady heel angle and capsize is a function of the GZ curve shape alone. A gust factor of 1. it should retain a positive righting moment that will right the yacht after the gust or squall has passed. In practice. assuming that this gust factor had given rise to the capsizing moments. Easing the sheets might not provide sufficient reduction in the heeling moment in a particularly strong squall. In the case of yacht A. the increase in heel angle becomes progressively smaller. that a 30 or 40 knot squall could capsize one of these yachts.2. assumed to be 1.
however. When a yacht changes hands the nature of its use may change. the combined factor will be the product of the gust factor and that described above. where competition may be at a high level.25 at 150 degrees to about 0. Consider the scenario of a yacht sailing at a heading with an apparent wind angle of 150 degrees. A gust or squall would be unlikely to pose a threat to stability because. Maximum downwind sail areas may be 50% to 80% greater than the full upwind sail plan. the latter having potential to degrade the stability dramatically. This will result in the wind force increasing by a factor of 4. 9 DEMANDS ON LARGE YACHTS The types of yacht assessed under the MCA Code range from sedate motor sailers to high performance cruising yachts. a three-fold increase. further increasing the level of hazard. It has been argued that a particular yacht may not be sailed in conditions where a stability incident is possible. the heeling moment is low and the transverse stability is less important than the longitudinal stability in terms of sailing performance. or at maximum performance. the sails heeling force coefficient would be considerably lower than the value 1. as Figure 15 shows. When sailing off wind. and many sailing yachts are designed to satisfy an owner’s desire for high performance. but this is not a simple criterion to be applied in a regulatory framework. and for the integrity of the sails and rig.heeling moment curve is based on the assumption that the wind vector is horizontal. but this may not be the case in a squall. and the assumption that other factors will balance out. and the level of risk may increase as a result. The yacht speed reduces the apparent wind speed to significantly less than the true wind speed. These factors are too variable to be considered for regulatory purposes. These large sail areas therefore may be maintained in relatively strong winds. if the yacht suffers a broach. for example running before the wind at a speed of 12 knots in a wind speed of 25 knots results in an apparent wind speed of only 13 knots. Many large yachts are used primarily as platforms for entertainment. At one superyacht regatta in 2006 there were 30 entries between 24 and 55 metres. 12 . The second effect will be that the heeling moment coefficient will increase. the heeling force coefficient is likely to be less than 0. rough conditions. although the largest sails would be of light material and probably would fail in a very strong gust. and this may be twice the apparent wind speed. and exercise prudence when setting sails for sailing downwind in strong conditions. If the broach is induced following an encounter with a gust or squall. The consequences of such an increase are likely to have dramatic implications for the stability and safety of the yacht. for that yacht. and as such may not be sailed in strong winds. when a broach reduces this to 90 degrees. however. Inspection of Figure 19 shows that. As a yacht recovers from a knockdown to 90 degrees. and so the range requirement of 90 degrees was selected in recognition of the theory. the stability is likely to be affected by ingress of water to the hull and spars. There are many prestige regattas for very large yachts. This is less common for sailing yachts than for motor yachts. a total factor of up to 12. The sail area carried might be considerably greater than the normal upwind configuration.8 assumed for the upwind scenario. The lower graph of that Figure shows that the centre of effort height would remain roughly constant.5. The apparent wind speed will increase to equal the true wind speed. There may be a danger. Experienced crews are aware of this potential danger. The latter value was derived from an extrapolation of the “sails flogging” line to 90 degrees. 19 of them over 35 metres.3 Off Wind Sailing Scenario If the yacht is sailing on an off wind heading. and their use is equally variable. Reducing the apparent wind angle will have two effects. and any downward component will increase the heeling moment at large angles of heel. and interest in these is increasing. 8. the heeling force coefficient would increase from 0. These may be sailed hard by their owners and crews.75 at 90 degrees. The heeling moment therefore might increase by the product of these factors. and racing yachts converted for charter or fast cruising.
For multi-mast rigs. it is possible that the wind speed required to generate a heeling moment equal to the maximum righting moment would be an unrealistic value. and so the load case for each mast will be based on a proportion of the maximum righting moment. Other load cases to be considered include running before the wind. rather than the fundamentals of the process. A recent development in rig design. but it will be designed to withstand a moment greater than the maximum divided by the number of masts. The performance requirements. and the buckling loads therefore are reduced. This may be hazardous if there is a sudden shift in wind direction. perhaps because of faulty components or fittings. or if the yacht broaches. In such a case it is quite possible that the rig would fail before a knockdown occurred. A standard starting point in rig design is the maximum righting moment of the yacht. Overall. the foremast may be designed to take 70% of the maximum moment. For a conventional stayed rig. is for large unstayed masts. and classification society requirements may have an influence on the design process. The design buckling load is based on the load due to the selected maximum righting moment. The risk may be judged to be acceptable by the captain.1 Rig Design Yacht designers. however. probably something well below 100 knots. Such loads have been the cause of component failure. Sailing or motoring into rough seas will result in high fore and aft rig loads. the individual mast structures are designed to transmit a proportion of the heeling moment. facilitated by advances in composite materials. but the relationship between rig strength and maximum righting moment is unlikely to be a design criterion. plus a safety factor. Each mast may not be expected to withstand 100% of the maximum moment. while 60% may be used for the mizzen. if struck by a gust. For this reason. but it would not be possible for a regulator to determine the wind speed required for failure. therefore. and enables the rig structure to remain intact if subjected to a wind strength and sail combination that combine to result in a heeling moment that is sufficient to cause a knockdown. Multihulls have special characteristics that influence the design. This represents the maximum transverse loading on the rig. the design case for the mast assumes the most likely failure mode to be Euler buckling of the mast panels in compression. and the residual moment of any part of the rig left standing. but the variations tend to apply to the details of the load cases or the criteria applied. plus the load due to the shrouds and halyards. The very high stability enables very high sail loads to be carried. It is possible for the design loads to be met with an unstayed structure that is very flexible. perhaps 150 knots. For this reason. and the rig therefore must be designed to withstand very high loads with the wind from astern. if the sail area is distributed between the masts. supplemented with a safety factor. but such a characteristic is undesirable so stiffness criteria then govern the design process. rig designers and rig manufacturers use various approaches to determine the structural requirements. There would be uncertainties associated with the failure loading. The very wide shroud base is an asset because it enables the rig to be supported with lower shroud tensions. For example. Such shock loading does not appear to be a design criterion. but design strength is well above the fatigue limit. particularly if bow slamming occurs.10 FAILURE MODES OF MODERN MATERIALS AND STRUCTURES 10. rig type. when a relatively large sail area may be carried in a given wind speed. 13 . multihull rigs are likely to have a greater margin of safety than monohull rigs. unstayed rigs are likely to have a greater margin of safety in relation to the maximum righting moment of the yacht. hull type. on a 3 mast rig. because the heeling moment may increase to an unacceptable level and result in a knockdown. or inadequate maintenance. the failure mechanism. the rig strength will be adequate to transmit heeling moments greater than the maximum righting moment. In cases of very high stability in relation to the rig size. the yacht will not heel significantly to reduce the sail loads. The designer might then use a lower wind speed as the basis of the rig design. because the heeling moment is low. and requires higher factors of safety because.
but the majority are on racing yachts. and must be greater than that detailed as the maximum recommended sailing angle in the yacht’s sailing operations manual. and the heel angle remains a very reliable means of determining the overall rig loading. These systems are designed to monitor the 14 . and employs facilities for a global finite element analysis of the complete rig. For the operational cases the designer specifies maximum wind speeds for full sail and reefed configurations. and loss of the rig in such circumstances is likely to be disastrous. strain gauged components and fibre optic systems can be incorporated in various ways.2 Classification Society Requirements for Rigs The MCA Code requires that masts and spars should comply with Classification Society requirements. They are unlikely to be of relevance to the design of a modern rig. and motoring into head seas. Rig designs for the largest yachts are complex systems requiring detailed analysis.It is often suggested that rigs might be designed to fail at some specified loading below that which might result in a knockdown. with the agreement of Germanischer Lloyd. Traditionally. The variety of load cases described above indicate the difficulties that such an approach would need to address. A scenario that might result in the highest operational loading of the rig is if attempting to beat off a lee shore in strong wind conditions. Thus. Multihulls do not heel to significant angles. although the rig is not designed to handle. The survival case assesses the bare poles configuration in a wind of 122 knots. The combined wind loading and wave induced forces might exceed any predetermined maximum safe steady loading. on a regular basis. so it is common for the rig loading to be monitored with load cells in the stays. Traditionally. or poor maintenance. rather than inadequacies of the basic design. Load cells. it is likely to be strong enough to withstand them on an isolated occasion. 10. More details of their methods are described in Ref 3. More details of the process. There appear to be many reasons why rigs are unlikely to fail before a knockdown occurs. the safety factor applied is likely to be greater than the difference between the maximum righting moment and that at the safe heel angle. which may be around 20 or 30 degrees. the maximum righting moment was used to define the transverse load case. where contemporary configurations and materials demand different approaches. There have been many examples of failed rigs. Lloyds specify safety factors to be applied in each case to the mast and standing rigging. and all of the designers consulted agreed that it is not possible to design a rig to fail in a particular way. and these are expected to be in excess of 25 and 40 knots respectively. 11 SAFETY MECHANISMS AND SYSTEMS Modern developments in rig systems enable the loads and structures to be monitored to ensure that they maintain their performance and safety during the life of the yacht. Germanischer Lloyd now offers a comprehensive rig design and approval service. It applies rules considering both operational and survival load cases. are given in Ref 4. but in some large yachts this has been superseded by the use of a maximum “safe heel angle”. Failures on cruising yachts are usually identified as faulty components or fittings. Whilst this suggests that the rig may be vulnerable if subjected to loads equivalent to the maximum righting moment. the loads required to capsize the yacht. when a yacht might be pressed to relatively large heel angles in rough seas. They are unlikely to be suitable for assessment using standard tabulations. This is an angle specified by the designer. The few Classification Societies that have rules for rig structures adopt different approaches. and these examples demonstrate that the classification societies involved are taking the problems of rig engineering very seriously in order to provide a professional approval service. These comprise tabulations of the required sizes of components of traditional rigs. where safety factors are minimised in the desire for low rig weight and maximum stability. Other load cases that are considered include downwind sailing. and the reasoning behind it. Lloyds Register has rules for sailing passenger ships which sometimes are applied to large yachts. many sailing ship rigs were designed in accordance with “Rules for the Masting and Rigging of Sailing Ships” developed by Germanischer Lloyd. Weak links or “fuses” in the rigging have been proposed as a means of dictating the failure mode in extreme circumstances.
Others appreciate the value of modern sail handling systems under normal operating conditions. Serious downflooding was notably absent from these reports. The causes of the incidents included knockdown by a gust or squall. There is some concern that the crew may become accustomed to relying on the winch systems to respond to gusts. or will not operate at large heel angles. Most large modern yachts are equipped with captive sheet winches. A system may rely on generators that may fail. Loads up to 20 tonnes can be handled in some cases. This is appropriate for some Code requirements. A partially furled sail cannot be lowered in the event of failure of the furling system. 12 INCIDENT REPORTS No documented reports of serious stability incidents to yachts approved under the MCA Code were found. Large yachts are the pride of their owners. exceeds some preset limit. knockdown following a broach. and power failure leading to steering or sail handling problems. if a yacht does not comply with the damage stability requirements. but it does not provide evidence that serious events do not occur. and these are designed to handle the very high loads associated with large sails. and some where failure might potentially occur.rig loadings for the purposes of maintaining structural integrity and performance. but requests for detailed information were not granted. 13 OPERATIONAL RESTRICTIONS FOR NON-COMPLIANCE Some large motor or sailing yachts which have encountered difficulties in complying with various MCA Code requirements have been certificated for operation within restricted areas. 2. The head of a furling sail may be shackled to the mast. 1. it is expected that the yacht will not heel to large angles under wind loading. restricting operation to within 60 miles of a safe haven increases the likelihood of successful evacuation of the crew and guests in the event of a damage or flooding incident. and a disastrous one. The response rate of a winch may be too slow to ease a sheet sufficiently in an encounter with a sudden gust or unexpected squall. so that it cannot be lowered in the event of failure of the furling system. or perhaps nonexistent. and this may be the principle distinction between an uncomfortable or alarming incident. to the extent that they might pay inadequate attention to the weather conditions. Some anecdotal evidence was heard. and cite them as one of the principle factors in the case for relaxing the stability requirements. Some designers have full confidence in these automated systems. 3. 4. 15 . difficulty in lowering sails when heavily loaded. but do not regard them as providing a fail safe means of avoiding knockdown. Some modern sail handling systems are designed to ease sheets when the sheet load. and developments are under way to increase this capability up to 30 tonnes. as one hoisted by a halyard might be. or the heel angle. designers and builders. and are not designed to provide information on sudden increases in rig loading to which the crew might respond. With such systems working efficiently. so they need to pay out the sheets in a controlled way using a powered mechanism. For example. The lack of incident reports is a good indication that disastrous events are extremely rare. on yachts up to 75 metres in length. It would be impractical to configure such winches to release the sheets when the loads exceed a pre-set limit. There are a number of scenarios that have been cited as examples of equipment failure. relating to knockdown incidents with very large yachts. or distance from a safe haven. A sail furling system may not operate when under extreme wind loading. and are valuable assets in the resale and charter markets. It is understandable that there is a general unwillingness to discuss incidents which might damage the reputation of a yacht. 5. The anecdotal accounts included a wide range of incidents.
The older methods were rejected at that time. These have been shown to be problematic on fishing vessels where liferafts and their painters may become fouled by structures above the deck. probably by automatic release mechanisms. or whether it enables the designer to create a yacht that is desirable in other respects. Their stability is likely to be greater than that of motor yachts of similar size because of their requirement to carry sail. 16 . either because of downflooding or a lack of stability at large angles. which have difficulty in complying. and consideration of the effects of gusts which are based on the traditional energy balance assumptions that are known to be invalid. some use a method similar to that used in the UK prior to the development of the Code. Survival is likely to be dependent on successful deployment of liferafts. Most designers consider that the Code requirements are necessary to ensure safety from a disastrous knockdown or capsize. They are unlikely to be in danger from breaking waves because of their large size. although the latter is considered to be unlikely. 15 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 1. The different methods of assessment were considered in the 1980s. and this is no justification to limit their cruising range. likely to survive rough conditions in the open ocean with little danger. because they do not necessarily provide a good measure of safety.It may be inappropriate in the case of failure to comply with the intact stability requirements. Proximity to land will enable a relatively fast response of any rescue effort. masts and rigging. the German Bundesministerium für Verkehr. The different experiences of designers largely are the result of the different styles of yacht being designed. They incorporate traditional methods of predicting the heeling moments in specified wind speeds. is evidence that there is some demand for this style of yacht. but will not ensure that personnel will survive a disastrous knockdown event. Some designers experience difficulties in achieving compliance with the existing requirements. The response from national administrations generally was disappointing. Large yachts are very capable of operating in severe seastates without danger of capsize. during the development of the method used in the Code. may limit the sail area that can be carried in light winds. Whilst some expressed an interest in the findings of this study. If a yacht cannot recover from a knockdown the result will be sinking as a result of downflooding. or total inversion. Such problems may be greater on a sailing yacht than on a fishing vessel. Few authorities have experience of assessing a significant number of large yachts. or gather survival equipment or clothing. whether for performance or other reasons. and do not provide any information on the level of safety when sailing. Some authorities have adopted the method of assessment used in the MCA Code. The fact that yachts of extremely high value are being designed. If they cannot comply with the sailing yacht stability requirements it is because they are relatively vulnerable to a knockdown from which they may not recover. 3. 14 CONSULTATION WITH REGULATORS Approaches were made to a number of regulatory authorities and classification societies. It is unclear whether the style of yachts for which compliance is difficult is necessary to obtain adequate performance. particularly a range of stability of 90 degrees. because automatic sail handling systems can not provide a fail safe alternative. therefore. Survival rates for such incidents are extremely low because there is little time available to escape from the accommodation. Other designers find that the downflooding angle is the critical parameter. raise the alarm. they did not offer new information to assist new developments. It is clear that yachts of the largest sizes currently being built can be designed to comply with the current requirements. Such a knockdown might be the result of an unexpected encounter with a severe squall. They are. 2. the Netherlands Shipping Inspectorate and the Australian Maritime Safety Authority. Transport Canada. and others use a method based on that used by the US Coast Guard. Those authorities who retain their use appear to be satisfied with their application. and proximity to land does not reduce the probability of such an event. but information was obtained regarding the methods used by the US Coast Guard.
and an alternative approach is recommended. Rig failures occur in a range of circumstances. The requirement for a range of stability of 90 degrees then may be inappropriate. 12. To obtain satisfactory sailing performance. It is considered likely that such a relationship exists. primarily because large yachts tend to be sailed in a more conservative manner than smaller yachts. Most yacht designers and rig designers agree that rigs are likely to withstand the forces required to heel a large yacht beyond its angle of maximum righting moment. even in a squall. to avoid knockdown in the event of a sudden. There may be circumstances where the maximum righting moment of a particular vessel is high in relation to the potential maximum heeling moment. but cannot be relied upon as a fail safe means of reducing the heeling moment sufficiently. 8. because of port and navigational constraints. and statistics therefore are inadequate to establish whether the probability of a knockdown decreases with size. 5. it may have insufficient stability to withstand the heeling effects of squalls of about 40 knots. 10. This is not considered to represent an adequate level of safety for a vessel which is equipped for ocean passages. 9. and there are numerous anecdotal accounts as evidence that very large yachts are heeled to angles sufficient to cause alarm to the captain and crew. unexpected. A knockdown is a real hazard. are detrimental to the stability at large angles. gust or squall. Powered sail handling systems provide an efficient means of controlling the rig under most circumstances. 11. so that there is no general trend of reduction in the ratio of heeling moment to righting moment with increasing size. that large yachts are safer because of a lower probability of knockdown. In such circumstances the wind speed required to capsize the vessel may be sufficiently high that it is unlikely to be encountered. On cruising yachts they are rare. heavy displacement. and tend to be the result of component failures rather than overloading of the mast or rigging. when full sail is set. 6. Some very large yachts. or in squalls. or be built in the future. and is of a size that one would expect to be adequate for such service. This may result in a relatively high centre of gravity. 13.4. such as relatively low freeboard or small superstructures. if regulatory authorities allow. Documentary evidence is scarce. with a range of stability less than 90 degrees. Other design features. or a small rig. It is anticipated that owners investing the large sums involved in a large yacht project will expect a high level of safety to be assured by the Code requirements. Such a relationship may be the result of wide beam. but may be considered as attractive features of a particular style of yacht. It may be argued. Rig types vary considerably. but the possibility of knockdown cannot be neglected. Shallow draft and lifting keel configurations may constrain ballast to a relatively low weight or high location. Such wind speeds may be experienced as gusts in Beaufort force 5 to 6. One example with such characteristics is known. This combination provides good stability at normal sailing angles but is detrimental to stability at large angles. The examples considered indicate that. but there is no evidence that the heeling moment coefficients of particular rigs vary to such a degree that they warrant different approaches for the purposes of safety assessment. and it is possible that others may exist. may have a combination of sail plan and stability characteristics that make them vulnerable to wind speeds below 30 knots. 7. 16 RECOMMENDATIONS The method of assessment and minimum criteria defined in the existing Code of Practice are considered to remain valid for all sizes of sailing yacht. Lifting keels are used in some cases. Stability characteristics are affected by draft restrictions. such yachts may have relatively high beam. Both the maximum righting moment and the maximum heeling moment tend to increase in proportion with the length cubed. in short the time required. and no relaxation of the requirements is recommended on the basis of size. therefore. and differences in their performance can be measured in wind tunnel tests. They are more frequent on high performance racing yachts. The wind speed required to capsize should be calculated as follows: 17 . where safety factors are minimised in an effort to reduce rig weight. if a yacht has insufficient stability at large angles to comply with the 90 degree range requirement.
A mean wind of 27 knots therefore equates to a gust wind speed of 38 knots. but it is considered appropriate that the limiting wind speeds should be similar. London. assumed to be 1. November 2000. Presented at the RINA Spring Meetings. M. 2002 4. 16th HISWA Symposium on Yacht Design and Construction. and a gust factor of 1.J. 18 .4 is assumed. The Verification of Masts and Rigging of Large Sailing Vessels.Gudmunsen. Wolfson Unit Report 908 for the Department of Transport. The Development of Stability Standards for UK Sailing Vessels. 3.3 The heeling moment is the product of the heeling arm and the displacement. Sail Training Vessel Stability Research. including sail overlaps hsails is the height of the centroid of the sail plan above half the draft Csails is the maximum sail heeling force coefficient. Hamburg. The heeling moments of multihulls are determined using a different formula to that for monohulls.0 The yacht should be considered to have adequate stability if the wind speed required to capsize is not less than 40 knots. B. They are required to withstand a mean wind speed of 27 knots with the full upwind sail plan set. The wind speed which would result in capsize is determined in a similar way to that described above. Deakin. 17 REFERENCES 1. This recommendation is in line with the requirements for multihulls in the MCA Code for large yachts. Chapter 5: Guidelines for Design and Construction of Large Modern Yacht Rigs. so the heeling arm at the point of capsize is defined where the heeling arm curve is tangential to the GZ curve. because the plan area of the deck has a significant influence. 1990. Amsterdam.75 Ahull is the profile area of the hull and superstructures hhull is the height of the centroid of the hull and superstructure area above half the draft Chull is the hull heeling force coefficient. or to provide adequate buoyancy to maintain floatation if inverted. The heeling arm curve is defined by the formula HAθ = HA 0 (cosθ ) 1. 2. and HM = 0.5ρ V 2 ( Asails hsails C sails + Ahull hhull C hull ) Where: ρ is the density of air V is the apparent wind speed Asails is the area of the full upwind sail plan. Rules for Classification and Construction I – Part 4.The heel angle resulting from a steady wind heeling moment corresponds to the intersection of the righting and heeling arm curves. Germanischer Lloyd AG. assumed to be 1. Phase 2. February 1989.
4 30.7 23.5 Draft 5.7 31.5 7.0 36.2 37.6 7.4 35.6 9.0 37.2 29.4 8.8 33.5 3.4 26.4 30.5 30.5 6.9 8.3 34.3 3.0 3.0 5.4 38.0 36.9 8.1 2.6 39.5 3.5 38.7 1717 120 3.5 8.8 LWL 26.4 8.6 8.1 3.3 27.7 27.2 37.4 7.7 29.3 37.8 30.1 38.3 3.0 37.3 29.3 7.6 29.5 610 2.1 7.4 37.6 609 609 183 199 19 .2 37.0 3.2 8.1 28.4 7.7 8.0 30.6 3.0 6.7 26.5 24.1 5.0 7.0 8.Table 1 Summary of the yachts in the database LOA 35.5 4.0 5.3 7.0 39.9 7.0 38.6 8.1 7.0 37.8 5.5 37.3 32.0 44.0 29.0 3.8 36.6 27.3 30.4 7.5 33. Aluminium Cedar/E-glass Aluminium Aluminium Aluminium Steel/Aluminium Steel/Aluminium Aluminium Aluminium Composite Steel Steel Aluminium Aluminium Steel/Aluminium Aluminium Steel/Aluminium Aluminium Steel/Aluminium Aluminium Aluminium Carbon fibre Composite Aluminium Aluminium Aluminium Steel Aluminium Aluminium Aluminium Wood/Epoxy Aluminium Advanced composite Steel/GRP Aluminium Wood/West system Steel Aluminium Steel Steel Steel/Aluminium Aluminium Aluminium Steel Wood on steel frames Alustar Aluminium Aluminium Aluminium Date Built 1987 1987 1995 1992 1988 1982 1986 1989 1987 1995 2001 1987 1995 1995 1981 1993 1995 1992 1999 1996 2003 1987 2004 2005 1991 1994 2004 1993 1989 1990 1989 1999 1986 2002 1990 1992 1993 1986 1991 1991 1991 1984 1993 1996 1933 1910 2001 2001 2005 2005 5.8 27.0 36.5 8.1 4.7 35.9 8.2 2.4 7.0 32.5 37.0 36.2 3.6 8.8 27.4 39.0 36. Aluminium Steel.1 8.8 39.6 8.6 8.5 3.8 4.5 36.4 4.4 3.1 8.5 32.3 26.5 31.1 8.5 8.5 38.7 28.3 8.7 9.2 36.0 36.4 37.4 38.0 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 55.5 6.2 7.0 30.7 4.1 28.9 7.0 8.7 28.5 37.7 3.6 49.8 8.0 36.7 27.3 3.9 4.1 31.5 37.8 2.9 3.4 3.5 29. 197 197 Hull contstruction Steel.0 36.8 39.9 7.4 Rig Type Ketch Ketch Schooner Ketch Sloop Ketch Sloop Sloop Cutter Ketch Sloop Ketch Ketch Sloop Ketch Sloop Sloop Ketch Sloop Ketch Sloop Cutter Sloop Ketch Ketch Sloop Schooner Sloop Ketch Ketch Sloop Ketch Sloop Cutter Schooner Ketch Schooner Ketch Ketch Ketch Ketch Ketch Sloop Sloop Gaff Schooner Sloop Ketch Sloop Sloop No. 34.0 Draft keel up 3.8 3.8 4.9 3.3 3.4 29.2 8.6 3.5 39.7 8.0 24.9 39.2 3.0 30.0 3.2 6.1 7.5 7.9 3.7 38.3 38.5 29.4 33.4 3.5 3.8 33.1 38.9 6.3 Sail Area 429 429 Disp.5 3.4 5.4 8.8 37. Masts 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 Mast Ht.9 4.8 38.6 5.4 30.6 37.2 35.0 3.5 8.6 37.4 2.2 35.4 4.9 3.5 32.1 3.5 Beam 7.9 32.7 3.2 839 843 180 210 49.7 8.5 7.6 7.8 7.3 7.0 29.0 37.
Hull contstruction Aluminium Aluminium Aluminium Steel/Aluminium Aluminium Composite Composite Steel/Composite Aluminium Aluminium Steel/Aluminium Aluminium Aluminium Alustar Aluminium Aluminium Aluminium Aluminium Composite Aluminium Steel/Aluminium Steel/Aluminium Steel Steel Steel/Aluminium Composite Composite Aluminium Aluminium Carbon fibre Steel/Aluminium Aluminium Aluminium Aluminium Steel Aluminium Aluminium Steel/Aluminium Steel/Aluminium Steel.2 Draft 3.6 40.6 53.0 4.7 LWL 28.9 41.0 35.6 8.9 40.5 36.2 35.2 4.7 8.8 42.2 37. Masts 1 Mast Ht.8 2.5 4.1 5.0 4.8 3.4 29.8 8.8 9.6 44.4 3.9 8.0 5.0 40.9 4.8 29.6 2.5 2.0 40.0 5.1 34.8 3.6 8.8 8.0 30.8 35.6 8.0 41.4 3.8 Beam 8.0 49.4 43.9 8.7 4.0 40.5 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 44.4 35.8 9. LOA 39.8 33.3 43.0 6.5 32.3 7.0 8.2 35.5 2.0 35.5 8.8 44.7 2.4 40.5 32.3 33.5 28.1 34.2 41.7 44.5 4.3 7.8 8.5 2.6 8.3 6.3 3.6 7.0 4.9 7.8 5.2 40.9 4.9 3.0 4.4 43.2 6.7 4.6 42.2 8.3 731 731 293 293 7.4 40.4 9.7 49.8 29.0 8.8 8.6 41.0 31.6 40.0 36.9 42.9 1100 306 20 .6 34.7 8.2 9.7 8.8 3.5 2.9 7.2 32.9 33.9 28.0 7.0 45.8 2.0 40.3 31.6 3.8 8.4 3.6 2.8 2.7 4.6 43.5 4.7 9.0 9.0 7. Aluminium Steel.5 40.3 32.8 4.2 35.9 45.5 7.5 2.0 34.6 40.3 32.6 41.8 30.1 32.7 8.2 8.4 8.4 42.6 43.5 9.0 30.7 40.7 3.3 8.0 9.5 37.0 30.5 6.3 3.5 8.0 37.0 34.4 43.3 4.4 42.9 6.9 49.4 42.5 40.7 35.9 38.9 4.0 6.4 42.6 41.5 48.0 43.1 43.0 6.3 6.0 42.7 4.9 3.0 40.Table 1 continued.0 30.8 4.0 9.7 9.0 8.4 42.5 35.9 43.0 45.0 1000 586 586 165 209 2.1 33.9 7.5 700 220 827 45.3 29.8 8.3 Draft keel up Rig Type Sloop Schooner Schooner Ketch Ketch Sloop Sloop Ketch Ketch Sloop Ketch Ketch Sloop Schooner Schooner Schooner Ketch Sloop Sloop Ketch Ketch Ketch Sloop Ketch Ketch Sloop Schooner Ketch Ketch Schooner Ketch Sloop Sloop Sloop Gaff Schooner Sloop Sloop Yawl Ketch Ketch Ketch Ketch Ketch Sloop Ketch Ketch Sloop Ketch Sloop Schooner No.8 8.9 5.4 7.8 5.0 40.0 3.6 36.8 4.5 33.4 43.4 4.9 1041 729 729 836 152 236 259 2. Sail Area Disp.0 4.4 43.1 9.8 8.0 43. Aluminium Aluminium Aluminium Carbon-fibre composite Aluminium Carbon Steel Wood Aluminium Date Built 2002 1993 1997 1990 2005 1993 1991 1990 1996 2000 2001 1993 1994 2001 1970 1970 1997 2002 1995 1992 2000 2001 2003 1986 2000 2003 1995 1990 1998 2003 1999 2002 2004 2000 1992 2001 2001 1987 1988 1987 1987 1987 1992 2002 1997 2001 2003 2003 1993 2002 3.1 43.0 6.0 40.4 33.5 35.9 4.4 28.
2 3.0 11.0 34.5 10.5 38.1 3.2 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 57.8 45.6 55.5 60.0 53.9 44.8 49.5 61.8 44.4 48.0 51.6 44.0 75.5 Draft keel up Rig Type Ketch Schooner Ketch Ketch Ketch Ketch Ketch Sloop Sloop Ketch Ketch Ketch Ketch Cutter Gaff Schooner Staysail schooner Schooner Schooner Ketch Ketch Ketch Ketch Ketch Ketch Ketch Ketch Ketch Lateen schooner Ketch Ketch Ketch Ketch Ketch Sloop Sloop Ketch 3.2 9.1 44.3 87.6 5.8 9.8 Schooner Ketch Ketch Ketch Schooner Sloop Schooner DynaRig Schooner 3 2 2 2 4 1 3 3 3 43.9 5.9 60.9 46.2 7.8 59.0 1520 1565 2137 2436 2396 3060 690 554 1080 1218 1530 21 .0 60.8 37.0 43.3 10.0 3.8 8.5 62.4 10.0 64.8 12.5 46.0 38.4 6.8 37.7 3.3 48.0 4.4 3.9 LWL 34.4 47.5 49.0 4.6 55.1 7.8 4.0 3.3 52.5 7.9 4.8 8.7 4.9 4.0 35.3 8.1 44.5 13.0 374 419 438 408 449 290 4.3 44.5 12.6 41.3 4.6 11.2 45.4 10.1 75.7 56.8 57.1 3. Sail Area Disp.7 9.4 10.8 11.5 8.6 53. Hull contstruction Steel Steel Steel/Aluminium Steel/Aluminium Aluminium Composite Steel/Aluminium Aluminium Steel/Aluminium Steel/Aluminium Steel/Aluminium Aluminium Aluminium Steel Steel Steel/Teak Steel Steel/Aluminium Steel/Aluminium Steel/Aluminium Steel/Aluminium Steel/Composite Steel/Aluminium Steel/Aluminium Aluminium Aluminium Steel/Aluminium Steel/Aluminium Alloy/Aluminium Alloy/Aluminium Aluminium Aluminium Aluminium Aluminium Aluminium Aluminium Steel Aluminium Steel/Aluminium Aluminium Steel Composite Aluminium Steel Aluminium Date Built 1990 1995 1991 1991 1987 2003 1990 2003 1998 1995 1992 1992 1994 1998 2002 1986 1981 1990 2002 2001 1999 2000 1994 1995 1997 2002 2002 1988 1998 2000 2002 2002 2004 2004 2005 2004 2003 1983 1990 1994 2003 1999 2003 2004 2006 2006 2.5 44.1 9.2 3.0 3.2 8.2 9.1 9.3 52.8 50.2 12.2 4.0 41.2 35.0 49.5 77.3 3.4 9.6 9.6 38.9 5.4 11.1 10.8 49.1 10.8 1135 1135 371 423 57.2 79.4 3.6 14.4 11.1 2.4 40.4 92.3 10.6 37.2 3.0 4.4 41.2 49.4 8.9 5.0 46.9 41.0 49.2 10.4 7.3 10.8 3.5 11.0 7.9 47.8 3.9 88.0 5.8 3.8 7.7 9.9 8.2 9.7 10.4 8.8 1114 1114 1300 1180 1500 62.8 44.0 29.2 48.1 66.3 4.3 68.4 1019 371 4.9 46.0 9.0 50.9 10.8 8.3 54.0 43.Table 1 continued LOA 45.1 10.3 52.3 40.7 51.3 7.4 49.0 53.8 52.3 44.6 5.5 Draft 6.7 42.4 2.0 53.0 58.3 54.5 10.0 55.7 11.1 5.0 58.3 36.1 44.9 9.0 1245 457 No.6 49. Masts 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 Mast Ht.3 3.0 53.4 4.4 3.0 Beam 9.5 46.0 36.1 8.8 57.2 9.0 58.8 38.7 5.2 9.8 54.4 48.0 47.5 11.8 30.3 48.6 9.5 46.
metres 1985 1990 1995 Year Built 2000 2005 2010 Figure 2 Distribution of size within the fleet 50 45 40 Number of yachts 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 35-40 40-45 45-50 50-55 55-60 60-65 65-70 70-75 75-80 80-85 85-90 90-95 Length overall .metres 22 .Figure 1 Illustration of the size of yachts built in recent years 95 85 75 65 55 45 35 1980 Length Overall .
for fixed and lifting keel yachts 16 Fixed keel Lifting keel 14 Beam (m) 12 10 8 6 20 30 40 50 60 Waterline Length (m) 70 80 23 .Figure 3 Variation of displacement with length 1600 Fixed keel Lifting keel 1400 1200 Displacement (tonnes) 1000 800 600 400 200 0 0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000 300000 350000 Waterline Length Cubed (m^3) 400000 450000 500000 Figure 4 Variation of beam with length.
4 Lifting keel Fixed keel Beam/Waterline Length 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.0 20 30 40 50 60 Waterline Length (m) 70 80 Figure 6 Variation of beam squared/length ratio 4 Lifting keel Fixed keel Beam squared/Waterline Length 3 2 1 0 20 30 40 50 60 Waterline Length (m) 70 80 24 .Figure 5 Variation of beam/length ratio 0.
Figure 7 Variation of stability with length 3 GM (m) 2 1 0 20 1.5 Maximum GZ (m) 30 40 50 60 Waterline Length (m) 70 80 1.0 20 180 150 120 90 60 20 90 30 40 50 60 Waterline Length (m) 70 80 Range of Stability (degrees) 30 40 50 60 Waterline Length (m) 70 80 Downflooding Angle (degrees) 60 30 0 20 30 40 50 60 Waterline Length (m) 70 80 25 .0 0.5 0.
m) 10000 12000 14000 26 .Figure 8 Variation of the number of masts with length 4 Number of masts 3 2 1 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 Lwl (m) 60 70 80 90 100 Figure 9 Variation of main mast height with length 100 1 Mast 2 masts Main mast height (m) 75 3 masts 50 25 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 Lwl (m) 60 70 80 90 100 Figure 10 Variation of sail area with length 5000 1 Mast 4000 Sail Area (sq.m ) 3000 2000 2 Masts 3 Masts 1000 0 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 Lwl squared (sq.
2 0.0 0 10 20 30 40 50 Lwl (m) 60 70 80 90 100 Figure 13 Heeling moment coefficient variation with length Heeling moment coefficient 1.Figure 11 Heeling force coefficient variation with length Heeling force coefficient 2.0 Maximum for conventional rigs 0.0 0.4 0.5 0.6 Centre of effort height / mast height 0.0 0 10 20 30 40 50 Lwl (m) 60 70 80 90 100 27 .0 0 10 20 30 40 50 Lwl (m) 60 70 80 90 100 Figure 12 Centre of effort height variation with length 0.5 0.0 1.5 1.
5 0.0 Up Heeling force coefficient pe 1.0 Lift 1.0 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 Apparent wind angle (degrees) 135 150 165 180 28 .0 0.0 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 Apparent wind angle (degrees) 135 150 165 180 Figure 15 Variation of heeling force coefficient with apparent wind angle 2.5 Be r li st f it to mi to fd da a ta ta 1.5 0.5 Lift / drag coefficient Drag 1.0 Lo we r li mi to fd a ta 0.Figure 14 Typical lift and drag coefficients and their variation with apparent wind angle 2.5 2.
0 0.5 Fit to all 3 mast data 1.0 0.5 1.0 Fit to all 3 mast data Staysail schooner Square rigger Heeling force coefficient 1.5 0.0 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 Apparent wind angle (degrees) 135 150 165 180 Figure 17 Heeling force coefficient variation for 3 masted vessels with different rig configurations 2.0 Fit to all 1 mast data Fit to all 2 mast data Heeling force coefficient 1.0 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 Apparent wind angle (degrees) 135 150 165 180 29 .5 0.Figure 16 Heeling force coefficient variation with number of masts 2.
Figure 18 Sloop model used for maximum heeling moment tests 30 .
2.5 Using 45 deg settings Optimal (max drive) set 1. Sloop rig.0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Apparent wind angle (degrees) 140 160 180 Centre of effort (% mast height) 40 sails sheeted for 25deg sails sheeted for 45 deg performance data 30 20 10 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Apparent wind angle (degrees) 140 160 180 31 .Figure 19 Heeling force magnitude and centre for non-optimum sail settings.5 0.0 Sails stalled Optimal 25 deg data Optimal 45 deg data Using 25 deg setting Sails eased Heeling force coefficient 1.0 Sa i lo g ls f gi n g 0.
5 1. 3 masted rig.5 0.140 set 60.160 Optimum settings Original research (1989) test data Probable maximum by over sheeting Possible maximum with wind shift 2.50 set 125.Figure 20 Schooner model used for development of the Code requirements in 1989 Figure 21 Comparison of performance test data with those originally used to develop the Code. 70 .0 0 20 40 60 80 100 Apparent Wind Angle (degrees) 120 140 160 32 . 105 .95 set 150. 30 .80 set 75. 55 .0 0.0 Heeling Force Coefficient 1. Performance Test Data set 30. 90 .
5 GZ 26 knots wind 1.0 0.0 0 2.0 GZ 20 knots wind 0.0 10 20 30 40 50 Heel Angle Yacht B 60 70 80 90 Actual GZ curve Possible GZ curve 1.0 0 10 20 30 40 50 Heel Angle 60 70 80 90 33 .5 0.0 0 2.5 GZ 21 knots wind 1.5 29 knots wind 2.5 28 knots wind 1.0 0.5 Yacht A Actual GZ curve 0.5 37 knots wind 2.Figure 22 Wind speeds required to capsize yachts with a range of stability of 80 degrees 1.5 0.0 10 20 30 40 50 Heel Angle Yacht C 60 70 80 90 Actual GZ curve Possible GZ curve 1.
0 GZ Yacht C 80 knots wind 100 knots wind 1.5 37 knots wind 2.5 26 knots wind 1.0 60 knots wind 2.0 0 10 20 30 40 50 Heel Angle 60 70 80 90 34 .5 Actual GZ curve Possible GZ curve 3.5 0.0 0.Figure 23 The effects of increasing wind speed on the actual yacht C 3.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.