ABergeron ReportFINAL

SailboatMastDesign
LITERATURE REVIEW AND APPLICATION TO THE U20 CASE

BY : ALEXANDRE BERGERON ( 3784293 ) THESIS SUPERVISOR : DR. NATALIE BADDOUR MCG 4100 THESIS DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA APRIL 20TH, 2009
ABSTRACT The following is meant to be a review of sailboat mast design methods and their practical application. In the first portion, the EulerBernoulli beam theory, the P method, Skenes method and the Nordic Boat Standard are summarised and evaluated as design methods for masts. It was found that the Nordic Boat Standard represents the state of the art available in the public domain. In the second portion, the practical case of the Ultimate 20 racingyachtisreviewed.TheUltimate20hasshownatendencyforthemastfailingbybuckling at a stress concentration on the bottom of the mast, and several solutions have been brought forward to solve this issue. In order to quantitatively establish which configuration is best, this boatsmastwasmodelledaccordingtoEulerBernoullibeamtheoryandpracticallytestedusing strain gauges. The results of both the mathematical model and the practical testing show consistent results and trends. It was found that the best single solution to reduce the chances ofmastfailurewastheadditionofbabystays.
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS _Toc227999970 Abstract............................................................................................................................................ii ListofFigures ..................................................................................................................................vi ListofTables ...................................................................................................................................ix 1.0 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1
1.1HistoricalContext .................................................................................................................. 1 1.2ProblemDefinition ................................................................................................................ 2 2.0 LiteratureReview................................................................................................................. 3
2.1EulerBernoulliBeamTheory ................................................................................................ 3 2.2PMethod ........................................................................................................................... 5 2.3SkenesMethod..................................................................................................................... 6 2.4DesignStandards................................................................................................................... 7 2.4.1NordicBoatStandard(NBS) ........................................................................................... 7 2.5DesignMethodOverview.................................................................................................... 12 2.6LiteratureReviewConclusions ............................................................................................ 13 3.0 TheUltimate20 ................................................................................................................. 15
3.1Backgroundinformation ..................................................................................................... 15 3.2TypicalFailuresAndHypothesis.......................................................................................... 17 3.3U20ProposedSolutions ...................................................................................................... 18 3.3.1Backstay ........................................................................................................................ 18 3.3.2Babystays ..................................................................................................................... 19 3.3.3Combination ................................................................................................................. 20 3.4U20Modelling ..................................................................................................................... 21 iii
3.4.1ModelAssumptions...................................................................................................... 21 3.4.2ModelGeometryAndFreeBodyDiagrams.................................................................. 21 3.4.3StaticEquilibriumEquations......................................................................................... 26 3.4.4ModellingResults ......................................................................................................... 28 3.4.5ModellingConclusions.................................................................................................. 34 4.0TestingontheUltimate20 ..................................................................................................... 36 4.1TestingPlan ......................................................................................................................... 37 4.2PhysicalSetup...................................................................................................................... 38 4.2.1DependantOrMeasuredVariables.............................................................................. 38 4.2.2LoadingorControlledVariables ................................................................................... 41 4.3 TestResults .................................................................................................................... 43 InconclusiveData .................................................................................................... 44 StandardConfiguration........................................................................................... 45 Backstay .................................................................................................................. 48 BabyStay................................................................................................................. 51 BackstayandBabyStayCombination..................................................................... 53
4.3.1 4.3.2 4.3.3 4.3.4 4.3.5 4.4
ConclusionsAndRecommendations.............................................................................. 56
4.5FutureTesting ..................................................................................................................... 57 5.0Conclusions ............................................................................................................................. 58 5.1DesignMethodsandRealities............................................................................................. 58 5.2ModellingandTesting:SuggestedImprovements ............................................................. 59 5.3FutureWork ........................................................................................................................ 60 6.0Bibliography ............................................................................................................................ 61 7.0Appendices.............................................................................................................................. 62 iv
7.1RightingMoment................................................................................................................. 62 7.2StressConcentrations ......................................................................................................... 64 7.3LoostensionGauge ............................................................................................................. 66 8.0PrivateCommunicationsfromMr.Sheppard......................................................................... 67 8.1TestingPLan ........................................................................................................................ 67 8.2May14th2008TestingReport............................................................................................. 72 9.0SailboatAnatomy.................................................................................................................... 84 9.1Glossary ............................................................................................................................... 85
LIST OF FIGURES Figure21:ColumnSupportFactors(kfactors)(2) ........................................................................ 4 Figure22:Euler'sBucklingFormula(2) ......................................................................................... 4 Figure23:PEffect(4) ................................................................................................................. 5 Figure24:Skene'sMethod(3)....................................................................................................... 6 Figure25:RigClassification((3)figure11.2) ............................................................................... 8 Figure26:WorstCaseTransverseLoading((3)figure11.3) ........................................................ 9 Figure27:TransverseDimensioning((3)figure11.9) ................................................................ 10 Figure28:LongitudinalDimensioning((3)figure11.10)............................................................ 11 Figure31:Ultimate20(4)............................................................................................................ 15 Figure32:HalyardPassageStressConcentrations(5) ................................................................ 17 Figure33:U20BackstayArrangement(5)................................................................................... 18 Figure34:U20BabystayorHighWindKit(5) ............................................................................ 19 Figure35:BabyStayChainPlateMountings(5) ......................................................................... 20 Figure36:zxPlaneMastModel ................................................................................................. 22 Figure37:zyPlaneMastModel ................................................................................................. 23 Figure38:BoomInwardsat0DegreesandOutwardsat80Degrees ........................................ 24 Figure39:zxPlaneBendingMoment,OriginalConfiguration................................................... 28 Figure310:zyPlaneBendingMoment,OriginalConfiguration................................................. 29 Figure311:zxPlaneBendingMoment,BackstayConfiguration ............................................... 30 Figure312:zyPlaneBendingMoment,BackstayConfiguration ............................................... 30 Figure313:zxPlaneBendingMoment,BabyStayConfiguration.............................................. 31 Figure314:zyPlaneBendingMoment,BabyStayConfiguration.............................................. 32 vi
Figure315:zxPlaneBendingMoment,CombinedConfiguration............................................. 33 Figure316:zyPlaneBendingMoment,CombinedConfiguration............................................. 33 Figure317:ComparisonofBendingMomenttoBoomAngleattheCriticalLocation(0.8255m) ....................................................................................................................................................... 34 Figure41:DataAcquisitionLocations(5) .................................................................................... 37 Figure42:ExampleMastStrainGaugeArrangement(5)............................................................ 38 Figure43:MastStrainGaugePositions....................................................................................... 39 Figure44:ShroudStrainGauges(5) ............................................................................................ 39 Figure45:BabyStayStrainGauges(5)........................................................................................ 40 Figure46:ShroudTensioningScrew(5) ...................................................................................... 41 Figure47:BoomVangLoadCell(5)............................................................................................. 41 Figure48:SpinnakerLoadingSetup(5)....................................................................................... 42 Figure49:NonZeroedShroudGaugeVoltagesforCombinedConfiguration,BoomVangand SpinnakerLoaded.......................................................................................................................... 44 Figure410:StandardConfiguration,BoomVangLoaded ........................................................... 45 Figure411:TopGauges,StandardConfiguration,BoomVangLoaded ...................................... 46 Figure412:StandardConfiguration,BoomVangandSpinnakerLoaded................................... 47 Figure413:MiddleGauges,StandardConfiguration,BoomVangandSpinnakerLoaded......... 47 Figure414:BackstayConfiguration,BoomVangLoaded ........................................................... 48 Figure415:BottomGauges,BackstayConfiguration,BoomVangLoaded ................................ 49 Figure416:BackstayConfiguration,BoomVangandSpinnakerHalyardLoaded ...................... 50 Figure417:BabyStayConfiguration,BoomVangLoaded.......................................................... 51 Figure418:BabyStayConfiguration,BoomVangandSpinnakerLoaded.................................. 52 Figure419:MiddleGauges,BabyStayConfiguration,BoomVangandSpinnakerLoaded........ 52 Figure420:CombinedConfiguration,BoomVangLoaded ......................................................... 53 vii
Figure421:CombinedConfiguration,BoomVangandSpinnakerHalyardLoaded ................... 54 Figure422:TopGauges,CombinedConfiguration,BoomVangandSpinnakerHalyardLoaded ....................................................................................................................................................... 54 Figure423:CombinedConfiguration,BoomVangandSpinnakerHalyardLoaded ................... 55 Figure71:RightingMoment(10) ................................................................................................ 62 Figure72:StabilityCurve(3) ....................................................................................................... 63 Figure73:StressConcentrationFactorsforaRectangularBarinBending(11) ......................... 64 Figure74:StressConcentrationFactorsforaRoundBarinBending(11).................................. 64 Figure75:NBSMastHoleGuidelines(6)..................................................................................... 65 Figure76:LoosTensionGauge(5) .............................................................................................. 66 Figure91:AnatomyofaSailboat(11) ......................................................................................... 84
viii
LIST OF TABLES Table22:DesignMethodOverview ............................................................................................ 12 Table31:Ultimate20Specifications(4)...................................................................................... 16 Table32:MastModelMeasurements ........................................................................................ 24 Table33:MastModelAngles ...................................................................................................... 25 Table34:MastModelInputValues............................................................................................. 25 Table41:TestScenarios .............................................................................................................. 38 Table42:MeasuredVariables ..................................................................................................... 40 Table43:LoadingVariableSummary .......................................................................................... 42 Table44:StandardConfiguration,BoomVangLoaded .............................................................. 46 Table45:StandardConfiguration,BoomVangandSpinnakerHalyardLoaded......................... 48 Table46:BackstayConfiguration,BoomVangLoaded............................................................... 49 Table47:BackstayConfiguration,BoomVangandSpinnakerHalyardLoaded ......................... 50 Table48:BabyStayConfiguration,BoomVangLoaded ............................................................. 51 Table49:BabyStayConfiguration,BoomVangandSpinnakerLoaded ..................................... 53 Table410:CombinedConfiguration,BoomVangLoaded .......................................................... 54 Table411:CombinedConfiguration,BoomVangandSpinnakerHalyardLoaded..................... 55 Table412:PercentImprovement,BoomVangLoaded .............................................................. 56 Table413:PercentImprovement,BoomVangandSpinnakerHalyardLoaded......................... 56
ix
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 HISTORICAL CONTEXT

Forseveralthousandyears,sailpoweredcraftweretheprimarymeansfortrade,travel,warfare and exploration. Whether they are small river or lake boats used for fishing and local trade to the largest, steel clippers used for the tea trade in the latter part of the 19th century, all of these craft employ similar operating principles; aerodynamic lift, provided by sail made of fabric material. All of these vessels, regardless of their origin or sail configuration, require a structure to spread the sails themselves into their aerofoil shape. For the vast majority of cases, this is found to be in the shape of a single,ormultiplemasts,towhichsails,sparsandboomsareattached. With the advent of modern scientific and engineering processes, sailboat design and naval architecture in general remained a few steps behind. Indeed, with the advent of the steamship and further developments in propulsion, sails lost their role as prime mover for the worlds ocean shipping. This hindered development simply because the interest was nonexistent and the majority of the research and development was focused on commercial interests. Yachting, for a time, remained in the domain of wealthy or dedicated enthusiasts from various backgrounds. This remained true until the invention and widespread use of fibreglass as a hull construction material in the 1960s, when sailboats camewithinreach,pricewise,tothemoreaverageconsumer. Modern day yachts, in the vast majority, employ extruded aluminium alloy masts in their construction because it represents a good compromise for all of the above criterion as well as the ever so important issue of cost. Traditional designs, still in use today in many parts of the world, tend to use wooden masts and spars. Unfortunately, these traditional designs were never engineered into their shape, rather simply built using what was available and made strong enough to last for as long as possible. As of the present day, sailboat design can be divided into two major categories; recreational or cruising boats and racing boats. Although many of the top level racing boats employ composite masts, several onedesign classes and Olympic level classes remain with aluminium alloy masts. Some socalled superyachts employ steel masts, because of their large size. Thus, for the purpose of this study, only moderndesignsusingmoremodernconstructiontechniqueswillbeanalysedbutonlymastsmadefrom orthotropicmaterialswillbeconsidered.
1.2 PROBLEM DEFINITION

Masts are defined as a vertical member designed to hold up sails, aerials, radar equipment or some other device that needs to be kept high up. In the particular case of sailing vessels, masts are subject to a rather unique and specific set of design requirements in order to accomplish their function. Sailmastsarelong,slenderstructureswhich mustbeabletocarrythethrustloadsimposedonthemby the sails, which fluctuate constantly with the wind. Masts must also be capable of resisting the fatigue and creep caused by the environment in which they operate as well as impact loads generated by waves, operator error, collisions and the like. Unfortunately, several conflicting practical requirements impedethemastdesignerfromsimplycreatingalarge,rigidstructureakintoaradiotowerortelegraph pole; the need for a low center of gravity and light weight as well as aerodynamic efficiency considerations. These aerodynamic drag effects are known as windage. Experience also shows us that a flexible mast is desirable in order to tune, or adjust the sails shape to improve its effectiveness. The mastdesignermustthenconsolidatealloftheserequirementsintoacosteffectivepackage The present research is an attempt to determine the state of the art in design and analysis methodsforsailboatmasts.Assuch,severalmethodswillbediscussed: EulerBernoullibeamtheory Pbeamcolumndesign Skenesmethod NordicBoatStandard
The second part of this research is to try to apply these methods to a real world situation on the Ultimate 20 racing yacht, which have had some documented mast failures. In trying to determine whether or not the mast design is adequate, it will be compared with several possible solutions to solve themastissues.ThethirdandfinalpartisadiscussiononphysicaltestingconductedontheUltimate20 andtheeffectsofchangesinrigging.
2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW

Thefollowingrepresentswhatisstateoftheartintermsofmastdesignandanalysisprocedures.
2.1 EULER BERNOULLI BEAM THEORY

Thefollowinginformationisfrom(2). EulerBernoulli beam theory is the standard engineering approach to beamtype of problems; it was developed in the mid 18th century by Leonhard Euler and Daniel Bernoulli. In essence, it is a combination of Hookes law of elasticity and calculus methods in order to calculate the deflection or maximalloadsthatcanbeappliedtoabeam. Thebasisforthistheoryisanequationthatrelatesbeamdeflectiontoappliedload:
Where:xisthepositionalongthebeam uisthedeflectionofthebeam wisthedistributedloadalongthebeam Eistheelasticmodulusofthematerial Iisthemomentofinertiaofthecrosssectionofthebeam
Derivatives of the equation yield relationships between slope, bending moment and shear forcesinthebeam.Theserelationshipsalsoleadtotheconceptofstressesandstrainsinthebeam. As this type of beam theory is a well understood analysis tool, the only issue with applying it to sailboatmastsliesinproperlydefiningtheloadingconditions. Ausefuldevelopmentofthisbeamtheoryisitsapplicationtoexplainthebucklingphenomenon of columns. This is a linearization of a non linear phenomenon (2), as columns can buckle in several different manners according to their end conditions; these end conditions being given in Figure 21. Eulers buckling formula can be used to determine the required crosssection to withstand a given bucklingload

Figure21:ColumnSupportFactors(kfactors)(2)
Figure22:Euler'sBucklingFormula(2)
AsshowninFigure22,EulersformulaisrearrangedtodeterminetherequiredstiffnessEI,in ordertowithstandaknowncompressiveload.
2.2 P METHOD
Thefollowinginformationisfromchapter8of(4).
The P method was originally developed as an extension of the Euler buckling method for applications in civil engineering. It is used to analyse and design beamcolumns, which are defined as members in a structure that are subjected to both significant axial load and bending moments (4). As beams are usually considered to be subjected to negligible compressive loads and columns are subjectedtonegligiblebendingloads,thismethodisanattemptatcombiningthetwoloadingmodes.
Figure23:PEffect(4)
In Figure 23, a beamcolumn is loaded both in compression by Cf and laterally by a distributed loadqf.Attheends,amomentMfisalsopresent.Similartoabeam,theappliedloadsofqf,Mf1and Mf2 create first order moments in the member, illustrated here as Mo. These are calculated by solving for equilibrium in the undeformed beamcolumn. These loads also cause deformation of the member by a quantityv,whichisafunctionofpositionalongthebeam. Because of the compressive load Cf and the deformation of the member caused by the lateral loadsandmoments,additionalmomentsexistwhichcauseadditionaldeformationofthebeamcolumn. These additional moments are termed second order moments, because they would not be present in the beamcolumn in its undeformed shape. They are illustrated here as Cfv. These secondorder moments add to the total deflection of the member, which leads to additional second order moments. Eventually,thiseffectstabiliseswhenthefinaldeformedshapeisachieved. The P method should then be representative of the loading scenario on a mast where it is subjecttocompressiveloadingfromtheshroudsandlateralloadsfromthesailandswayingoftheboat. Atthistime,noapplicationofthismethodtoasailboatmasthasbeenfound.
2.3 SKENES METHOD

Thefollowinginformationisfromchapter11of(1) Skenes method is a combination of empirical factors, severely outdated since this method was originally published in 1904. There exist several variations, and it would appear that with each publication, certain factors are modified, added or removed. Several authors have also published re iterations of Skenes method by performing such modifications. It remains in essence the same in all its forms. Essentially,Skeneemploysthestaticmeasurementofthestabilityoftheyachtanditsbuoyancy givenintermsofarightingmoment.Thismomentisfurtherclarifiedinappendix7.1RightingMoment. The mast is assumed to be a single component (no concept of panels). The method essentially determines the maximal amount of compression present on the mast, regardless of how the shrouds or riggingissetup.
Figure24:Skene'sMethod(3)
Here, in Figure 24, we can clearly see empirical factors to compensate for the stays and greater heel angles. No information on exactly how these factors are determined could be found in the relevant literature. With a maximal compression, an Euler buckling analysis is then performed on the mast in order todetermineitsrequiredcrosssection.Thisfollowsthesameproceduredescribedinsection2.1.
2.4 DESIGN STANDARDS

As yacht design evolves, new standards as well as updated historical ones are continuously developed. These standards include Lloyds register, American Boat Standard, ISO, Bureau Veritas, Det Norske Veritas, Germanischer Lloyd and Nordic Boat Standard. In terms of sailing vessel mast design, onlytheNordicBoatStandard(NBS)providesamethodspecifictosailboatmastdesign. It is interesting to note that even the famed Lloydss register founded in 1834, with much historicaldatafromthewoodensailingshipera,doesnotprovideadesignstandardformastsandspars.
2.4.1 NORDIC BOAT STANDARD (NBS)

ThefollowinginformationisfromChapter11of(2). Anoutlineofthemethodisasfollows: Determinetherightingmomentat30degrees Identifytherigtypeaccordingtothechartsandnomenclature Applytheequationstofindtherequiredmomentofinertia Firstly, NBS begins by describing the type of craft to which it is applicable; small craft less than 15 metres, with a foresail area less than 1.6 times the mainsail area. Secondly, NBS states the nomenclature as to the type of rig, this being dependant on the number of spreaders (if any) and whetherornottheshroudsareattachedtothemasthead(topofthemast)ornot.Thisnomenclatureis clarifiedinFigure25.

Figure25:RigClassification((3)figure11.2)
In order to dimension the mast, the loading is based on the righting moment at 30 degrees of heel for the hull in question, for further details, see appendix 7.1 Righting Moment. This is determined by relating the buoyancy of the hull to its inherent stability. This value, in terms of a moment can then be related to the sail loading. Since sail loads are by their nature, varying according to the conditions, this is a design assumption. For design purposes, two worst case scenarios are applied, one with only a fullworkingheadsailandthesecondwithareefedmainsail.

Figure26:WorstCaseTransverseLoading((3)figure11.3)
This loading is then applied to the respective panels of the mast for both cases in order to determine their necessary moments of inertia in each of the transverse and longitudinal planes. The worst case transverse loading scenarios are shown in Figure 26. From these moments of inertia, a suitable mast crosssection can be chosen from what is commercially available or fabricated. This step forthetransverseprocessisdescribedinFigure27andthelongitudinalprocessinFigure28.
Figure27:TransverseDimensioning((3)figure11.9)
10

Figure28:LongitudinalDimensioning((3)figure11.10)
This approach does not however, directly address the issues of buckling, nor the fact that the mastloadingoriginatesatthesails;itishowever,themostthoroughinitialdesignmethodavailable.
11
2.5 DESIGN METHOD OVERVIEW

To allow the designer to select a mast design method, it is necessary to compare them for all of theiradvantagesanddisadvantages.ThisisdoneinTable21.
Table21:DesignMethodOverview
Method EulerBernoulli
Advantages Com m on and well underst ood Proven t o give accurat e result s Adapt able t o any t ype of design Mast s apply well t o Beam Colum n t heory St andards exist for m any m at erials Hist orically proven and in use for alm ost a cent ury Quick and sim ple Easily applied t o an init ial design Most m odern Considers t he m ast in panels Allows for t apered m ast designs Easy t o opt im ise t he solut ion
Disadvantages Requires accurat e loading input s Can be t edious t o calculat e all possible loading scenarios
P-
Never applied t o sailboat m ast s Requires known load input s
Skenes
Ent irely em pirical Not based on act ual sail loads Requires t hat t he hull shape already be reasonably det erm ined in order t o obt ain t he right ing m om ent Not based on sail loads Requires t hat t he hull shape already be reasonably det erm ined in order t o obt ain t he right ing m om ent I s only applicable t o t he st andard t ype of Berm uda rigs
Nordic Boat Standard
12
2.6 LITERATURE REVIEW CONCLUSIONS

Althoughseveralmethodsareavailabletotheyachtdesigner,alloftheseleavesomethingtobe desired. Primarily, all the methods described here lack a clearly defined link to sail loading, which is naturallywhatactuallycausesmastloadsinthefirstplace. The more traditional engineering approaches to beam or column design such as the Euler Bernoulli and P methods are sound in principle. They are well understood and, if the problem is defined correctly, yield fairly accurate results. Unfortunately, the issue with these is simple: How would a designer model the sail loads? These approaches are generic and not specialised; therefore they offer nosolutiontoloadmodelling.Itisuptothedesignertoresolvetheloading. Skenesmethodisamethodthatshowsitsagequiteclearly;whilesurelysatisfactoryatthetime of its original publication in 1904, it does not offer sufficient justifications for a great many of its underlying assumptions. At issue here are two coefficients, the 1.85 for rigging and the 1.5 for heel angles.Thesearegivenwithoutmuchjustificationandappeartobeinplacesimplybecausetheyalways have been and have always worked. In other refined versions of Skenes method, the same problem exists; without knowing the proper origin or impact of these coefficients, this method leaves very little roomforoptimisationofthedesign. The second point of contention with Skenes method is its oversimplification of the problem of mast design. It does little to account for different configurations in rigging and shrouds or mast tapers. There is no care taken to account for the sideways forces imparted on the mast by sails or dynamic effects of waves and so on. Everything is neatly summed up as a maximal compressive force which simply leads to a buckling analysis. In this sense, Skenes method is very limiting because the designer cannotoptimisehisorhermastdesign. TheNordicBoatStandard isthemostmodernapproachtomastdesignandtheonewhichmost resembles a modern design code used for engineering applications. It does appear to model the problem in a sufficient amount of detail to compare it with reality; concessions for rigging configurations, mast tapers, the panel concept and longitudinal and transverse loading scenarios. Unfortunately, the standard limits itself to Bermudan style sail plans, which although very common, are notuniversallyadopted. The assumption which relates Skenes method and the Nordic Boat Standard is the use of a 30 degree righting moment to define the loads imposed on the mast. No justification for this was found in any literature pertaining to Skenes method, and references on the Nordic Boat Standard say this: The startingpointwhendimensioningtherigistocalculatetherightingmoment.Itiscommonlyagreedthat a heel angle of 30o is a good design angle. This corresponds to a reasonably high wind strength with the sailsstillgeneratinghighloadsandtheboatmakinggoodspeedthroughthewater.Lettingtheboatheel over more....in reality means a slower boat owing to increased resistance, with a correspondingly smallerdynamicforce.(6).
13
Arightingmoment,inanutshellisastaticmeasurementmadeonaboatshull,givingameasureof its stability in still water. Although it can be made with calculation and verified with experimentation, the righting moment does not account for factors like movement, water resistance, hull planning, dynamicforces,windgusts,wavesoranythingelselikelytoaffectamast.Nojustificationwasfoundfor usingthemomentat30degreesofheelinganglesotherthanthecompletelyarbitraryjustificationgiven above. In practice, this could be any other angle the designer wishes to use. Most notably, the concept ofarightingmomentcannotbeusedtomodeltheloadsimpartedtothemastviatheuseofaspinnaker typesail.Thespinnakerisalargeparachutelikeheadsailthatisusedforsailingdownwind.Inparticular, the masts of the boat of interest to this discussion, the Ultimate 20, have been known to fail under spinnakerloading. In summary, it is clear that although much progress has been made in the last century in many aspects of sail boat design, there still exists a very large gap in the pool of public knowledge of mast design. Since the yachting industry is a very competitive one, ship designers tends to use their own, proprietary methods to ensure that their products offer safe and satisfactory performance. More to the point, no method exists to relate the aerodynamic loads of the sails, the dynamic effects of the boat motion and the many sail configurations possible. As a design problem, the tools exist to perform the designandanalysisofamast,butnomethodonhowtoaccuratelydeterminetheloadsonthemastisin thepublicdomain.
14
3.0 THE ULTIMATE 20 3.1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION

The Ultimate 20(U20),asshowninFigure31,isa modernonedesignsailingyacht designedby Jim Antrim of Antrim AssociatesNaval Architects (3). A onedesign yacht is exactly as the name implies, all of the yachts produced adhere to strict rules regarding their construction, maintenance, sail manufacture and modifications. These rules are then regulated by a class association, run by the owners. The whole idea behind the concept of a onedesign is to promote fair and even racing between boatowners.
Figure31:Ultimate20(4)
TheU20isalsodesignedtobeatowablevessel,meaningthatabasicrequirementofthedesign was to ensure easy installation and removal of the mast and rigging for towing purposes. As such, the mast is deckstepped, and all hardware is easily removed. The towing requirement also means that the whole assembly should be light enough to be easily handled by one or two people. The typical dimensionsofastandardU20isgiveninTable31,asspecifiedbythemanufacturer.
15

Table31:Ultimate20Specifications(4)
Specification LOA (length overall) LWL (length at water line) Beam (maximum width) Draft (board up / down) Displacement Ballast Jib Area Mainsail Area Spinnaker Area Year Introduced 20 10 18 8 6 9 / 5 1260 lbs 450 lbs 100 sq. ft . 205 sq. ft . 454 sq. ft . 1994
This is therefore, a fairly affordable high performance craft, capable of speeds approaching 20 knots.Itisalsofairlylight,whichminimisesriggingloads.Sinceitsintroductionin1994,over200vessels have been sold and sailed. Local to the Ottawa region, 6 registered boats operate in the area, with severalhailingfromtheNepeanSailingClub. Since 1994, Ultimate 20s have been successful both commercially and in their goal to be a fast towable sailboat; however, several mast failures have been reported in the last 15 years which bring up questionsregardingthesoundnessofthemastsdesign. The masts collapse is not a pleasant experience; it results in immediate loss of control, major damage to the expensive sails and can result in serious injury to crew members. It is therefore in the classs best interest to better understand the conditions which lead to the failures and how best to rectifytheproblem.
16
3.2 TYPICAL FAILURES AND HYPOTHESIS

Generally most reported failures, for which some information was available, occurred during high wind conditions, somewhere upwards of 20 knots. These failures occurred under various boom angles;whenreaching(withthewindperpendiculartothelengthoftheboat)orwhensailingdownwind (withthewindparalleltothelengthoftheboat,comingfromthestern). In all cases, masts broke at nearly the same point; where a hole is drilled into the side of the mastinorderforahalyardtopassthroughtothetop,seeFigure32.Thiscreatesastressconcentration along the port side of the mast, near the foot or base of it. For an explanation of stress concentration factorsandhowtheyrelatetomasts,seeappendix7.2StressConcentrations.
Figure32:HalyardPassageStressConcentrations(5)
This stress concentration is fairly high and localised; a single large hole for the halyards to pass through as well as four smaller holes housing rivets for the fixture. Most of the failures involved the failedmasttopplingovertothestarboardside,whichwouldsuggestthatthestressconcentrationfailed incompression.
17
3.3 U20 PROPOSED SOLUTIONS

In order to attempt to rectify the mast collapse problem, several trial solutions have been proposed and field tested by some U20 owners. None of these solutions are homologated by the class, thus are illegal to use in races and regattas. It would be in the best interest of the class association to homologate the use of an acceptable solution in order to rectify the problem, yet no scientific testing hasbeenundertakentovalidateanyoftheproposedsolutions.
3.3.1 BACKSTAY
OneofthepeculiaritiesoftheU20design,whichtendstoconflictwithtraditionalwisdomisnot to include a backstay in the original rigging design. A backstay is simply a cable attached to or near the top of the mast and running as far back to the stern as possible. This arrangement can however cause someinterferenceissueswiththemainsail.
Figure33:U20BackstayArrangement(5)
In order to avoid the interference issue, a socalled backstay crane, seen in Figure 33, is attachedtothetopofthemast.Thisenablesthecabletopassabovethemainsailandclearitunderany conditionsorboomangle. As previously mentioned, backstays are usually included in most modern yachts to counteract the strong pull forwards caused by the spinnaker sail which is usually attached in an opposite direction tothebackstay.
18
3.3.2 BABY STAYS

Baby stays are in fact, a small set of stays or shrouds, designed to minimise deflection at their attachment point. In practice, they are different to mast shrouds in that their attachment to the deck does not extend all the way to the edges of the vessel. This arrangement in practice adds another panel tothemast.
Figure34:U20BabystayorHighWindKit(5)
In the case of the U20, the idea behind the baby stay is to minimise the deflection of the mast nearthehalyardpassagestressconcentration.Itsinstallationisbyaddingchainplatefixturestothetop ofthedeckandusingthemainsailtracktomountthestaystothemast.Thisisasolutionofferedbythe manufacturer under the name High Wind Kit. A close up view of the baby stay arrangement can be seeninFigure34.Thisretrofitdoesrequiredrillingandmountingfittingsforthechainplatesinthehull, thesearevisibleinFigure35.
19

Figure35:BabyStayChainPlateMountings(5)
3.3.3 COMBINATION
The final proposed solution is to employ both the baby stays and the backstay together in unison.This wouldseeminglymakethemastmuch stifferand,atfirstglanceperformbetter.Inpractice however, this may simply force a mast failure to occur at another point instead of at the halyard passage.
20
3.4 U20 MODELLING

In order to simulate the problem presented by the Ultimate 20, it was decided to model the mast as a simple threedimensional beam problem, following EulerBernoulli beam theory principles. This will give results as to the maximum bending moments found at the critical location in the mast, namelywherethestressconcentrationatthehalyardpassagewayislocated. Since the bending moments are directly related to the stresses in the mast by a proportion that isrelatedtothegeometryofthebeam,thisissufficienttoestablishcomparisons. Globally, this will also permit a quantitative comparison between the different solutions as well aswithresultsfoundbythetestingdescribedinsection4.0.
3.4.1 MODEL ASSUMPTIONS

Mastismodelledasaconstantcrosssectionbeam. Considershroudsaspointloads. Geometrymeasurementsnotreadilyavailableinreferenceliteratureshallbeestimated. Although mast is keelstepped through the hull of the U20, we will consider it to be flush with thedeckandthismountingasapinnedconnection. 5. Theshroudsareslackonthesideoppositetheboomasthuscanbeneglected. 6. Moment caused by backstay crane attachment is ignored: the backstay is modelled as attached directlytothemast. 7. Compressive forces leading to additional stresses in bending (buckling) will not be directly considered. 1. 2. 3. 4. Inordertomaintainaconsistencywiththetestingperformed,themastmodelshallbeloadedin a similar fashion to the scenario described by the testing in section 4.2. Distributed sail loading will not beconsidered.
3.4.2 MODEL GEOMETRY AND FREE BODY DIAGRAMS

TheU20mastismodelledintwoplanes,thezxplaneandzyplanewiththebaseofthemastas theorigin.Thezaxisisdefinedastheverticalrunningalongthemast,theyaxisrunshorizontallytothe bow and the xaxis from the origin to the starboard side. All of the rig loads, mast base reaction forces andboomforcesareshowninFigure36andFigure37.
21

Figure36:zxPlaneMastModel
22

Figure37:zyPlaneMastModel
23
A table of the relevant dimensions is provided in Table 32, these were given in the literature in approximateinches.Formodellingpurposes,theconversiontoSIunitsisgiveninparentheses.Thebold valuesareestimates.
Table32:MastModelMeasurements
Location Shroud Upper Shroud (US) Top of Mast Baby Stay Spreaders Forestay Chain Plate Backstay Chain Plate
x-value inches (m) 47 (1.1938) 12 (0.3048) 12 (0.3000) -
y-value inches (m) 29.5 ( 0.7493) 18 (0.4575) 87.5 ( 2.2225) 160 (4.0640)
z-value inches (m) 315 (8000) 360.5 ( 9.1574) 32.5 ( 0.8255) 156 (3.9625) -
Inordertovarythemodelsimilarlytothetestingprocedure,theboomanglewillvarywithinthe model, from 0 to 80 degrees; this corresponds to the typical maximum and minimum angles permitted bytheboatssetup.Inordertobettervisualisethisangle,itisshowninFigure38.
Figure38:BoomInwardsat0DegreesandOutwardsat80Degrees
Thus,withaboomlengthof123inches(3.1242m),thexandycoordinateswillvaryineachplane accordingtothefollowingtrigonometricrelations:
xBoom = [sin(boom angle) ] LengthBoom
y Boom = [ cos(boom angle) ] LengthBoom
ThiswillimpacttheanglesofFboomaccordingtoasimilarrelation.Otheranglesofinterestforloadsin bothplanesaregiveninTable33.
24

Table33:MastModelAngles
Location top Upper Shroud (US) Lower Shrouds (LS) Baby Stay Forestay Spinnaker
(degrees) 85.75 77.29 85.67 69.74 -
(degrees) 83.53 85.79 83.41 66.07 75
3.4.2.1 LOADS
In order to obtain model results under similar loading conditions as those encountered during testing,theinputloadsaregiventhesamevaluesasthephysicaltestvaluesdescribedinsection4.2.2.
Table34:MastModelInputValues
Loading Upper Shroud Lower Shroud Spinnaker Halyard Boom Vang Boom Cable Boom Angle Gooseneck
Value 500 500 150 400 280 0 to 400 lbs lbs lbs N N 80 N ( 2225 N) ( 2225 N) ( 670 N)
degrees
The boom vang input is an average of the values encountered during the test. Also note that sincetheboomisconnectedtothemastbymeansofapinjointknownasagooseneck,theforceatthis joint in each plane varies according to boom angle. This force, along with boom cable force causes the goosenecktoapplyaforceonthemast,themagnitudeofwhichhasbeensetat400N. The boom cable force, using the law of levers has been approximated to 280 N, or roughly 70% ofthephysicalinputgiveninthetestscenarios.
25
3.4.3 STATIC EQUILIBRIUM EQUATIONS

Tosolvethemodelforthereactionforcesandtodeterminethebendingmoments,the followingstaticequilibriumequationswerederived.
3.4.3.1 Z X PLANE
Forcesummationinthexdirection:
Fus cos us + FLs cos Ls + R x + FBabystay cos Babystay FxGooseneck + FBoom cos Boom = 0
Sumofmomentsaboutthespreaders:
Rx zSpreaders FBabysStay cos BabyStay (z Spreaders zBoom ) = 0
FBoom cos Boom (z mast zspreaders ) + FUS cosTop (zUS zspreaders ) + FxGooseneck ( zSpreaders zBoom )
Sumofmomentsaboutthetopofmast:
FUS cos US (z mast zUS ) + FLS cos LS (z mast zSpreaders ) FUS (cos Top + cos US )(z mast zSpreaders ) + FBabyStay cos Boom (z mast zBabyStay ) + Rx zmast + FxGooseneck (z mast zBoom ) = 0
Sumofmomentsaboutthebaseofmast:
+ FBoom cos Boom zMast FxGooseneck z Boom = 0
FBabyStay cos BabyStay z Boom + FUS (cos Top + cos US ) FLS cos LS zSpreaders FUS cos Top zUS
3.4.3.2 Z Y PLANE
Forcesummationintheydirection:
FBackstay cos Backstay + FyGooseneck = 0
FForestay cos Forestay FUS cos US FLS cos LS Ry FBoom cos Boom + FSpinna ker cos Spinna ker
Sumofmomentsaboutthespreaders:
FBoom cos Boom FSpinna ker cos Spinna ker FForestay cos Forestay + FBackstay cos Backstay ( zmast zSpreaders ) + Ry zSpreaders + FyGooseneck ( zSpreaders zboom ) = 0
Sumofmomentsaboutthetopofmast
R y zmast = 0
FUS cos Top ( zmast zUS ) + FyGooseneck ( zmast z Boom ) + [ FUS cos US FLS cos LS ] ( z mast z Spreaders )
Sumofmomentsaboutthebaseofmast:
26
+ FBoom cos Boom FForestay cos Forestay FSpinna ker cos Spinna ker + FBackstay cos Backstay zmast FyGooseneck zBoom = 0
FUS (cos top + cos US ) FLS cos LS zSpreader + FUS cos US zUS
Theseequationswereinputtedtoacomputerspreadsheettofacilitatetherepetitive calculationsandtoallowforeasymodificationoftheinputvariables. As an output of these results, bending moments are suitable since they are proportional to stressesand,assuminglinearlyelasticmaterialbehaviour,proportionaltostrains. Frombasicrelations,assumingarectangularbeam:
Mc and = E I Where:
:stress :strain E: elastic modulus I: cross-sectional moment of inertia c: distance from the neutral axis
Wecanobtainaproportionalcoefficientbetweenbendingmomentandstrain.
Mc EI For the model at hand, this information is not known or measured with enough certainty. For instance, the type of aluminium alloy or moment of inertia of the mast is unknown. Instead of incorporating additional factors in the calculations, pure bending moments will be suitable to establish trends.
27
3.4.4 MODELLING RESULTS

The following section illustrates bending moment diagrams calculated with the model. These shouldrevealtheimpactofeachsolutiononthetendencyofthemasttodeform.
3.4.4.1 ORIGINAL CONFIGURATION

The original configuration model, which omits the baby stays and backstays, was analysed for 5 different boom angles; these are 0, 15, 45, 60 and 80 degrees. This is shown in Figure 39 and Figure 310forbothorthogonalplanesofinterest.
Figure39:zxPlaneBendingMoment,OriginalConfiguration
28

Figure310:zyPlaneBendingMoment,OriginalConfiguration
In both planes, we can see the 4 critical locations. These are the boom (gooseneck) (0.8255 m), spreaders (3.9624 m), upper shroud (8 m) and the top of the mast (9.1567 m). Since the boom angle varies,wecanseeanincreaseofthebendingstressesatthislocationinthezxplanewithanincreasein theboomangle.Inversely,thisphenomenonisalsopresentinthezyplane,wherethebendingstresses decreaseastheboomangleincreases. Interestingly, the change is boom angle seems to make little difference to the bending moment in the upper portions of the mast in both the zx and zy planes. This is likely due to the fact that in this part of the mast, the major portion of the loading is from the pretensioned shrouds, which are not varied,ratherthantheboomswinging. The relatively lower magnitude bending stresses imply that the mast is not as well constrained asinothercasesandthusmoreabletodeformfreely.
29
3.4.4.2 BACKSTAY CONFIGURATION

Thebackstayconfigurationmodel,whichomitsonlythebabystays,wasanalysedfor5different boomangles.ThisisshownFigure311andFigure312forbothorthogonalplanes.
Figure311:zxPlaneBendingMoment,BackstayConfiguration
Thebackstaysolutionshowsabsolutelynochangetothatofthe originalconfigurationinthezx plane. This can easily be explained by the fact that the backstay itself generates no force component in thezxplane.
Figure312:zyPlaneBendingMoment,BackstayConfiguration
30
Where the backstay does show an impact is on the zy plane, the bending moment is actually reduced at the base of the mast. This means that a large portion of the forces that were applied to the baseofthemastinthezyplanearenowredistributedtothebackstay. Again for this scenario, in a manner similar to that of the original configuration, the boom angle has no impact of the magnitude of the bending moment in the upper portions of the mast, above the spreaders.Thereasonforthisisthesame;the boomloadatthe topisminimal compared totheshroud pretensions.
3.4.4.3 BABY STAY CONFIGURATION

The baby stay configuration model, which omits only the backstay, was analysed for 5 different boomangles.ThisisshowninFigure313andFigure314forbothorthogonalplanes.
Figure313:zxPlaneBendingMoment,BabyStayConfiguration
Inthezxplane,theimpactofthebabystaysisvisiblebytheincreasedbendingmomentsinthe lower portions of the mast. Since the baby stay forces act at the stress concentration (0.8255 m), this is where the increase takes place. This force also affects the moments at the base of the mast, since the baby stay force is counterbalanced by the base. There is a large change at these two locations (0 m and 0.8255m)whencomparedtotheoriginalconfiguration.
31
Figure314:zyPlaneBendingMoment,BabyStayConfiguration
The baby stay solution shows no change in the zy plane and is identical in this respect to the original configuration. This is logical, since the baby stays physically only act in the zx plane and add no additionalforcecomponentstothemodelinthezyplane.
32
3.4.4.4 COMBINED CONFIGURATION

Thecombinedconfigurationmodelwasanalysedfor5differentboomangles.Thisisshownin Figure315andFigure316forbothorthogonalplanes.
Figure315:zxPlaneBendingMoment,CombinedConfiguration
Figure316:zyPlaneBendingMoment,CombinedConfiguration
Bytheverynatureofthissolution,itcombinestheelementsfromboththebabystaysandthe backstay.Sincethebabystayonlycontributestotheoverallbendingmomentinthezxplane,the combinedsolutionpossessesthesamebendingmomentcurveinthezxplane.Similarlyforthe
33
backstay,sinceitonlycontributestotheoverallbendingmomentinthezyplane,thecombined solutionpossessesthesamebendingmomentcurveinthezyplane.
3.4.5 MODELLING CONCLUSIONS
Figure317:ComparisonofBendingMomenttoBoomAngleattheCriticalLocation(0.8255m)
Keepinginmindthatthegoalistominimisethepossibilityofabucklingfailureofthemastat thestressconcentrationpresentatthehalyardpassageway,eachsolutionmustbecomparedastoits abilitytoprovidemaximumsupportforthemastatthislocation.ThiscomparisonisshowninFigure 317,wherethebendingmomentatthestressconcentration(0.8255m)isplottedinboththezxandz yplanesforeachtrialboomangle.Whatthisessentiallyillustratesisthattheonlysolutionactually affectingtheresultsatthislocationisthebabystaysolution. Sinceithasalreadybeenestablishedthatthebackstayhasnoimpactwhatsoeverinthezx plane,itisevidentthatthereshouldonlyexisttwovariationsofthezxcurveinFigure317.Theseare
34
theoriginal/backstayzxcurve,andthebabystay/combinedzxcurve.Incontrast,nosolutionhasan impactonthezyplaneatthestressconcentration;thereforeallthezycurvesaresimilarineach scenario. Thisimpliesthatifthegoalissimplytobetterconstrainthemasttopreventbucklingatthis criticallocation,thebabystaysolutionistheonlyonewhichcanaccomplishanyimprovement. Aswhole,thissimplifiedmodeldoesleaveroomforimprovement.Severalmodificationsor changescouldbemadethatwouldimprovetheaccuracyofthemodel: 1. Truesailloadscouldbeconsideredintheformasadistributedloadalongthelengthofthe mast. 2. Compressionalongthemastcouldbeconsideredand,withtheappropriatedataonelastic modulusandmomentofinertia,bucklingcouldbeaccountedfor. 3. Anotherforcecouldbeaddedtosimulatejibtension. 4. Additionaldegreesoffreedomcouldbeaddedforthedifferentsailforcemagnitudesand theirvariouspossibleorientations. 5. Masttaperandrakecouldbeconsidered.
Theseimprovementswouldindeedleadtobetterunderstandingofthemastbehaviourunder certainloadingconditions. Aswithallmodels,theissueremainswhatvaluestoinputtothemodel.Inthiscase,this modelwassetupinparallelwiththetestconditionsconsideredinsection4.0Testingonthe Ultimate20.Inordertosimulatereality,severalmeasurementsremainunknown.Theseare: 1. Actualmainsailforcemagnitude,distributionandorientation. 2. Compressioncausedonthemastbythesail. 3. Spinnakertensionandorientationonitshalyard. 4. Jibtensiononforestay. Asadesigntool,thisismodelislimitedtothedesignersabilitytosuccessfullypredict theloadingconditionsimposedonthemast,whichremainslimited.
35
4.0 TESTING ON THE ULTIMATE 20

Inthesummerof2008,anUltimate20ownerandengineer,Mr.VanSheppard,decidedtoperform some experimental tests on his boat in order to determine what solution is best in order to prevent future mast failures and to better understand the effects of the forces at play. These results would then be distributed to the class association in order to initiate the steps needed to modify the rules and achieve a solution to prevent future mast failures. The objectives are specified here by Mr. Sheppard, (notethatHWKreferstothehighwindkitorbabystays): 1. TounderstandtheloadsexperiencedbyaU20mastwhenthespinnakerhalyardishighly loaded,thevangisalsoloadedandtheboomisallowedtomoveoutfromthecenterlineofthe boat. 2. TounderstandhowtheHWKhelpstoimprovetheloadsexperiencedbyaU20mastwhen testedunderthesameconditionsdescribedinItem1above. 3. TounderstandhowabackstayhelpstoimprovetheloadsexperiencedbyaU20mastwhen testedunderthesameconditionsdescribedinItem1above. 4. TounderstandhowacombinationoftheHWKandaBackstayhelpstoimprovetheloads experiencedbyaU20mastwhentestedunderthesameconditionsdescribedinItem1above. This testing should also allow for a decent idea of the deflection involved under controlled conditions and enable a valid comparison with any mast design model. At the very least, this would allowanobjectiveandquantifiablecomparisonbetweenalloftheproposedsolutions.
36
4.1 TESTING PLAN

In order to accomplish the goals set forth, a series of strain gauges would be attached to the mastinwhatwerethoughttobecriticallocations.Severalgaugesshouldalsobeusedonthefittingsfor the shrouds in order to determine the loads on the shrouds. Load cells should be used to measure the input loads at the boom vang and spinnaker halyard. This should give an accurate picture of the deflectionsinvolved.ThedesiredarrangementispresentedinFigure41.
Figure41:DataAcquisitionLocations(5)
Note that this diagram includes the backstay and baby stays. The tests would be repeated without them, using them individually and in combination in order to establish a proper comparative basis.
37
Thetestcasesareasfollows:
Table01:TestScenarios
Test Number 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Support Configuration St andard Configurat ion St andard Configurat ion St andard Configurat ion Backst ay Backst ay Baby St ay Baby St ay Com bined Com bined
Boom Vang Loaded No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Spinnaker Halyard Loaded No No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes
Original documentation pertaining to testing setup is found in appendix 8.0 Private CommunicationsfromMr.Sheppard.
4.2 PHYSICAL SETUP 4.2.1 DEPENDANT OR MEASURED VARIABLES

A test setup using strain gauges was implemented by Mr. Sheppard and measurements recorded. The strain gauges were mounted on the sides of the mast as near as possible to the centerline.Thisimpliesthatvaluescouldbeobtainedtomeasuresidetosidedeflectionsbutnothingon thebowtosternplane.
Figure42:ExampleMastStrainGaugeArrangement(5)
38
In Figure 42, we can clearly see the mast track, which would be facing aft and the gauges positioned on the port (not visible) and starboard side of the mast. This arrangement was first positioned at the center point of the lower and upper panel indicated in Figure 43 by the two green arrows.
Figure43:MastStrainGaugePositions
More gauges were then installed at the critical location where the stress concentration is located, this againinasimilarfashiontothosementionedabove. Tomeasuretheshroudtensions,gaugeswereinstalledonthefittingsnearthechainplates;this was done for the upper and lower shrouds. These fittings are designed to allow the cables to move and pivotwithoutwearingthem,inamannersimilartoauniversaljointusedonashaft.Thegaugesneeded to be mounted to the fittings because mounting them on the cables was not possible using this type of instrument.
Figure44:ShroudStrainGauges(5)
In order to obtain data on the proposed solutions, a strain gauge was placed on the backstay block, in a similar fashion to those on the shroud fittings. This should measure the relative amount of load placed on the backstay. These shroud strain gauge placements are visible in Figure 44 and indicatedbythegreenarrows.
39
Finally, another pair of strain gauges was installed on the baby stay fittings as in Figure 45. These were aligned as best as possible with the cable orientation and glued to the baby stay fitting mountedtothemasttrack.
Figure45:BabyStayStrainGauges(5)
Tosummarise,themeasuredvariablesforallthetestsareasfollows:
Table02:MeasuredVariables
Measured Variable Top Mast Port Top Mast Starboard Middle Mast Port Middle Mast Starboard Bottom Mast Port Bottom Mast Starboard Upper Shroud Fitting Port Upper Shroud Fitting Starboard Lower Shroud Fitting Port Lower Shroud Fitting Starboard Backstay Fitting Baby Stay Fitting Port Baby Stay Fitting Starboard
Testing Method St rain St rain St rain St rain St rain St rain St rain St rain St rain St rain St rain St rain St rain Gauge Gauge Gauge Gauge Gauge Gauge Gauge Gauge Gauge Gauge Gauge Gauge Gauge
40
4.2.2 LOADING OR CONTROLLED VARIABLES

In order to simulate conditions of heavy air, where the sailor would likely increase the tension on the mast shrouds in order to prevent over deflection of the mast, the tensions on the shrouds were increased to a fairly high level. The Ultimate 20 has recommended shroud tension settings of 600 lbs (2670 N) in the upper shroud and 500 lbs (2225 N) in the lower shrouds for heavy air (6). In practice, tensioningoftheshroudsindonebymeansofagraduatedtighteningscrewattheendoftheshroudas shown in Figure 46. These were set to what is considered a high level. Experimentally, this was measured with a Loos tension gauge, details of which are shown in appendix 7.3 Loos tension Gauge. For this test, the tension was set at about 500 lbs (2225 N). It is important to note that this was not changedduringtesting.
Figure46:ShroudTensioningScrew(5)
As mentioned in the testing plan, the intended inputs are the spinnaker halyard and the boom vang. Since only one loadcell sensor was available, it was decided to install it on the vang. This device measures the tension in the cable and this is regulated by a pulley system incorporated into the rigging used during sailing. This systems function was not modified in any way from the original setup except fortheadditionoftheloadcell,whichisvisibleinFigure47.
Figure47:BoomVangLoadCell(5)
41
Tocompensateforthelackofasecondloadcell,theLoostensiongaugewasonceagainusedto determine the tension on the spinnaker halyard. To provide the loading on the cable itself, an improvised setup using another boat trailers winching mechanism and an extended cable was devised. The other winching mechanism was positioned in line with the bow to stern axis on the U20, at a sufficient distance to simulate the ordinary angle of the spinnaker halyard. This is shown in Figure 48 with the halyard highlighted in red for clarity. For testing purposes, the spinnaker tension was kept constantatapproximately150lbs(670N).
Figure48:SpinnakerLoadingSetup(5)
The final variable is the boom angle, since no way was provided to accurately measure it, the boomwouldbegraduallyswungfromitscenterpositionuptoitsoutermostposition;restingagainstthe uppershroud.Thisshouldrepresentthefullmotionoftheboomduringsailing.
Table03:LoadingVariableSummary
Loading Variable Upper Shroud Lower Shroud Spinnaker Halyard Boom Vang Load Cell Boom Angle
Loading Method Tensioning screws Tensioning screws I m provised winch and cable St andard pulley syst em Manual rot at ion
Value 500 lbs ( 2225 N) 500 lbs ( 2225 N) 150 lbs ( 670 N) Dependant on angle Cent erline t o upper shroud int erference
42
4.3 TEST RESULTS

In all tests, the strain gauges output raw data as voltages. These voltages could not be converted to strains without having more information as to the manufacturer and model. This would include the strain gauge conversion constant, as given in manufacturer literature. As the information on the gauges themselves is not known, only relative deformation can be measured in terms of the magnitude of the voltagesineachtest. The test runs all follow a similar procedure. When the run begins, the boom is centered in the bow to stern plane. Then, it is gradually swung outwards as far as possible, the limiting factor being the locationoftheuppershroud.Subsequently,itisreturnedtoitsoriginalposition.Inallcases,theslopeof thecurveisindicativeofthespeedatwhichtheboomisswung. The magnitude of the voltage is directly related to the strain in the mast at the gauges location. A positivevoltageindicatesacompressivestrainwhereasanegativevoltageindicatesatensilestrain. For the purposes of interpreting this data, it has been referenced to a baseline run, in order to zero thedataproperly. Initial analysis was also performed by Mr. Sheppard, focusing primarily on the spinnaker loaded tests,theseresultsandhisinterpretationcanbefoundin8.2May14th2008TestingReport.
43
4.3.1 INCONCLUSIVE DATA

The data registered by the strain gauges installed on all the shroud and backstay fittings was inconclusive. In practice, the data indicate so little change in voltages that no useful trend could be ascertained. This is due to the construction of the stainless steel fitting itself. As most marine fittings tend to be oversized to account for wear and corrosion present in the environment, the actual deflectionofthefittingwasminimal. As an example of this, Figure 49 shows the raw data for shroud strain gauges in the combined configuration.Thisdatahasnotbeenzeroedwithafixedreference.
Figure49:NonZeroedShroudGaugeVoltagesforCombinedConfiguration,BoomVangandSpinnakerLoaded
Astimepasses,theboomisswungfromthecenterlineouttosideuntilithitstheuppershroudandthen back to the centerline. It is clear that, for the duration of the test, there is only noise present at these sensorsandnochangeisperceptible.Similarresultsoccuratthesesensorsduringalltestruns.
44
4.3.2 STANDARD CONFIGURATION

These two tests are essential in determining a benchmark with which to compare all the other scenarios.Factorsofimportanceinthiscasearethemagnitudesofthevoltages,astheywillquantifythe effectivenessofalltheotherproposedsolutions.
4.3.2.1
BOOM VANG LOADED
TheresultsofthetestwiththeboomvangloadedareshowninFigure410.
Figure410:StandardConfiguration,BoomVangLoaded
By order of magnitude, the voltages are highest for the bottom gauges: this is expected as the strain should be increasing from top to bottom along the mast. The strains are also non symmetric, the compression (positive voltage) on the starboard side being roughly half of the magnitude of the tension (negativevoltage). Initially, from 0 to 20 seconds, there is a tensile strain present when the boom is along the centerline.Themagnitudeofthestrainmeasuredbythegaugesisminimalatsmallboomangles,uptoa critical point, shown at roughly 50 seconds. This is because the boom loading is gradually being transferredtotheplaneofthegauges. The data also presents interference, or noisy behaviour; this is an indicator of the vibrations presentinthemast.
45

Figure411:TopGauges,StandardConfiguration,BoomVangLoaded
The strain along the top gauges, seen in Figure 411 remains nearly constant throughout the test. At approximately 75 seconds, when the boom is completely swung outwards, the strain is marginallyreduced.Thiswouldsuggestthat,forthetoppanel,thestiffnessismuchhigherintheportto starboardplane. Bothtopgaugesindicatethepresenceofatensileloading;thisiscounterintuitiveandthisresult is present for all tests. There are several possible explanations to this. The first possibility is that the mastisprestressedintension,butthisisunlikelybecausealltheshroudsaffectingthetoparecausinga compression. The second possibility is that the baseline test run was not accurate, thus resulting in an incorrect zeroing value. The final possible explanation is that the gauges are not on the neutral fibre of the mast on the port to starboard plane. Since the mast is being deformed in the bow to stern plane thenthiscouldresultintensionmeasuredatthetopgauges. To summarise these test results, the values when the boom is at its most outward position are giveninTable04:
Table04:StandardConfiguration,BoomVangLoaded
Gauge Top Port Top Starboard Middle Port Middle Starboard Bottom Port Bottom Starboard
Direction Tension Tension Tension Com pression Tension Com pression
Voltage - 0.101 - 0.165 - 0.465 0.124 - 0.437 0.208
46
4.3.2.2 BOOM VANG AND SPINNAKER HALYARD LOADED

The results of the test with the boom vang and spinnaker halyard loaded are shown in Figure 412.
Figure412:StandardConfiguration,BoomVangandSpinnakerLoaded
These results show a similar behaviour to the previous test, in fact, one would expect that the effect of the spinnaker should not change the values registered by these gauges as it acts in a completelydifferentplanetothatofthegauges. In practise however, the spinnaker has a large impact on the values of the top set of gauges, roughly doubling the voltage from the previous test. Also of great interest are the changes occurring to inthemiddlesetofgauges,showninFigure413.
Figure413:MiddleGauges,StandardConfiguration,BoomVangandSpinnakerLoaded
Thesecurves showthatthecompressiononthestarboardgaugehashalvedandyetthetension on the port gauge is increased. A possible explanation for this is that the mast is significantly deflected forwardbythetensiononthespinnaker,andthisalsocausessignificantstretchintheshrouds.Onceout ofposition,althoughthetotalloadingonthemasthasactuallyincreasedfromtheprevioustestwithout
47
the spinnaker halyard loaded the compression on the starboard face decreases. It is likely that the compressionisjusttransferredtoanotherfaceofthemast,inthiscasetheforwardfacingone. AsummaryofthetestresultsatthemostoutwardboompositionisgiveninTable05:
Table05:StandardConfiguration,BoomVangandSpinnakerHalyardLoaded
Voltage - 0.204 - 0.292 - 0.554 0.051 - 0.523 0.143
4.3.3 BACKSTAY
Since the backstay is primarily intended to counteract the effects of the spinnaker, it should not impact results too much for the boom vang only test. Inversely, since it acts directly in plane with the spinnaker halyard, one expects that it will tend to keep the mast straight and minimise deformation in thebowtosternplane,butincreasecompressiveloads.
4.3.3.1 BOOM VANG LOADED

Figure414:BackstayConfiguration,BoomVangLoaded
Inthisscenario,thebackstayhashadafairlysignificantimpactonthedistributionofstresseson the mast. For the top portion, in the port to starboard plane, the tension at these gauges is severely diminished, likely due to the increase overall compression at this point, when compared to the boom vangonlytestintheoriginalconfiguration.Thisisfurtherconfirmedbythefactthatforboththemiddle and bottom gauges, there is an increased compression on the starboard gauges and decreased tension ontheportones.TheresultsforthebottomgaugesareshowningreaterdetailinFigure415.
48

Figure415:BottomGauges,BackstayConfiguration,BoomVangLoaded
Note that the spike present at 85 seconds is an anomaly, and not indicative of any special circumstancesofeffects.Itisprobablytheresultofthetestoperatorknockingtheboom. Theresultsofthistest,whentheboomisintheoutwardpositionareshowninTable06:
Table06:BackstayConfiguration,BoomVangLoaded
Voltage - 0.009 - 0.073 - 0.378 0.214 - 0.353 0.286
49

Figure416:BackstayConfiguration,BoomVangandSpinnakerHalyardLoaded
For this test, in comparison with the original configuration, there is a general reduction in the tensile loading of the starboard side while showing an increase in the compressive loading of the port side. The top gauges show a significant decrease of loads as theirvoltages are roughly a quarter of their previousvalues. The gauges showing compression; middle and bottom starboard side indicate that compression at these has approximately doubled while the tensile values of the middle and bottom port side have shownamarginalreductionofabout0.1volts. TheresultsofthistestaresummarisedinTable07.
Table07:BackstayConfiguration,BoomVangandSpinnakerHalyardLoaded
Voltage - 0.050 - 0.134 - 0.420 0.181 - 0.432 0.245
50
4.3.4 BABY STAY

The baby stays act at the location of the bottom gauges, essentially to reduce the sideways deflectionatthispoint.Assuch,weexpecttoseeareductionofthevoltagesforthesegauges.

Figure417:BabyStayConfiguration,BoomVangLoaded
Thebabystayconfigurationdoesindeedshowamarkedimprovementonthestrainsmeasured. A consistent reduction in the magnitude of both the compressive and tensile measurements for all gauges is present, this being greatest from the bottom gauges upwards. This configuration also outperformsthebackstayconfigurationintheporttostarboardplane. Also note the presence of an apparent tension from 0 to 25 seconds in the middle port side gauge and this is apparent in other tests involving the baby stays. The fact that compression is minimal suggeststhatthemastisbentbythepretensioningofthestays. AsummaryoftheloadswhentheboomisintheoutwardspositionisgiveninTable08:
Table08:BabyStayConfiguration,BoomVangLoaded
Voltage - 0.036 - 0.029 - 0.256 0.109 - 0.220 0.156
51

Figure418:BabyStayConfiguration,BoomVangandSpinnakerLoaded
Once again, the baby stay configuration causes a large reduction in the strains. For the top gauges, the strains are almost negligible, and show a clear improvement from the original and backstay configurations.
Figure419:MiddleGauges,BabyStayConfiguration,BoomVangandSpinnakerLoaded
It is interesting to note that the results for the middle gauges, in Figure 419, from 0 to 20 seconds when the boom is along the centerline of the boat indicate a tension present on the starboard side,similartoothertestsinvolvingthebabystays. 09. The test results of this test, when the boom is at the outward position are summarised in Table
52

Table09:BabyStayConfiguration,BoomVangandSpinnakerLoaded
Voltage - 0.039 - 0.006 - 0.272 0.125 - 0.231 0.191
4.3.5 BACKSTAY AND BABY STAY COMBINATION

Duringthesetestrunsitisexpectedtoseetheeffectofthebackstayandbabystaysfunctioning inconcerttogivethebestresults

Figure420:CombinedConfiguration,BoomVangLoaded
This test presents the most consistent reduction of compressive strains under the boom only loading case. As such, this is the most effective combination to minimise sideways movement of the mast. This scenario also yields the largest magnitude voltages for the top pair of gauges. This is attributedtothepresenceofabackstaypretensionandnospinnakerhalyardload. Theresultsofthistest,whentheboomisinthemostoutwardpositionaresummarisedinTable 010.
53

Table010:CombinedConfiguration,BoomVangLoaded
Voltage - 0.127 - 0.116 - 0.330 0.033 - 0.272 0.084

Figure421:CombinedConfiguration,BoomVangandSpinnakerHalyardLoaded
Figure422:TopGauges,CombinedConfiguration,BoomVangandSpinnakerHalyardLoaded
Almost no deflection is measured on the port to starboard plane in Figure 422 for the top pair ofgauges,regardlessofboomangle,whichshouldvarybetween20and60seconds.
54

Figure423:CombinedConfiguration,BoomVangandSpinnakerHalyardLoaded
The effect of the baby stays while the boom is at the centerline is to keep the mast at zero deflection. The results seen in Figure 423 showing the readings for the bottom gauges is what is expected of properly pretensioned baby stays. The reason why this test showed no initial error in the pretensioningofthebabystaysisunclear. The results for this test, when the boom is in the outward position are summarised in Table 011:
Table011:CombinedConfiguration,BoomVangandSpinnakerHalyardLoaded
Voltage - 0.001 - 0.002 - 0.213 0.142 - 0.191 0.186
55
4.4 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

To summarise the results, they are displayed in Table 012 and Table 013 as average percent improvements as compared to the baseline tests. A negative value indicates that the solution worsened thestrainsataparticulargauge.
Table012:PercentImprovement,BoomVangLoaded
Gauge Top Port Top Starboard Middle Port Middle Starboard Bottom Port Bottom Starboard Tension Tension Tension Com pression Tension Com pression
Percent Voltage Reduction (%) Backstay reduction 90 55 18 - 72 20 - 38 Baby Stay 64 82 45 12 50 25 Combined - 20 42 41 276 60 148
Table013:PercentImprovement,BoomVangandSpinnakerHalyardLoaded
Gauge Top Port Top Starboard Middle Port Middle Starboard Bottom Port Bottom Starboard Tension Tension Tension Com pression Tension Com pression
Percent Voltage Reduction (%) Backstay reduction 76 54 24 - 255 17 - 71 Baby Stay 81 98 51 - 145 56 - 34 Combined 20 300 14 500 160 - 64 174 - 23
Bearing in mind that the main goal is to reduce the compression at the bottom port side gauge where the stress concentration is present on the mast, the best apparent solution is the combination of thebabystaysandbackstay. Physically,thebabystaywasthebestsinglemodificationtoincreasethestiffnessofthemastin theporttostarboardplane.Thisisnosurprisesincethebackstayandspinnakerdonotactinthisplane. Their effect is however obvious, they increase overall compression on the mast and, combined with the sail adding to the total deformation favour buckling. These small stays address the problem directly by limitingthedeflectionsatorneartheproblemarea. The backstay does also serve to increase mast stiffness and resistance to buckling, but in another plane to the baby stays. In actuality, the backstay increases compressive deflection at the criticalareaanddoesnotrepresentagoodsolutiontothebucklingissueatthestressconcentration. Globallyhowever,whentakingintoaccounttheenormousvariabilityofloadingconditionsonan actualmastcausedbywaves,boatmotion,windgustsandtheenvironment,itisbestforthemasttobe as well supported as possible. This would indicate that it is preferable for the U20 Class Association to homologateboththebabystays(HighWindKit)andpermittheuseofabackstay.
56
Finally,Ifthisthebabystayisnotapracticalsolutionorconsensuscannotbereachedwithinthe class association, perhaps it should consider a change in the rules concerning overall spinnaker dimensions. A reduction of the spinnaker size would reduce the loads on the mast and may solve the problem.
4.5 FUTURE TESTING

Future testing should, if at all possible, include more sensors to gather more data. In the ideal case,loadsensorsforeverycableinthemastsystem.Thiswouldinclude: Uppershroudsontheportandstarboardside Lowershroudsontheportandstarboardside Forestay Boomvang Spinnakerhalyard
This would allow every more precise control on the inputted load cases and give a more complete picture of the compression on the mast. These variables are responsible for nearly all of downwards loadonthemast,exceptforthedownwardscomponentofthesailforcesandweights. The winching system used to load the spinnaker halyard is probably ideal, considering the difficulty of implementing this otherwise, but future testing should account for changes in the angle of thespinnakerhalyardandthefactthatthisforcemayormaynotalwaysbedirectlyinlinewiththebow of the boat. An easy way to do this would be to vary the distance between the top of the mast and the winch,andthentosimplycalculatetheangleviaPythagorasstheorem. Strain gauge placement on the mast should be done in both the bow to stern and port and starboardplanes.Thismeansthatgaugesshouldbeplacedonallfourcornersofthemast, inorderto measurethecompletedeformedshapeunderloading. It would be also advisable to have some sort of boom angle sensor, or at least a precise way of measuringit.Thetestshouldthenberepeatedunderdifferentangles,inordertoobtainalargersample size. This rotation should also be doneon both sides of the boat.Having data from the other side of the boat would allow to average out the effect of not having the boat on a level surface or at least to show whetherornotthesystemrespondsinasymmetricfashion. Finally, testing done so far neglects the influence of the sail itself, which would indeed have an impact on the deformed shape of the mast. Field testing or aerodynamic calculations could provide a baselinefortestingthedistributedsidewaysloadimposedonthemastitself.Theseforcescouldthenbe transferred from a distributed load to a point load on each panel. This point load could then be applied tothemastinamannersimilartothatofthespinnakerhalyardloadingtechnique.
57
5.0 CONCLUSIONS 5.1 DESIGN METHODS AND REALITIES

Severalmethodsinthepublicdomainareavailabletoassisttheyachtdesignerinhisorhertask of designing their vessels mast. One of these is a generic beam analysis method based on Euler Bernoulli beam theory. This method is well known and understood to engineers and proven very accurate. The other tool, although simply an addition to EulerBernoulli beam theory, is the P method. The P method is more representative of the loading imposed on a mast but remains limited by the assumption that maximal deflection in the beamcolumn occurs at or near the middle. This is not necessarily true if one considers the mast as a whole, and still not necessarily true if one considers the mastinseveralpanels.Assuch,thislimitsthedesignerinoptimisingthesolution. The biggest setback to the implementation of these tools to mast design is that EulerBernoulli beamtheoryandthePmethoddonotofferanywayofestimatingtheloadsonthemast. Methods specific to sail boats; the Nordic Boat Standard or Skenes method, do remedy the problem of determining the loads on the mast through the use of the hulls righting moment. This techniqueisapparentlysatisfactory,butverylittleevidenceactuallyjustifiesthis. Skenes method is very primitive and does not allow for optimisation. It is probably most useful as a first pass design method, in order to get ballpark dimensions but not suitable for a comprehensive design. The Nordic Boat Standard is the more thorough and comprehensive design method: it does account for various rig geometries, materials and configurations, worst case loading cases are considered.Again,thebasicassumptionatissueisthatoftherightingmomentasabasicassumption. In summary, there are several tools which can lead to a solid and optimised design. The reality of mast design is determining the loads imposed by the sails. Aerodynamic effects can change the distribution and magnitude of the force applied on the mast by the mainsail. The same can be said of thespinnakerorjib.Noinformationonwhatcombinationofconditionscreatesthehighestloadsonthe mast,whichisnecessaryknowledgefordesign.
58
5.2 MODELLING AND TESTING: SUGGESTED IMPROVEMENTS

With regards to the modelling of the Ultimate 20 mast, several improvements have already been suggested that could improve the accuracy of the results. These range from more degrees of freedom to calculating the strains along the actual mast, rather than limiting the model to bending moments. The modelling on the Ultimate 20 was carried out after the testing. Typically, modelling should be done prior to testing, in order to aid in determining the necessary data acquisition points and what relevantinformationisneededtoestablishvalidandusefulresults.Inthiscase,morephysicaltestingon theU20shouldbedone,with For a more meaningful modelling approach, the entire process could be rethought in terms of mastdesign.Ifmoredetailswereavailableintermsoftheactualdesignprocess,theycouldbeusedasa starting point for modelling. If for example, the design was determined using the Nordic Boat Standard astheprimarydesignmethod,themastcouldbemodelledusingtheworstcaseloadingconditionsfrom that method. Once the results of this model are known, then a testing plan could be formulated to simulate the same loading conditions on the actual mast and the results directly compared with those obtainedfromthemodel. In the case of the present study, only general tendencies as to the masts behaviour in theory and practice could be ascertained. With directly comparable results from design, modelling and testing, specificconclusionsonthevalidityofthemethodusedfordesigncouldbeachieved.Thiscouldgoalong wayinvalidatingthemastdesigninascientificmanner. The typical design validation of a sail boat and its components is by initial sea trials. These usuallyinvolveactuallysailingthenewboatinincreasingwindconditions.Ifeverythingchecksout,then theboatsdesignisdeemedfit.Thesamegoesforthemastandrig,ifnothingappearsunusual,cracked, loose or broken, then the mast design is satisfactory. Although this is a very practical, quick and relativelyeasymethodofdesignvalidation,itishardlyscientific. Thisontheflydesignvalidationhasseveralimportantdrawbacks: Noinformationisavailableastowhetherornotthemasthasactuallybeensubjectedtoits maximaldesignloads. Therigmaybeoverdesigned,butthereisnowayofknowingthis. Therigmaybeunderdesigned,butsincethereisnowayofknowingthis,itmayfailunder certainconditionsconsideredtobenormaluse. ThislastpointiscertainlytrueoftheUltimate20.Unfortunatelyforowners,theproblemonlybecomes apparentoncealargenumberofcustomersarealreadyinpossessionoftheirboats.Thiscouldbe avoidedwiththemorescientificapproachofmodellingandstraingaugetesting.
59
5.3 FUTURE WORK

Thefieldofsailboatdynamicsingeneraliswideopen:littlepubliclyavailableliteratureexistson how a sailboat behaves in its environment. This includes comprehensive aerodynamic studies on sails and their interaction with the mast and hull. All of the design methods are based on static measurements because there is insufficient research on dynamic loading of masts. This can include studyoftheeffectofwavesonmastloadsorhowheelingimpactssailforces. Intermsofmastdesign,theprocessitselfdoesrequireseriousresearchonsailloadsinorderfor any kind of breakthrough to be made. As there are several large yacht design and construction firms, as well as cutting edge research teams involved in yacht racing, the research is definitely happening. The issue here is that none of it is in the public domain, remains proprietary information or the closely guardedsecretofaracingoutfit.Itiswellknownthatmuchofthehighendboatdesignisdonewiththe help of computer resources such as velocity prediction programs (VPP) and finite element analysis software. These tools require a knowledgeable and well funded team effort, which may not be the realityforeveryyachtdesignoutfit. Mostcommonyachtdesignsonthemarket todayhavebeendesigned byasingleperson,inthe words of Steve Killing, Most yacht designers work alone (9). This means that this one person must become an expert in a large number of fields ranging from aerodynamics, hydrodynamics, composites, programming, interior design and so on. Because of this, most yacht designers tend to be very conservative in their design, sticking to what works or has been proven. Customers are also, generally speaking, sticking to proven designs, since they invest large sums of their personal fortune on their vessel. This attitude for conservatism because of lack of understanding tends to restrain yacht design fromevolvingandimproving. ForthespecificcaseoftheUltimate20,itisclearthatthebabystays,orHighWindKitshould be offered as a class legal retrofit to all owners, at least in the form of a stop gap measure. The manufacturer should also further investigate these mast failures. A documentation process needs to be undertaken for each and every known mast failure. Data ranging from wind conditions, boat heading, sail configuration and samples of failed masts could be collected and used to confirm this studys findings and the basic assumption that all failures occurred at the halyard passage near the base of the mast.
60
6.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY 1.Gere,J.M.EngineeringMechanicsofSolids.1stEdition.s.l.:PrenticeHallInc,1998. 2.Janssen,R.BestMast:anewwaytodesignarig.HISWASymposium.[Online]2008.Best Mast:anewwaytodesignarig. 3.Kulak,G.L.&Grondin,G.Y.LimitStatesDesigninStructuralSteel.7thEdition.s.l.:Canadian InstituteofSteelConstruction,2002. 4.Skene,N.L.ElementsofYachtDesign.6thEdition.s.l.:SheridanHouse,2001. 5.Larsson,L.&Eliasson,R.PrinciplesofYachtDesign.3rdEdition.s.l.:McGrawHill,2007. 6.USYachts.U20Brochure.http://www.usyachts.com/.[Online]2009. http://www.sailsports.com/pdfs/u20021209.pdf. 7.Sheppard,Mr.Van.PrivateCommunication.Ottawa:s.n.,2008. 8.Sails,Ullman.U20TuningGuide.U20ClassAssociation.[Online][Cited:0324,2009.] http://www.u20class.org/U20racing/tuningGuide.html. 9.Killing,S.&Hunter,D.YachtDesignExplained.1stEdition.s.l.:W.W.Norton&Company, 1998. 10.Shigley,J.E.,Budynas,R.G.&Nisbett,J.K.Shigley'sMechanicalEngineeringDesign.8th Edition.s.l.:McGrawHill,2008. 11.PartsofaSailboat.WhiteMountainSailing.[Online][Cited:April15,2009.] http://whitemountainsailing.com/parts.aspx. 12.Perry,R.H.YachtDesignAccordingtoPerry.1stEdition.s.l.:McGrawHill,1998. 13.Claughton,Wellicom&Shenoi.SailingYachtDesign,Practice.1stEdition.s.l.:Addison WesleyLongmanLimited,1998. 14.Claughton,Wellicome&Shenoi.SailingYachtDesign,Theory.1stEdition.s.l.:Addison WesleyLongmanLimited,1998. 15.Avallone,E.A.&Baumeister,T.Mark'sStandardHandbookforMechanicalEngineers.10th Edition.s.l.:McGrawHill,1996. 16.U20classassociationwebsite.[Online]www.u20class.org. 61
7.0 APPENDICES
7.1 RIGHTING MOMENT

Ahullsrightingmomentisoftencalleduponasthestartingpointformastdesignmethods.Itis, inessence,ameasureofthebuoyantstabilityofthevessel.Sincetheweightalwaysactsasadownward force situated at the center of gravity, the buoyancy of the vessel is the force keeps the vessel afloat. The buoyancy force however acts at the center of buoyancy, which is at the center of the volume of waterdisplacedbythehull.Thisimpliesthatundermostcircumstances,thecentreofbuoyancyisnotat the same location as the center of gravity. When a force, such as a loaded sail, tends to tilt or heel the boat to one side, a force couple between the weight and the buoyancy, known as the righting moment, existstocounteractheeling.ThisisdetailedinFigure71
Figure71:RightingMoment(10)
It is important to note that this moment is typically calculated, and environmental effects and boatmotionarecompletelyignored.Thismeansthattherightingmomentisameasuretypicallyusedto comparerelativehullstabilityfromonedesigntoanother.
62

Figure72:StabilityCurve(3)
For the typical hull, the stability curve resembles the one shown in Figure 72 where GZ is the righting moment, plotted against heeling angle. This moment is increasing up until the point where thehullwouldcapsize.Intermsofdesign,therightingmomentisneededatanangleof30degrees,but usually, hull designers only calculate the righting moment at 1 degree (3). In this case, the value of the righting moment at 1 degree is multiplied by a factor of 30, which means that the first portion of the stability curve is considered to be linear; this is illustrated on Figure 72. For the purposes of mast design, this implies that the righting moment is grossly overestimated, which renders mast design even hardertooptimise.
63
7.2 STRESS CONCENTRATIONS

In practical terms, in order for the sail boat to function, holes in the mast for mounting fixtures andrunningcablesareinevitable.Theseholesleadtostressconcentrationsattheirlocations,essentially multiplyingthevalueofthestressesonandaroundtheirperiphery. Stress concentrations in general are undesirable and the designer should always try to minimise theiroccurrenceandimpact.Severalfactorsaffecttheirimpact;theseincludesizeoftheholeandwidth of the beam. For example, Figure 73 shows a rectangular bar in bending and Figure 74 shows a round bar in bending. These figures are for solid beams and represent holes drilled right through them, not necessarilyrepresentativeofsailboatmasts,butgiveaclueastotheimpactofsuchholes.
Figure73:StressConcentrationFactorsforaRectangularBarinBending(11)
Figure74:StressConcentrationFactorsforaRoundBarinBending(11)
64
In terms of sailboats, holes are usually only drilled on one side or face of a hollow mast. This is then measured in terms of reduction in moment of inertia at a particular location. The Nordic Boat standardaddressesthisissuewiththefollowingguidelinesinFigure75:
Figure75:NBSMastHoleGuidelines(6)
Whereitispermissibletodrillholesinthemastatgivenlocationsneartheendsofamastpanel. Theamountofallowablereductionofmomentofinertiaisgivenasapercentagetoallowthedesigner thegreatestamountoffreedomastotheplacementandcombinationofholesdesired. For masts, typically, failure occurs in the form of buckling, a case demonstrated by the Ultimate 20.Holesontheside causedthe masttobuckleatthatpoint.Thisisknowncolloquiallyasthedimpled soda can effect where a person standing on an empty aluminium soda canister can be supported, but should there be the slightest stress concentration induced on the skin of the canister, it will buckle at thislocation. InthespecificcaseoftheU20,thestressconcentrationisnotonlyasinglehole,butratheran entirefitting;thisisshowninFigure32.Thisfittingisrivetedinfourplacesandhasalargeholeinthe middleforthehalyardtopassthrough.Thefittingitself,beingmadeofstainlesssteel,changesthe localisedstiffnessofthemast.Thiseffectcanalsoleadtohigherstressconcentrations.
65
7.3 LOOS TENSION GAUGE

The Loos & Co tension gauge for cable is a device that allows approximate measurement of cable tensionwithoutthe useofaloadcell. Itoperatesusinga calibratedspringgaugeusedtomeasure how much force is needed to apply a sideways deflection to the cable. This in turn yields a relation on sidewaysdeflectiontocabletension.AcloseupviewoftheLoostensiongaugeisshowninFigure76.
Figure76:LoosTensionGauge(5)
66
8.0 PRIVATE COMMUNICATIONS FROM MR. SHEPPARD 8.1 TESTING PLAN

1. TounderstandtheloadsexperiencedbyaU20mastwhenthespinnakerhalyardishighly loaded,thevangisalsoloadedandtheboomisallowedtomoveoutfromthecenterlineofthe boat. 2. TounderstandhowtheHWKhelpstoimprovetheloadsexperiencedbyaU20mastwhen testedunderthesameconditionsdescribedinItem1above. 3. TounderstandhowaBackstayhelpstoimprovetheloadsexperiencedbyaU20mastwhen testedunderthesameconditionsdescribedinItem1above. 4. TounderstandhowacombinationoftheHWKandaBackstayhelpstoimprovetheloads experiencedbyaU20mastwhentestedunderthesameconditionsdescribedinItem1above. TestEquipment: 1. OneU20sailboat,sittingonatrailerandtieddownasifreadytotravel 2. OneadditionalU20trailerpositionedinfrontoftheU20sothatthewinchonthetrailercanbe usedtogenerateahighloadonthespinnakerhalyard 3. OneHWKincludinganymodificationsrequiredtotheU20 4. OneBackstayarrangementincludinganymodificationsrequiredtotheU20 5. TBDnumberofTBDmodelstraingauges 6. 1dataacquisitionsystemTBDnumberofchannels(minimumof6channels) 7. 3strainbars(0.25diameteraluminumbars) 8. 2loadcells(250kgcapacity) 9. 1videocamerawith4tapes. Testsetup: 1. Startwithmastlyingongroundortablessothattherearenobendingmomentsorcompressive loadsinit.
67
2. Attachstraingauges1to6inpairsoneachsideofthemast.Ensurethattheyareattachedon theneutralaxisforforeaftbending(approximatelyhalfwayalongthemastwhenlookingfrom fronttoback).Seefigure1. 3. Attachstraingauges712inpairsoneachshroud.Ensurethattheyareattachedtotheshroud inawaythatensurestheywillseetheentireloadintheshroud.Ifitisdesiredtodeterminethe loadsintheshroudbasedonthestrainmeasurement,thenthestraingaugemustbemounted ontheshroudinalocationwherethecrosssectiondimensionscanbeaccuratelymeasured. 4. Attachastraingaugetoeachstrainbar. 5. Attachaspermanufacturersrecommendations. 6. Forthegaugesontheupperpartofthemast,runthewiresdowntothebottomofthemastand securethemtothesidesofthemastsotheydonotgetdamagedwhenthemastisbeingraised. 7. Attachalengthofredorbluerope(1/8to3/16diameter)atthehoundsofthemastsothatit runsdowninthesailtrackwhenthemastisstepped.Theropeshouldbelongenoughtoreach thegooseneckandbetiedinplace.Thisropewillbeusedtomeasuresidewaysdeflectionof themastduringtesting. 8. Installthemastintheboat.Ensurethatthemastisstraightandverticalintheboat.Inother wordstunethemastcorrectly. 9. Tunethemastforsailinginhighwinds.Minimumof500lbstensionontheoutersand250lbs tensionontheinners. 10. Attachtheboomtothemast.Donotinstalltheboomkickerifoneispresent.Donotrunthe mainsheet.Theboomshouldbefreetoswingonthegooseneck. 11. Connectthemainhalyardandtheouthaultotheendsofastrainbar.Tieoffthemainhalyard atthebaseofthemastandthencleattheouthaulsuchthattheboomisparalleltothe waterline. 12. Connectthevangtoaloadcellandthenconnecttheloadcelltotheboomusingthebalethat thevangnormallyconnectsto. TestProcedure: 1. Pullonthevangtocreatealoadintheloadcellof150Kgs.Cleatthevangsothatthisloadis sustained.Keeptheboomcenteredwhiledoingthis. 2. Arrangethevideocamerasothatitsitsonthecenterlineoftheboatandisfullyzoomedinand focusedonthesailtrackofthemast.Elevatethecamerasothatstraingauges3and4areinthe centeroftheverticalfieldofview. 3. Startingoncenterlineandmovingoutin5increments,swingtheboomouttothestarboard sideuntiltheboomreachestheuppershroud.Ateachpoint,recordthevalueoneachstrain gaugeaswellasthevalueoftheloadontheloadcell. 4. Returntheboomtocenterlineandthenconnectthespinnakerhalyardtoanextensionrope thatislowstretchandlongenoughtoreachalmosttothewinchonthesecondtrailer.Now connecttheextensionropetooneendofaloadcellandthewinchonthesecondtrailertothe otherendoftheloadcell.
68
5. Ensurethetrailerisbracedsothatitwontmovewhenthewinchisusedtoimpartaloadtothe spinnakerhalyard. 6. Usingthewinch,loadupthespinnakerhalyarduntiltheloadcellindicatesaloadof150Kgs. 7. Arrangethevideocamerasothatitsitsonthecenterlineoftheboatandisfullyzoomedinand focusedonthesailtrackofthemast.Elevatethecamerasothatstraingauges3and4areinthe centeroftheverticalfieldofview. 8. Startingoncenterlineandmovingoutin5increments,swingtheboomouttothestarboard sideuntiltheboomreachestheuppershroud.Ateachpoint,recordthevalueoneachstrain gaugeaswellasthevalueoftheloadontheloadcells. 9. ReturntheboomtocenterlineandattachtheHWKwires.Tensionthemaccordingto recommendations.Ifnorecommendationsarepublished,thentensiontoapproximately250 lbs. 10. Repeatsteps18forthisconfiguration. 11. ReturntheboomtocenterlineandremovetheHWKwires. 12. Connectthebackstaylinetoastrainbarandconnectthestrainbartoatensioningapparatus. Pullthetensioningapparatusuntilthebackstayistaut. 13. Repeatsteps18forthisconfiguration. 14. ReturntheboomtocenterlineandconnecttheHWKwires.Tensionthemtothesamevalue usedinstep9. 15. Repeatsteps18forthisconfiguration. 16. Testingisdone! AnalysisPlan: Thefirsttestrunwillprovidebaselinedata. Fromthemaststraingaugemeasurementsthelocalizedloadsonthemastwillbeinferred. Fromtheshroudstraingaugemeasurementstheincreasedloadscausedbythespinnaker halyardloadingupwillbeseen. Fromtheloadcellonthevangitwillbepossibletoseeiftheloadsfromthevangchangeasthe boomisrotatedawayfromcenterline. Fromthevideorecordeditwillbepossibletounderstandtheamountofsidewaysdeflection thatthemastexperiencesastheboomisrotatedawayfromthecenterline. TherunwiththeHWKwiresinstalledwillbeanalyzedtogetthefollowinginformation. Fromthemaststraingaugesitwillbepossibletoseeifthebendingloadshavebeenreduced andbyhowmuch Fromthebottompairofstraingaugesonthemastitwillbepossibletoseeifhowmuch additionalcompressionloadisimpartedtothebottomofthemastcolumnbytheHWKwires.
69
FromtheshroudstraingaugemeasurementsitwillbepossibletoseehowtheHWKwireloads upastheboomisrotatedawayfromthecenterline. FromtheshroudstraingaugemeasurementsitwillbepossibletoseeiftheHWKresultsin higherorlowerloadsontheshrouds. Fromtheloadcellonthevangitwillbepossibletoseeiftheloadsonthemastfromthevang aredifferentastheboomisrotatedawayfromthecenterline. Fromthevideorecordeditwillbepossibletoseehowmuchthesidewaysbendingofthemastis reducedbytheHWKwires. TherunwiththeBackstayinstalledwillbeanalyzedtogetthefollowinginformation. Fromthemaststraingaugesitwillbepossibletoseehowmuchthecompressiveloadsinthe masthavebeenreduced Fromtheshroudstraingaugesitwillbepossibletoseehowmuchtheloadsintheshroudsare reducedwhenthespinnakerhalyardisloadedup. Fromthevideorecordeditwillbepossibletoseeifthesidewaysdeflectionofthemasthas beenreducedandifso,byhowmuchithasbeenreduced. Fromthestrainbarinstalledinthebackstayitwillbepossibletoseetherelationshipbetween loadinginthespinnakerhalyardandloadinthebackstay. TherunwithboththeHWKandthebackstayinstalledwillbeanalyzedtogetthefollowinginformation. Predictionsforthetesting: ExistingU20configurationrun: Expecthighcompressiveloadsinthemastasthespinnakerhalyardisloadedup. Expecthighloadsintheoutershroudsasthespinnakerhalyardisloadedup. Expectlargesidewaysdeflectionofthemastastheboomisrotatedawayfromcenterline.This isexpectedinboththespinnakerhalyardloadedcaseandthespinnakerhalyardnotloaded case. Expectvangloadstobereducedastheboomrotatesawayfromcenterline. Expectthistestwiththespinnakerhalyardloadeduptoprovidetheworstcasecompressive loadsinthemast.Thismeasurementshouldbeseeninthemiddlestraingaugeonthe starboardsideofthemast,assumingtheboomisrotatedouttostarboard. HWKinstalled: Expecthighcompressiveloadsinthemastasthespinnakerhalyardisloadedup. Fromthemaststraingaugesitwillbepossibletoseehowtheoverallloadsinthemasthave beenreducedandalsohowthebendingloadshavebeenreduced. Fromthevideoitwillbepossibletoseehowthesidewaysdeflectionhasbeenreduced.
70
Expecthighloadsintheoutershroudsasthespinnakerhalyardisloadedup. Expectsmallersidewaysdeflectionofthemastastheboomrotatesawayfromcenterline. Expectthecompressiveloadsinthebottomofthemasttobehighestinthistestcase. Backstayinstalled: Expecttheloadsinthemastwiththespinnakerhalyardloadeduptobesmallerthaninthe previoustwotests. Expectthesidewaysdeflectionofthemasttobesimilartodeflectionobservedduringthefirst test. Expecttoseethesamerelativedifferenceincompressionloadsondifferentsidesofthemastas inthefirsttestrun,butexpecttheloadstobemuchsmalleroverall Expecttheloadsintheoutershroudstobesmallerthaninprevioustestcases. HWKandBackstayinstalled: Expectthistestcasetoprovidethelowestoverallloadsinthemastsincesidewaysbendingis limitedbytheHWKandspinnakerhalyardloadsaremostlytakenupbythebackstay. Expectthatforthistestcase,thesidewaysbendingofthemastwillbethesmallestobserved. Expectthatforthistestcase,theloadsintheshroudswillbethesmallestobserved.
71
8.2 MAY 14 TH 2008 TESTING REPORT

TestResultsSummary: Thetablebelowcapturesthemostrelevantdatafromthetests. Range:Original Range:Backstay %Reduction:Backstay Range:HWK %Reduction:HWK Range:HWK&Backstay %Reduction:HWK& Backstay MiddlePort Gauge 0.350 0.262 25 0.177 49 0.149 57 MiddleStbd Gauge 0.260 0.278 7 0.182 30 0.163 37 LowerPort Gauge 0.500 0.401 20 0.272 46 0.226 55 LowerStbd Gauge 0.314 0.302 4 0.225 28 0.193 39
Original:Initialtestrunwithoriginalmastconfigurationandloadedspinnakerhalyard. Backstay:Slightreductionintheportsideloads.Norealchangeinthestarboardsideloads.Forthis testsetupthestarboardsideloadsarecompressionloadsandarethemostimportantonestoreduce. HWK:Significantreductioninloadsonboththecompressionandtensionsidesofthemast.Also,onthe videoofthetest,thereisasignificantreductionofthevisiblebendinginthemastwiththeHWK installed. HWK&Backstay:Bestcasesituation.ItseemsthatwiththeHWKreducingtheamountofbendingthat themastcando,thebackstaynowhelpsbyfurtherreducingtheloadsonthecompressionsideofthe mast. TestingshowsthattheHWKisthebestsingleadditionthatcanbemadetotheU20rigtoreducethe magnitudeofthesideloadsexperiencedbythemast.Anaveragereductioninthecompressionloadsof 29%wasobservedwhencomparedtotestrunswiththeoriginalmastsupports.Thetestsalsoshowed thatthisreductionwasincreasedtoanaverageof38%whentheHWKwasusedinconjunctionwitha backstay.Thisisanincreaseof31%comparedtotheHWKbyitself. So,thebackstayaloneisnotveryuseful.TheHWKaloneisquiteuseful.TheHWKinconjunctionwith thebackstaywillprovidethebestsupportfortheU20mastandreducescompressionloadinginthe conductedtestbyapproximately40%.
72
Thereductioninthenoiseontherecordeddatafromthedifferenttestrunsis,inmyopinion,indicative ofhowmuchbettersupportedthemastiswiththebackstayandtheHWKinstalled.
73
Recommendations:
1. ModifytheU20classrulestopermittheuseofabackstayandtoclearlystatethattheHWK ispermitted.Thisprovidesthebestsolutionittermsofpreventingfurthermastfailures causedbydeflectionofthemastoutofcolumnsideways. 2. IfonlyonesolutionisadoptedthentheHighWindKitisthemosteffectivesinglechangein reducingsidewaysdeflectionofthemast.
74
TestResults.
Theanalysistodatehasfocusedonthetestrunswherethespinnakerhalyardwasloadedat 150lbsbeforetheboomwasrotatedouttheshroud.Thesetestrunsarenamedrun2,bstay2, hwk2andbackhwk2. DefaultMastConfiguration(Run2)DataAnalysis: Forrun2,thedatafromthe4bottomgaugesonthemastisshowinthegraphbelow.
Thedatawasreferencedtothezeroreadingforeachofthestraingauges.Aquicklookatthe chartshowsthatthetwogaugesonthestarboardside(theonesincompression)showvalues thatareapproximatelythesameinmagnitude,withthestraininthelowerpartofthemast (redline)beingslightlylargerthanthestrainmeasuredatthemidpointbetweenthemastbase andtheshroud.Giventhatthemastismoreconstrainedatthebase,thisisexpected. Thetwogaugesontheportsideofthemastshowhighervalues.Inthecaseofthelowerport gauge(blueline)thiswasexpectedsinceitislocatedrightnexttothemainhalyardexitand somestressconcentrationwouldbeexpectedthere.Inthecaseofthemiddleportgaugethe
75
largervoltagechangewasntexpected.Thereasonforthislargervalueisntunderstoodatthis time.Notethatthereisnoiseinthedataforall4straingauges. Theslopesat41secondsand151secondsindicatewheretheboomwasmovedouttothe shroudandthenreturnedtothecentreline.Theyshowthattheboomwasmovedouttothe shroudslowlyandreturnedtocentrelinequickly.Thatwasnotintentional. Thetablebelowsummarizesthechangeinstrainseenbyeachgaugeforthistestrun.

Max Min Range MiddlePort Gauge 0.210 0.560 0.350 MiddleStbd Gauge 0.095 0.165 0.260 LowerPort Gauge 0.019 0.519 0.500 LowerStbd Gauge 0.185 0.129 0.314
Thisdatarepresentsthebaselinethatthedifferentsupportmethodswillbemeasuredagainst. BackstayTestRunDataAnalysis Forbstay2,thedatafromthe4bottomgaugesonthemastisshowinthegraphbelow.
76
Thedatawasagainreferencedtothezeroreadingforeachofthestraingauges.Aquicklookat thechartshowsthatthetwogaugesonthestarboardside(theonesincompression)show valuesthatareapproximatelythesameinmagnitude,asintheinitialtestcase. Thetwogaugesontheportsideofthemastshowvaluesthathavebeenreducedcomparedto theinitialtestcase.Notethatthereismuchlessnoiseinthedataforall4straingauges. Theslopesthatindicatewheretheboomwasmovedouttotheshroudandthenreturnedto thecentrelinearemoreeveninthistestrun.Thetestconductorsperformanceisimproving. Thetablebelowsummarizesthechangeinstrainseenbyeachgaugeforthistestrun.

Max Min Range %Improvement MiddlePort Gauge 0.154 0.416 0.262 25 MiddleStbd Gauge 0.203 0.075 0.278 7 LowerPort Gauge 0.019 0.420 0.401 20 LowerStbd Gauge 0.264 0.038 0.302 4
77
The%Improvementlineshowshowtherangesforthebackstaytestruncomparetothe baselineruns.Theloadsontheportsideofthemasthavebeenreduced,butthereislittleor nochangeonthestarboardside.Notethatforthistestthestarboardsideisthesidein compression. HighWindKitTestRunDataAnalysis ForHWK2,thedatafromthe4bottomgaugesonthemastisshowinthegraphonthe followingpage. Thedatawasagainreferencedtothezeroreadingforeachofthestraingauges.Forthistest run,thevaluesmeasuredonallthestraingaugeshavebeenreducedfromthoseseeninthe baselinerun.Notethatagainthereismuchlessnoiseinthedataforall4straingauges. ItisclearthattheHWKhasasignificantimpactontheloadsinthesidesofthemast.Thetable belowsummarizesthechangeinstrainseenbyeachgaugeforthistestrun.
Aswiththebackstay,thelargestreductioninstrainisontheportside,butherethestrainson thestarboardsidearealsoreducedsignificantly.Onthesideofthemastincompressionwe seeadropinthemeasuredstrainofabout30%.
78
HighWindKit&BackstayTestRunDataAnalysis Forbackhwk2,thedatafromthe4bottomgaugesonthemastisshowinthegraphonthe followingpage. Thedatawasagainreferencedtothezeroreadingforeachofthestraingauges.Forthistest run,thevaluesmeasuredonallthestraingaugeshavebeenreducedsignificantlyfromthose seeninthebaselinerun.Thisconfigurationgeneratedthebestresultsinthatthestrainsinthe sidewallsofthemastarethelowestofallthetestruns.Notethatagainthereismuchless noiseinthedataforall4straingauges.Thisdataisactuallytheleastnoisyofallthetestruns. Thismaybebecausethemastissupportedthebestandhastheleastamountoffreedomto move.
79
ThistestshowsthatthebackstayinconjunctionwiththeHWKgivesabouta10%improvement overtheHWKbyitself.This10%improvementisseenonall4straingauges.Thetablebelow summarizesthechangeinstrainseenbyeachgaugeforthistestrun.

80
Conclusions: 1. ThesinglemosteffectivechangeintermsofreducingstrainsinthesidewalloftheU20mast undersideloadingistheHighWindKit. 2. ThelowestmastsidewallloadsareseenwhentheHighWindKitandtheBackstayareused inconjunctionwitheachother. 3. TheloadsexperiencedaresmootherinnaturewiththeBackstayortheHWKinstalled,and aresmoothestwhenbothareusedtogether. Recommendations: 1. ModifytheU20classrulestopermittheuseofabackstayandtoclearlystatethattheHWK ispermitted.Thisprovidesthebestsolutionittermsofpreventingfurthermastfailures causedbydeflectionofthemastoutofcolumnsideways. 2. IfonlyonesolutionisadoptedthentheHighWindKitisthemosteffectivesinglechangein reducingsidewaysdeflectionofthemast.
81
Duringthetestingthereweresomechangesfromtheoriginaltestplan.
1. Themasthassomesortofprotectivematerialwrappedarounditbelowthegooseneck,so thelowersetofstraingaugescouldnotbemountedwhereshowontheoriginaldiagram. Instead,theyweremountedatpointwherethemainhalyardexitsthemast.Thestarboard onewasmountedhalfwaybetweenthefrontandtheback,whiletheportgaugewas mountedalongsidetheaftedgeofthestainlessplatethatcoverstheholeinthemastthat thehalyardexitsthrough. 2. Asecondloadcellwasnotavailablefortesting.Insteada5/32diameterwirewasincluded intherigforpullingonthespinnakerhalyard.Thenaloosgaugewashookedonthewire anditwasusedtoensurethattheloadsbeingappliedwerethesameforeachtestcase. ThiswasdocumentedonvideothatwillbeuploadedtoYoutube. 3. Testingwiththespinnakerhalyardloadedwasconductedwiththehalyardloadedat150 lbs.Thatwasasfarasthemastowner(me)wascomfortableloadingthingsupwithno additionalsupport. 4. Thedataacquisitionsystemusedforthetestingalloweddatafromeachstraingaugeand fromtheloadcellonthevangtobegatheredandloggedata1Hzrateforeachtestrun. Thiseliminatedtheneedtomanuallyrecordanyofthedataandspeduptesting.Italso meantthattherewasnoneedtostopat10incrementsandrecordthedata.The procedurewasmodifiedsothatwhendatarecordingwasturnedon,theboomwasslowly rotatedoutuntilittouchedtheshroudonthestarboardsideoftheboat.Itwasheldthere forapproximately30secondsandthenitwasmovedbacktocentreline,alsoataslowrate. 5. Theboomwasneverquiteonthecentrelineoftheboatforanyofthetestruns.Thisis becausewiththekeelfullyraised,itinterfereswiththeboomvangandpreventstheboom frommovingallthewaytothecentreline. 6. Sidewaysdeflectionofthemastwassupposedtobemeasuredusingadialgauge,butone wasnotavailable.Sidewaysdeflectionwasrecordedonvideoduringeachtestrun.The videohasbeenreviewedanditclearlyshowstheamountofsidewaysbendingthatthe mastexperiences.ThevideofromeachtestrunwillalsobeuploadedtoYoutube.
Somethingsthatdidntworksowell;(akalessonslearned)
1. Allthestraingaugesweremountedonthesidesofthemast,ascloseaspossibletothe midpointbetweenthefrontandbackofthemast.Thiswastoensurethatthesidebending loadswereaccuratelymeasuredanditworkedwell.Unfortunatelyitalsomeantthatthere werenosensorsonthefrontandbackofthemast,sooverallcompressionofthemastwas notmeasured.Thishadbeenoneofthegoalsofthetestinganditwasnotachieved.
82
2. Allthestraingaugesmountedontheshroudsandtheoneonthebackstayweremounted onstainlesssteel.Theloadsexperiencedwereverysmallonallthestainlessparts,sothe gaugesdidntcapturegooddata.
83
9.0 SAILBOAT ANATOMY

Tofacilitatethereaderthatmaybeunfamiliarwithsailboatlayout,partsandnauticalterminology,the diagraminFigure91illustratestheprincipalrelevantcomponents.
Figure91:AnatomyofaSailboat(11)
84
9.1 GLOSSARY
Block:nauticaltermforpulley Chainplate:throughhullmountingforashroud Halyard:cableorropewithafunctionrelatingtohoistingorpullingupwardsoronasail Heavyair:highwinds Heeling:lateralleaningorthehull,orrotationaboutthebowtosternaxis Lightair:lowwinds Reef:Attachmentpointdesignedtoreducetheoverallareaofthesail.Usedduring heavyairsituationslowerthesail. Shroud:Cablesdesignedtostiffenthemast Spreaders:Deviceswhichspreadtheshrouds.Usuallystraightbars.
85

ABergeron ReportFINAL

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

ABergeron ReportFINAL

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

SailboatMastDesign

LITERATURE REVIEW AND APPLICATION TO THE U20 CASE

4.3.1 4.3.2 4.3.3 4.3.4 4.3.5 4.4

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 HISTORICAL CONTEXT

1.2 PROBLEM DEFINITION

2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 EULER BERNOULLI BEAM THEORY

Where:xisthepositionalongthebeam uisthedeflectionofthebeam wisthedistributedloadalongthebeam Eistheelasticmodulusofthematerial Iisthemomentofinertiaofthecrosssectionofthebeam

2.3 SKENES METHOD

2.4 DESIGN STANDARDS

2.4.1 NORDIC BOAT STANDARD (NBS)

2.5 DESIGN METHOD OVERVIEW

Never applied t o sailboat m ast s Requires known load input s

Nordic Boat Standard

2.6 LITERATURE REVIEW CONCLUSIONS

3.0 THE ULTIMATE 20 3.1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION

3.2 TYPICAL FAILURES AND HYPOTHESIS

3.3 U20 PROPOSED SOLUTIONS

3.3.2 BABY STAYS

3.4 U20 MODELLING

3.4.1 MODEL ASSUMPTIONS

3.4.2 MODEL GEOMETRY AND FREE BODY DIAGRAMS

x-value inches (m) 47 (1.1938) 12 (0.3048) 12 (0.3000) -

xBoom = [sin(boom angle) ] LengthBoom

y Boom = [ cos(boom angle) ] LengthBoom

(degrees) 85.75 77.29 85.67 69.74 -

(degrees) 83.53 85.79 83.41 66.07 75

3.4.3 STATIC EQUILIBRIUM EQUATIONS

Rx zSpreaders FBabysStay cos BabyStay (z Spreaders zBoom ) = 0

+ FBoom cos Boom zMast FxGooseneck z Boom = 0

FBackstay cos Backstay + FyGooseneck = 0

3.4.4 MODELLING RESULTS

3.4.4.1 ORIGINAL CONFIGURATION

3.4.4.2 BACKSTAY CONFIGURATION

3.4.4.3 BABY STAY CONFIGURATION

3.4.4.4 COMBINED CONFIGURATION

Bytheverynatureofthissolution,itcombinestheelementsfromboththebabystaysandthe backstay.Sincethebabystayonlycontributestotheoverallbendingmomentinthezxplane,the combinedsolutionpossessesthesamebendingmomentcurveinthezxplane.Similarlyforthe

3.4.5 MODELLING CONCLUSIONS

4.0 TESTING ON THE ULTIMATE 20

4.1 TESTING PLAN

Spinnaker Halyard Loaded No No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes

4.2 PHYSICAL SETUP 4.2.1 DEPENDANT OR MEASURED VARIABLES

4.2.2 LOADING OR CONTROLLED VARIABLES

4.3 TEST RESULTS

4.3.1 INCONCLUSIVE DATA

4.3.2 STANDARD CONFIGURATION

BOOM VANG LOADED

Direction Tension Tension Tension Com pression Tension Com pression

Voltage - 0.101 - 0.165 - 0.465 0.124 - 0.437 0.208

4.3.2.2 BOOM VANG AND SPINNAKER HALYARD LOADED

Direction Tension Tension Tension Com pression Tension Com pression

Voltage - 0.204 - 0.292 - 0.554 0.051 - 0.523 0.143

4.3.3.1 BOOM VANG LOADED

Direction Tension Tension Tension Com pression Tension Com pression

Voltage - 0.009 - 0.073 - 0.378 0.214 - 0.353 0.286

4.3.3.2 BOOM VANG AND SPINNAKER HALYARD LOADED

Direction Tension Tension Tension Com pression Tension Com pression

Voltage - 0.050 - 0.134 - 0.420 0.181 - 0.432 0.245

4.3.4 BABY STAY

4.3.4.1 BOOM VANG LOADED

Direction Tension Tension Tension Com pression Tension Com pression

Voltage - 0.036 - 0.029 - 0.256 0.109 - 0.220 0.156

4.3.4.2 BOOM VANG AND SPINNAKER HALYARD LOADED