1 Paper to be presented at the 10th Chesapeake Sailing Yacht Symposium, Annapolis, February 1991.

Long Version

The Measurement of Weight Distribution of Olympic Class Dinghies and Keelboats

P. F. Hinrichsen Abstract Racing sailors have become increasingly aware of the possible effects of the distribution of weight, as well as the total weight, on boatspeed. Modern construction techniques allow dinghy hulls to be built well under the minimum weight specified by the class rules. This has lead to a trend, notably in the Olympic dinghy classes, towards hulls with light ends, especially light bows. Not only does this increases construction costs but, if taken to extremes, could lead to unseaworthy boats. A number of classes, of which the Finn was the first, have therefore introduced means of measuring the pitch gyradius of the hull and hence controlling the fore and aft weight distribution. Measurements of the pitch and Yaw gyradii of Flying Dutchman hulls made at the 1976, 1984 and 1988 Olympic regattas, at the 1990 FD World championships, as well as data for a number of other classes are presented. The various methods used for gyradius measurement, which include variants of the compound pendulum, the torsional spring-mass oscillator and the bifilar suspension, are compared, with special emphasis on their precision, accuracy, worldwide reproducibility and the systematic corrections required. The effects of amplitude, of air damping and of friction at the support on the precision will be discussed. Normally only the hull gyradius is measured, however, it is the moment of Inertia of the total boat which determines the response in waves. Calculations of the contribution of each of the components, including the crew, to the total moment of Inertia are presented for Flying Dutchmen.

2 1. List of Symbols a ac at b B(t) d D E g H(t) Ib Ic It IT Ip Iy kkeel kp ky l L Lb Lbs Lp Lo M Mc Mt S S(t) Tc Tt Ts Ty W (0) (t) Distance from the horizontal pivot axis to the CG. Distance from the trailer axle to the CG of the boat plus trailer, in the bounce test. Distance from the trailer axle to the trailer CG, in the bounce test. Distance between the axes in a Lamboley test. Bow displacement during the in the water test. Half the spacing between the wires of a bifilar suspension. Horizontal distance from the axis of rotation to the spring attachment point in the bounce and Snipe tests. Total energy of oscillation The gravitational acceleration, 9.81 m/s2. Heave motion during the in the water test. Moment of Inertia of the boat about the trailer axle in the bounce test. Moment of Inertia of the boat plus trailer in the bounce test. Moment of Inertia of the empty trailer in the bounce test. Moment of Inertia of the total boat including the crew. Moment of Inertia about the pitch axis through the CG. Moment of Inertia about the yaw axis through the CG. Gyradius about the pitch axis through a point on the keel rubbing strake vertically below the CG. Gyradius about the pitch axis through the CG. Gyradius about the yaw axis through the CG. Length of bifilar suspension wires. Horizontal position of the CG forward of the transom. Length from the bow sensor to the applied force W, for the in the water test. Length between the bow and stern sensors for the in the water test. Length from the center of pitch to the applied force W, for the in the water test. Horizontal distance from the standard mass m to the axis for the incline-swing test. Mass of the hull. Mass of boat plus trailer in the bounce test. Mass of the empty trailer in the bounce test. Spring constant of the spring used for the Bounce and Snipe tests. Stern displacement during the in the water test. Period of oscillation of boat plus trailer in the bounce test. Period of oscillation of the empty trailer in the bounce test. Period of sway oscillation for the bifilar suspension. Period of yaw oscillation for the bifilar suspension. Force applied at the bow for the in the water test. Angular acceleration. Pitch angular acceleration at t = 0 for the in the water test. Angular displacement Pitch motion during the in the water test.

3 g s Torque. Gravitational torque. Spring torque.

Note: All equations and data are in SI units as these are standard for all measurements at the Olympics. 2. Weight Distribution Measurement With the advance of technology ever more sophisticated sailing dinghies are being built, and this is especially true of the Olympic classes. Although such advances may eventually lead to better production boats, it is the responsibility of the Class Associations to monitor such developments, and to ensure that expensive and perhaps detrimental developments do not confer an unfair advantage. Modern construction methods allow the hulls to be made significantly under the minimum weight specified in the class rules and the question then is where to put the extra weight. It would be beneficial for the average sailor if it was used to make a stronger and longer lasting boat, however it seems to be true for nearly all competitive classes, that builders are concentrating the weight and moving it aft, because many top sailors are convinced that such hulls give them a speed advantage. Past experience has shown that clever builders can usually circumvent scantling rules and that such rules eventually lead to obsolescent construction methods and possibly the demise of the class. In contrast determining the weight distribution with a swing test controls those characteristics of the boat which affect it's speed, while leaving the construction free. However, swing tests requires the accurate timing of some type of angular oscillation and this is both time consuming and requires carefully controlled measuring conditions if the required precision and reproducibility are to be achieved. Thus the introduction of such a rule is not to be considered lightly, and the wording, the method of measurement and the limiting gyradius specified must be carefully chosen if it is to achieve it's goal. This paper will present some of the methods currently used for the measurement of weight distribution, and some of the results obtained. 3. The effect of weight distribution on performance It is not the intent of this paper to discus the ways in which the distribution of weight can affect boatspeed. For the present purposes it suffices to say that many sailors are, rightly or wrongly, convinced that light ends are beneficial and this belief is causing significant efforts to be made to concentrate the weight. However, to put the subject into perspective a short discussion is in order. The distribution of the weight affects both the average attitude of the boat, and its dynamic response. The heel and the fore and aft trim both depend on the average position of the weight, i.e. the position of the CG, but not on whether it is spread out or concentrated. For a boat sailing on ideally flat water in a constant wind so that it does not roll, pitch or yaw, the concentration of the weight would have no effect on the boat's motion, or on its speed. However, except in very light winds we do not sail in this way, and the boat oscillates about an average attitude as it progresses. Only the two rotational oscillations, pitch and yaw, are directly affected by the fore and aft distribution of the weight. However the hydrodynamic

4 forces on the hull depend on these rotational motions and they are thus coupled to the linear motions. When a boat starts to pitch the buoyancy tends to counteract the motion so as to bring the boat back towards an even keel, however, the boat overshoots and then oscillates back and forth with a natural pitching frequency until the energy carried away by wave generation and drag of the water on the hull plus the air on the rig damp out the pitching motion. When sailing up wind in waves the effect of an individual wave may not be serious, however, if waves are encountered at the natural pitching frequency of the boat then each wave adds to the pitching motion until it builds up and reduces the boat's forward speed. The weight distribution affects the period of "natural pitching" and hence the synchronism with the wave encounter frequency which is necessary for the pitching to build up. A large pitching motion not only increases the resistance to forward motion, but reduces the driving force of the sails (the airflow at the top of the mast can even reverse when the bow goes up!). This at least is the accepted theory, and has been shown to apply to supertankers, destroyers, and to keelboats such as 12 meters with hulls which are relatively symmetrical fore and aft. After many discussions with top dinghy sailors I am convinced that they believe that the weight distribution makes a significant difference to both the "feel" of the boat and to its speed. However, I am not so convinced that the forgoing resonance theory can be directly applied to planing dinghies. Relative to its size, a centerboard dinghy is very light, so the small amount of energy stored in the pitching motion is rapidly dissipated. A fully rigged Flying Dutchman suspended on knife edges only makes a few oscillations before coming to rest, even though this idealized pitching motion does not include the very large damping due to the water, when sailing [Hinrichsen, 1977 #6]. The large damping, together with the pronounced asymmetry of the hull shape suggests that the resonance will be very broad so that small changes in the resonant frequency will have little effect on the pitching amplitude. Differences in technique, i.e. sailing free or pinching, can change the encounter frequency by as much as the weight distribution changes the resonant frequency. Finally, the influence of the added mass due to the oscillations of the water in contact with the hull, of different masts and crews could mask the effects of the small differences in the hull weight distribution on the pitching motion. The effect of the fore and aft weigh distribution on the feel of a sailing dinghy may also be due, at least in part, due to it's influence on the steering response. When sailing in waves it is well known that the helmsman does not steer a straight course, but is continually altering course in response to the waves. Sailing to weather he will head up into a wave, and then rapidly bears off over the crest, repeating this maneuver for each wave. Similar actions are taken downwind, so that the course of the boat resembles a slalom. This motion can be thought of as a constant average motion in the direction of the course, plus a yaw oscillation. This yawing oscillation is not like the pitching oscillation, for which the changing buoyancy provides a natural restoring torque, but is purposely introduced by the helmsman's use of the rudder and of sail trim. When the boat is steered off course, there is no natural tendency for it to be restored to the original course, the helmsman again has to use the rudder. The fore and aft weight distribution of the boat directly affects the boat's response to these rudder actions. A boat with heavy ends will respond more slowly, or will require more violent rudder action for it to respond as rapidly as a boat with light ends. The sluggish response to the rudder of a boat with heavy ends will mean a less optimum course or alternatively, the more violent rudder action required will induce more drag.

5 4. Center of Gravity, CG The average position of the weight determines the Center of Gravity, i.e. the CG of the boat, which in turn affects the average attitude of the boat when sailing. For stability the CG is generally as low as possible and its fore and aft position has a major effect on the trim of the hull in the water. However for many sailing dinghies the crew together weigh more than the boat and therefore have a very significant effect on the CG of the total boat. Even within the constraints imposed by boat handling they can significantly alter the position of the CG. The fore and aft position of the hull CG might therefore seem to be unimportant. However, the crew and the hull can be thought of as the ends of a dumbbell and the closer together their CGs are the smaller the total moment of inertia. Thus in order to concentrate the total weight the hull CG should be close to the average position of the crew, i.e. well aft. This may be part of the explanation why many dinghy sailors believe that a light bow is more important than a low gyradius, and that any suggestion that corrector weights be put on the bow are met with howls of protest. It therefore makes little sense to regulate the gyradius without also specifying the fore and aft position of the CG. Fortunately the fore and aft position of the CG can be easily measured as part of any of the swing tests to be discussed. The vertical position of the CG is measured as part of the Lamboley and Incline-swing tests and can also be determined by balancing the hull on a gunwale. 5. Principles of weight distribution measurement To determine the longitudinal distribution of the weight in a non-destructive manner, one must measure the moment of inertia about either the horizontal pitch or the vertical yaw axis, and this requires a dynamical measurement. The second moment of the mass distribution, or moment of inertia about a given axis can be expressed as I = Mk2, where M is the mass of the hull and k is the gyradius I and k depend on both the orientation and position of the axis of rotation. The roll moment of inertia is very different to that for pitch or yaw and although in principle the yaw and pitch gyradii are also different, in practice they are approximately the same for typical dinghy hull shapes. The instantaneous axis of pitching rotation is not fixed relative to the hull, especially for a planing dinghy in waves, However such a motion can be treated as a heave oscillation of the CG plus a pitch rotation about the CG and, except for the coupling terms, the heave does not depend on the moment of inertia. Thus it is customary to quote moments of inertia and gyradii about an axis through the CG, furthermore these are the minimum values for rotation about a given direction and the gyradius about any parallel axis can be easily computed from them. The moment of inertia cannot be measured by any static method as it only enters the rotational statement of Newtons second law, namely = I where is the applied torque and is the resulting angular acceleration. This relation is the basis of all measurements of moments of inertia and hence of gyradii. The method of measurement proposed by Watt Webb [Webb, 1974 #46] uses this equation directly. All the other methods employ a restoring torque () which is ideally proportional to the angular displacement from the equilibrium position and produce oscillatory motion. A measurement of the frequency or period of the oscillation together with the functional dependence of the torque on angular displacement give the moment of inertia. For the "Lamboley test", the "Incline-swing test" and the "Bifilar suspension" the weight and the geometry of the suspension determine the torque while for the methods used by

6 the Snipe, Comet and Lightning classes a standard spring at a fixed lever arm provides the restoring torque. If, in order to enforce a rule, measurements are to be made at regattas then there are some other requirements on the method to be used. The apparatus must be cheap and reliable, and relatively untrained people must be able to get precise and reproducible results in a short time. Typically, at a major championship, 50 or more boats will have to be measured in a period of two days. No complex adjustments, calculations, or corrections, should be required, as on line results are essential. Measurements made in different parts of the world must give the same results, without recalibration of the equipment. It is of great importance that the chosen method has the highest precision possible. The weight distribution is characterized by the gyradius k which is a length, and the sailor's natural expectation is that one can measure it with the same 1 mm precision with which other dimensions are measured! Such precision cannot presently be achieved and it is the object of this paper to examine the reproducibility and precision of the methods currently used. 6 The Lamboley Test Ideally the period of small amplitude oscillation T1 of a rigid body of gyradius k and with its CG a distance a below a horizontal axis from which it is freely suspended is

T 1 = 2

a2 + k 2 ag

(1)

Unfortunately this period depends on the unknown distance a as well as the gyradius k which one wants to measure. This difficulty can be overcome if two periods of oscillation, about two axes which are a known distance b apart, are measured. The period about the lower axis is

T 2 = 2

(a-b)2 + k 2 (a-b) g

(2)

The unknown distance a from the upper axis to the center of mass is then

a =
and the gyradius is given by

b(gT 2 + 42b) 2 2 g(T 2 - T 2) + 82b 1

(3)

k2 = a

gT 2 1 -a 2 4

(4)

For a hull suspended from a horizontal athwartships axis, see fig. 1, the pitch gyradius kp about the center of mass can therefore be determined from measurements of the spacing b, and the two periods T1, and T2. In 1970 Gilbert Lamboley [Lamboley, 1971 #25] introduced

7 this method, with b = 200 mm, and the Finn class has successfully used the "Lamboley Test" for the past 20 years. The Europa class has also adopted this test and many other classes including the Flying Dutchman and 470 have considered the adoption of the Lamboley Test, and made detailed studies of the weight distribution of hulls using this technique [Hinrichsen, 1977 #6]. The practical usefulness of the Lamboley Test has been well established, however it has a number of disadvantages. The most obvious is that two periods have to be measured, and this is very time consuming when many boats have to be checked and rechecked. Photocell timing and portable computers speed up the procedure but have the effect of adding an air of incomprehensibility to the results. Finally it can be seen from equations (3) and (4) that the gyradius depends on the difference between the squares of the two periods of oscillation, and this limits the precision with which the gyradius can be determined. 7. The effects of Damping on Precision The simple theory above does not take into account pivot friction or air damping, and for modern light dinghy hulls even small drafts can affect the period of oscillation. Water in the hull, loose fittings which can flop about, knife edges and/or photocells which are not very rigidly supported can all limit the precision achievable. The presence of even a few hundred grams of free running water in a 125 kg hull cause the amplitude to decreases rapidly and nonuniformly. The bifilar test is probably much less sensitive to the presence of water, but no detailed observations have yet been made. For precision measurements the hulls must be absolutely dry, but this is not always easily achieved at a regatta! Pivot friction, Linear and quadratic air damping, can be studied by observing the decrease of the amplitude with time, see for example fig. 2. Pivot friction would cause this data to curve downwards and there is no evidence for this, thus suggesting that friction was negligible. Furthermore, theoretically pivot friction does not affect the period of oscillation [Squire, 1986 #163]. The effect of linear air damping on the period is much smaller than the scatter of the data, and is in any case constant for all hulls of a given class. The quadratic air damping (the presence of which is clearly shown by the fact that the graph in fig. 2 is not a straight line) however causes the period of oscillation to depend somewhat on the amplitude [Nelson, 1986 #151]. The observed variation of the period with amplitude, see fig. 3, cannot however be accounted for by this effect. If the periods measured at a given amplitude are used to calculate the pitch gyradius kp and CG height "a" then they vary quite significantly with amplitude as shown in fig. 4. The use of small amplitudes reduces this systematic error but at the expense of making the measurement more sensitive to drafts and thus increasing the random error. Thus the choice of an optimum amplitude is a compromise which may be different for each class. Another source of systematic error is the hooks required to suspend the hulls which produce a measurable change in the observed gyradius. Typical Lamboley hangers, 2.75 kg, produce a decrease of 15 mm, i.e. one percent of the FD gyradius, and for smaller lighter hulls the effect will be larger. Thus the exact weight and dimensions of the hangers must specified and any rule must clearly state that it is "the gyradius of the hull plus hangers" or a correction for the hangers must be calculated. All techniques suffer from this problem and the attachments which support the hull and rotate with it should always be as light as possible. 8. The Incline-Swing test

8 The vertical position of the CG a can be determined by an inclining test, see fig. 5, instead of a second period measurement. This has the advantage that the hull only needs to be suspended once, a significant advantage especially for measurements on keelboats. If a standard weight of mass m is placed a horizontal distance l1 forward of the axis the vertical position a of the CG can be calculated from a measurement of the vertical displacement d1 of a point which is a horizontal distance Lo from the axis. Then for a hull of mass M

a = m . l1 Lo M d1

(5)

The precision and reliability can be considerably improved by measuring a second displacement d2 with the standard mass a nominally equal distance l2 towards the stern, then

a = m Lo M 2

l1 + l2 - a 0 d1 d2

m Lo M 2

l1 + l 2 - a 0 d1 + d 2 (6)

where for completeness a small correction for the average distance ao of the standard mass below the pivot is included (the system should be designed to make ao zero). The value of a together with a single period of oscillation T, about the same axis, when substituted into equation (1) give the pitch gyradius kp. This method is used by the Dragon class, and was used for tests on some Tornado hulls at the Olympic regatta in Pusan. The Royal New Zealand Yacht Squadron tested the Stewart 34s previously used for the Squadron Cup match races with this technique. Further advantages are that a static deflection can be easily averaged, and the presence of water in the hull causes the deflection d to change continuously. The only minor drawback is that the mass of the hull M must be measured accurately, but this is in any case part of the measurement procedure. For the measurements on Tornado hulls the major sources of uncertainty in the CG position a (1 mm) were the mass of the hull M (0.25%) and the deflection d (0.5% with m = 200 gm) leading to an uncertainty in the gyradius of 4.2 mm. The period of oscillation could be measured to 5 msec which leads to a further uncertainty in the gyradius of 1 mm. For similar timing uncertainties using the Lamboley test the results give similar precision, however the Lamboley test results are much more sensitive to timing uncertainties. The use of an electronic level and photocell coupled to a computer, could materially improve the precision and turn around time of this method. 9. The Bifilar Suspension The bifilar suspension [Newman, 1951 #185; Hinrichsen, 1985 #12] shown in Fig. 6 is an alternative way to generate a torque which is derived from gravity. The hull is suspended by two parallel wires of length l, and spacing 2d. When hanging freely with the hull level the CG is in the plane of the wires, and half way between them. For small angular displacements , from equilibrium, the two wires become inclined to the vertical, the CG rises by z = d22/2l, and the total energy of oscillation is

2 Mk2 y 2

Mgd2 2 2l

(7)

which is the equation of simple harmonic motion with a period of

Ty =

2ky d

l g

(8)

Then the yaw gyradius ky is given by

ky =

d 2

g l

Ty

(9)

Thus the gyradius is directly proportional to the measured period Ty, and the constant of proportionality depends only on the geometry of the suspension which can be chosen so as to make the constant a round number. Another significant advantage is that the apparatus required can easily be made at home. This method is commonly used on tank test models, has been used on sailboards, lasers, 470s, an International 14 and to measure Flying Dutchman at the '84 and '88 Olympics, and at the 1990 World Championships in Newport (where 75 hulls were measured in three days). One drawback is that the boat is free to oscillate in a number of ways other than the yaw oscillation which is to be measured, i.e. in sway as a simple pendulum, and in coupled pitch and heave. For timing with a vertical photogate at the bow the the heave and pitch are eliminated. Releasing the hull while keeping its center under a plumb bob, which is on the center line of the suspension, reduces the sway to less than 1% of the yaw amplitude the bow, however, this modulation is still the major cause of timing uncertainties. The bifilar suspension prevents any roll rotation thus the sway period is

T s = 2

l g

(10)

and Ty/Ts = ky/d i.e. the sway oscillation can be made a harmonic of the yaw oscillation by choosing the spacing d to be an integral fraction of ky. The modulation by a harmonic should then not influence the yaw period, as measured from the zero crossing times at the bow. Thus for an athwartships suspension, which facilitates measuring the fore and aft position of the CG, a spacing 2d & ky should be chosen (d & ky is much larger than the beam, but is the best choice if a fore and aft suspension is used). By averaging measurements of the period over one beat cycle any residual effects of sway can be made negligible. The crossbar or other support which swings with the hull should be light and a suspension which uses hooks under the gunwales, the separation of which is controlled by a taught cross wire has proved practical. For a fore and aft suspension such as was used for sailboards a spacing d = ky eliminates any correction for the mass of the hooks. The mass of the suspension wires leads to a negligible correction, however some care must be taken with the end fittings which must not allow the motion of the hull to twist the wires, otherwise the torsional rigidity of the wires adds an unknown torque. The length l and spacing 2d can be

10 measured to 1 mm. The residual sway modulation of the period Ty, which for the measurements on FDs was 7 msec (but much less when averaged) is the limiting factor on the precision of the method. An uncertainty of 7 msec in the period corresponds to an uncertainty of 2 mm in the gyradius. This is significantly better than can be achieved with a Lamboley test. The insensitivity of this test to offcenter positioning of the CG has been confirmed by measurements on an International 14 and its sensitivity confirmed to be better than 2 mm by placing up to 5 kg at various positions in the 94 kg hull. Measurements of the decay of the amplitude, similar to those shown in fig. 2, have been made and show that, as expected, the air damping is less in yaw than in pitch. The beating of the Sway and yaw oscillations can be used to measure the gyradius directly. If the hull is released from a position which is displaced in sway but with the hull rotated so that the bow is at its equilibrium position it will oscillate in rotation about the bow, which remains stationary, if d = ky. This can be achieved by adjusting the spacing d. After the system is tuned one just measures d to determine the gyradius ky, without the use of a stop watch! However despite the fact that only one end of one suspension wire need be adjusted (the wires need only be approximately vertical) the tuning takes too much time for this to be a practical technique at regattas. 10. Spring Oscillator Methods In 1965 Robert Smithers [Smither, 1969 #38] developed a method of measuring the moment of inertia of a fully rigged Lightning (without the sails) while it was on its trailer. His aim was to investigate the difference in weight distribution between wooden and fiberglass boats as cheaply as possible. The tongue of the trailer was attached to a calibrated spring, of spring constant S, and by rhythmically pushing the trailer tongue the boat was made to oscillate in pitch about the trailer axle. The measured period of oscillation then gives the moment of inertia Ic of the boat plus trailer. A separate measurement on the empty trailer gives its moment of inertia It which can then be subtracted to obtain Ib i.e. that of the boat alone about the trailer axle. Separate measurements of the distance a of the CG from the axle are required in order to convert the result to the moment of inertia about the CG (or other parallel axes such as that through the center of buoyancy). Various methods such as resting the hull on its gunwale and measuring the balancing force required at the tip of the mast, or alternatively measuring the trailer tongue weight and its variation with angular displacement, were used to obtain the CG position [Smither, 1969 #38]. The principle of this method is similar to those previously described, however the restoring torque is now supplied by the calibrated spring at a lever arm of D i.e. the horizontal distance of the hitch from the axle. For this setup in which the axis of rotation is below the CG the weight no longer supplies a restoring torque, thus if it is to be only a small perturbation the variation with angle of the gravitational torque i.e. g = Mga Sin , must be much smaller than that of the torque due to the spring s = SD2. For the CG of the boat plus trailer a distance ac vertically above the axle, i.e. zero tongue weight, the total energy of oscillation is
2 SD 2 - M c gac E Ic + 2 2

(11)

11 Thus the period of oscillation is

T c = 2

Ic SD - M c gac
2

(12)

Which gives the Moment of inertia of the boat plus trailer as

2 I c = T c SD 2 - M c gac 42

(13)

A similarly expression gives the moment of inertia It of the trailer alone and then the moment of inertia of the boat about the trailer axle is
2 I b = SD T 2 - T 2 - g T 2Mc ac - T 2Mt at c t c t 42 42

(14)

By appropriate choice of the spring constant S the last term (which in any case gets somewhat smaller if the CG is not vertically above the axle) can be made a small correction. For high precision measurements the constants ac and at can be determined as mentioned above. The precision achieved was about 1% and clearly differentiated between the wood and the glass boats, see table 2. Estimating the uncertainty in the weight measurements as about 0.2% the resulting uncertainty in the gyradius is 0.7% or 13 mm which compares favorably with the Lamboley test. For light hulls on heavy trailers the correction for the trailer will add to the uncertainty due to the difference between the squares of the two periods in equation (14). The trailer is however unnecessary and in fact can be the cause of added corrections unless both the wheels and the suspension springs are firmly blocked. In 1971 Ted Wells [Wells, 1971 #48] eliminated the trailer and simplified this test for use by the Snipe class (I believe the Comet class also use it now) and Dan Williams refined and compared it with the Lamboley test, see table 2. For the Snipe test the keel rubbing strakes rests on a small steel plate pivoted on a 3/8" steel bar. The hull is adjusted fore and aft until it balances and then two tangential springs are attached to a jig on the bow, see fig. 7. The period of oscillation is measured and the moment of inertia about the point on the keel rubbing strake directly below the CG is calculated using equation (13) without the last term. The class rule then specifies a minimum moment of inertia determined in this way, thus obviating the need for the other measurements required to obtain the gyradius about the CG. One might argue that by adjusting the keel rocker etc it would be possible to concentrate the weight slightly more without contravening this rule. However as kkeel2 = (Kp2 + a2), where a is the height of the CG above the keel, this can only be done at the expense of raising the CG and this may offset any advantage due to the decrease in gyradius (note that the opposite would be true for a one period Pendulum test). If results are to be reproducible worldwide then one source of accurately calibrated spring sets is to be prefered and the jig on the bow should be as light as possible and of exactly specified dimensions. Springs can age and be abused, however a set in use for 8 years changed by only 0.2%. The fact that the hull rests a pivot on the ground eliminates the need for a very

12 solidly supported pivot bar and solid gunwales, as are required for a Lamboley test, and also speeds up the procedure. 11. Keelboat tests Performing swing tests on keelboats is clearly a much greater engineering problem as well as being more time consuming. The incline-swing test and a yaw inertia test have been used for out of the water measurements. An in the water test proposed by Watt Webb [Webb, 1974 #46] is being implemented by Rick McCurdy for possible inclusion in the IMS rule [McCurdy, 1990 #31]. The Dragon class perform an incline-swing test by hoisting the hulls using a jig, attached to the lifting eyes, which allows it to be levelled and to swing in pitch about a swing center which is about 570 mm below the deck. They use a 10 kg weight 4700 mm forward of the swing center and some effort is required to measure the 4700 mm with the required accuracy. An error of 25 mm would lead to an error of 7 mm in the gyradius and timing uncertainties of 20 msec would produce uncertainties of 6.6 mm. Tests with known added weights gave results which reproduced to within 0.3% or 4 mm. The class however have chosen to specify their rule directly in terms of the period of oscillation and the bow deflection in order to avoid calculating the gyradius directly. In 1987 the Royal New Zealand Yacht Squadron wished to ensure that the wooden and fiberglass Stewart 34s, which they used for the Squadron Challenge Cup match race series, were as equal in performance as possible. They therefore performed incline-swing tests on the boats, see fig. 8. Tests on one hull which was loaded with extra weights in specified locations indicated that both the CG position a and the gyradius kp could be determined to 1%. Once organized, the tests required only one hour from haulout to relaunch, however the equipment is not easily transportable. Bill Parks of the Star class pioneered a different approach in 1975. This technique measures the yaw moment of inertia by suspending the hull from a crane with a swivelling hook and attaching a pair of horizontal springs at the bow. The principle is the same as that of the Snipe test except that the rotation is about the yaw axis. The CG is directly below the point of suspension and therefore on the axis of rotation, thus ac in equation (13) is zero. There are however a number of problems with this elegantly simple method. When the hull swings in yaw the pivot must exert a force which is equal and opposite to that due to the springs at the bow and it is difficult to prevent any lateral motion of the suspension hook. The hook is also not at the same level as the bow springs and thus sway and roll motions will develop. These problems together with friction at the hook and varying torsional rigidity of the suspension led to irreproducible results from site to site. In 1989 the class approached me and I suggested that the hull be supported on a turntable using a vertical truck axle bearing and a light frame which clamp onto the keel to support the hull. The calibrated springs could be incorporated into the turntable thus making the system self contained. At the present time the Star class has defered any further action until there is clear evidence that a rule is required.

13 12. In the water tests For ocean racing yachts there are obvious advantages to an in the water test which can be performed at the same time as inclining measurements etc. and a technique for such measurements was proposed by Watt Webb [Webb, 1974 #46] in 1974. In 1989 the USYRU established a Pitching Moment Project to develop a practical instrument based on this proposal and to collect data on yacht performance in waves, on which a handicapping system for inclusion in the IMS rule could be based. The development of the instrument has been described in detail by Rick McCurdy [McCurdy, 1990 #31]. A upward force W applied near the bow which displaces the boat in both pitch and heave such that the buoyancy force is reduced by W and the buoyancy torque balances that due to W at a lever arm Lp from the center of pitch, see fig. 9. If the applied force W is suddenly removed the boat will oscillate with a complex damped pitch-heave motion, however at the instant of release the buoyancy torque responsible for the pitching is equal to the applied torque = WLp. Measurements of the bow and stern displacements as a function of time, see fig. 10, then allow both the initial pitch angular acceleration (0) and Lp to be determined. Provided that the center of pitch remains fixed the bow and stern displacements B(t) and S(t) are given by B(t) = H(t) + (Lp + Lb) (t) S(t) = H(t) + (Lp + Lb - Lbs) (t)

(15) (16)

where Lb is the distance between the bow sensor and the pull and Lbs is the distance between the bow and stern sensors. then

(t) = B(t) - S (t) L bs

and

(17)

L p = L bs

B (t) - H (t) - Lb B(t) - S (t)

(18)

By differentiating (t) twice and extrapolating to time zero the initial angular acceleration (0) can be determined. Unfortunately H(t) is unknown and to overcome this Watt Webb proposed a second measurement with the pull at the stern, then only the measured spacing between the two pulls, not Lp, is required. However this complicates the procedure and as the heave and pitch oscillations differ in frequency by about a factor of 2.2 they can be separated, thus allowing Lp to be determined. In practice the heave has always been found to be negligible. Then

Ip =

W Lp WL p L bs = (0) B (0) - S(0)

(19)

14 In order to allow precise extrapolation to time zero, damped oscillator functions together with offset and drift parameters were used to model the pitch and heave motions as shown in fig. 10. A nonlinear least squares fitting routine is used to derive the parameters from a simultaneously fit to B(t) and S(t). An analysis of the results for five different boats suggests that the moment of inertia in the water can be measured with a standard deviation of 6%, while Lp can be determined to 1.2%. Currently the main source of uncertainty is due to heave of the boat against the lifting tackle which causes W to vary. An alternative approach is therefore being developed, namely the pitch stiffness will be precisely measured with an electronic inclinometer and then the moment of inertia determined from the period of oscillation as recorded by the same inclinometer, in a manner similar to the pendulum tests. This technique has the advantages that neither W or Lp have to be determined and that the system does not require any external fixed reference point and will thus be self contained. It should be pointed out that the in the water tests do not measure the same quantity as those performed out of the water. The energy of oscillation of the water in the vicinity of the hull has to be included in the equations of motion and can be represented as an added mass for heave and an added moment of inertia for pitch. The values depend on the detailed hull shape and precise theoretical calculations cannot yet be made for sailing yachts. The axis about which the in the water moment of inertia is computed is also not through the CG. Typically the results of mass moments of inertia computed from design weights etc. differ from those measured in the water by a factor of about two. However it can be argued that it is the in the water value which is more relevant to performance and provided it is measured in a consistent manner should be used for handicapping purposes. It will now be possible to measure some hulls both ways and compare the data with current theoretical models and the actual pitch-heave motion of the boat in waves. This is an interesting project for the future.
13. Flying Dutchman Results

Fig. 11 shows the close correlation between the yaw and pitch gyradii of the FDs at Pusan in '88, thus demonstrating that either can be used for the control of weight distribution. The data for FD hulls at the '76, '84 and '88 Olympics are compared in Figs. 12, 13 and 14, which show the gyradii, the transom to CG and the pivot to CG distances respectively. The arrows indicate the average values for each year. The conclusion from this data is that the weight is being concentrated, i.e. smaller gyradii, and moved aft. Clearly a major effort is being put into making the bows lighter, but by how much? Assuming that the hulls are uniformly lightened, i.e. so the gyradius and CG remain the same, and then that the saved weight is all added at one point, allows one to to estimate the amount and location of the saved weight. Comparing the "Average '76" and "Average '88" FDs suggests that about 23 kg has been saved and moved back to within 1.83 M of the transom. In practice the change is more likely due to the empty bows now in favour, but the estimate of 1520 kg is in agreement with "boatpark wisdom".
14. Total boat Calculations

It is the total boat, i.e. the hull plus equipment and the crew which interacts with the wind and waves, not just the hull. It would be nice if one could measure the moment of inertia of the total boat, and Robert Smithers has done this for a lightning with everything but the sails.

15 I have performed a Lamboley test on an FD with sails etc. but no crew. However such measurements are not practical as they are very sensitive to drafts. Thus one has to resort to calculations and these can be assuming a perfectly rigid boat provided the mass, CG position and gyradius of each component is known. The position of the CG of the boat LCG forward of the transom is

L CG =
i

mi L i mi
(20)

where the sum is over all the components. Similar formulae give the vertical location HCG below the deckline and the athwartships position BCG of the CG. The total pitch and yaw moments of inertia about the CG are then

Ip =
and

mi (L i - L CG )2 + (Hi - HCG )2 + k 2 pi mi (L i - L CG )2 + (B i - B CG )2 + k 2 yi

(21)

Iy =

(22)

The results of such a calculation for an FD are given in Table 1. Note that when the crew are added the CG changes position thus the crew moments of inertia cannot simply be added to get the total. Provided the rig is tight, and this is realistic for FDs going upwind in waves, the calculation is probably reliable for the complete boat and this was confirmed by measurement. however, despite what some helmsmen may think of their crews, it is not realistic to assume they are rigid bodies! Thus the values for the total boat are only for guidance. Robert Smither has made measurements with the crew sitting in a Lighting when pitching on it's trailer, both with the rig tight and with it loose and has found significant differences [Smither, 1970 #39]. One could probably model the system of boat, helmsman and crew as three coupled damped spring mass oscillators, but that is beyond the scope of this paper. Although the hull is about 80 percent of the weight of the boat it only contributes 50 percent of the pitching moment, the mast (31%) mainsail (6.3%) and rudder (6%) also make significant contributions in pitch. For yaw the hull (85%) is the dominant component and only the rudder (9.3%) makes a significant contribution. The crew and helmsman, although more than half of the total weight, add little to the pitching moment but as the crew on the trapeze is perpendicular to the boat he adds substantially to the yaw moment. It is purely fortuitous that the mast and crew add to the moments in such a way that the total pitch and yaw moments are similar. One might expect that changes in crew position and weight would be much more significant than small changes in the hull, however, because the crew is at about the position of the CG of the boat plus helmsman changes in his position have only a small effect, see fig. 15. The helmsman should however be as light as possible and as far forward as is commensurate with boat handling. It is also advantageous for the CG of the boat to be as far aft as possible, the basic idea is that the CGs of the Helmsman, crew and boat should be as close together as

16 possible as this reduces the first term in equations (21) and (22). Thus the total moment of inertia can be decreased by reducing the hull gyradius or by moving the CG aft. This effect is illustrated in fig. 16 in which the pitch gyradius and fore and aft position of the hull CG are plotted together with contours of the total moment of inertia. Variations in crew, mast, and equipment can produce about 9 percent changes in total moment of inertia, while changes in crew position are calculated to produce only 5 percent differences compared to about 10 percent variations between hulls. Thus although the hull is the most important contribution the combined effect of the other components can be as large as that from the hull. These numbers are for Flying Dutchmen and similar calculations can be made for other classes given similar data to that in table 1.
15. Data for Other Classes

Many of the measurements summarized in table 2 were made by class measurers on an exploratory basis and was thus buried in class correspondence. The speed with which a sailboard can be made to respond in both pitch and yaw depends on the weight distribution, and as in this case the rig is decoupled from the hull thus it does not add to the pitch moment of inertia. Dr Schoop measured a number of sailboards for the IYRU using a bifilar suspension for both the yaw and the pitch gyradius, and one of the Lechner boards used in Pusan was also measured. It would be a simple matter to mould a screw socket into the board so that the eyes could be simply attached for a yaw test if this became a requirement. The Finn class was the pioneer in the field and an extensive compilation of Finn data exists [Lamboley, 1975 #27]. The data in table 2 is an early sample which is uninfluenced by the introduction of the rule which now limits the gyradius to 1140 mm < kp < 1300 mm and the CG position to 2000 mm < L < 2250 mm. The 470 class has also collected extensive data at both their 1985 World and 1986 European Championships as well as at the Pusan Olympics. For the latter the IYRU required the 470 gyradius kp >1180 mm, thus the data for the '86 Europeans is given in table 2. Bob Shiels has made measurements of the yaw gyradius using a bifilar suspension, but these were for a hull without fittings. Prior to 1988 the Tornado class had a limitation on the total weight but no restriction on the weight of the hull alone. Although not used for the Olympic regatta, the Australians built a pair of extremely light hulls together with excessively heavy centerboards in order to concentrate the weight, and these were reputed to be fast, especially downwind. Leif Smitt and I therefore took the opportunity to make incline-swing tests on these hulls together with hulls from other tune up Tornadoes in Pusan and the average data is shown in table 2. The Dragon class is to my knowledge the only keelboat class to have a weight distribution rule and data from their exploratory tests is given in table 2. As is to be expected he ratio kp/LOA = 0.16 is much lower than that for the dinghy classes and compares with ky/LOA = 0.144 for the Star class. However it is interesting to note that for the Stewart 34s kp/LOA = 0.246 which is similar to that for the dinghies. The data from the in the water tests has not been included in table 2 as it is not comparable with the rest of the data.

17
16. Conclusion

A number of techniques which have been used to measure the gyradii of boats have been described and the results summarized in the hope that this will allow future work to benefit from this experience. Opinion on the effect of weight distribution on sailing dinghy characteristics and speed are divided. many sailors believe it has a significant effect while on the other hand there are reports that under some conditions light ends can be a disadvantage. The statistical evidence from regatta results is inconclusive and subject to interpretation as light ended boats are likely to be sailed by top sailors who leave nothing to chance. To my knowledge no double blind tests, with matched boats sailed in conditions in which light ends are likely to be significant, have been made. The data being collected for the IMS project will provide information on the effect of pitching on keelboat performance and similar data for dinghies would be of great interest, but much harder to obtain. In the mean time improvements in the gyradius measurement techniques will at least improve that aspect of the data.

18
REFERENCES

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

R. Compton, B. Johnson and C. Van Duyne. "Seakeeping and the Sailing Yachtsman". Second Chesapeake Sailing Yacht Symposium. 1975. W. W. Webb, "The IOR Rule: Moment of Inertia measurement to control empty ends". 1974. G. Lamboley, "Influence of the Weight Distribution in a boat, proposed means of control". IYRU Report 1971. P. F. Hinrichsen, "Weight Distribution in Sailing Dinghies" IFDCO Report 1977. P. T. Squire, "Pendulum Damping". Am. J. Phys. 54(November): 984-991, 1986. R. A. Nelson, and M. G. Olsson. "The Pendulum-Rich physics from a simple system". Am. J. Phys. 54(February): 112-121, 1986. P. F. Hinrichsen, "A New Method of measuring the Weight Distribution of Sailing Dinghies". Bulletin of the IFDCO. 29, 1985. F. H. Newman, and V. H. Searle. The General Properties of Matter. Edward Arnold & Co. London 1951. R. K. Smither, "Measuring Moment of Inertia". One Design and Offshore Yachsman. 30-49, 1969. T. Wells, "Moment of Inertia". Snipe Bulletin. 13, 1971. R. S. McCurdy, "Feasability Study of the Measurement of Mass Moment of Inertia in Pitch for Cruiser/Racer Yachts". New England Sailing Yacht Symposium, 23 March 1990. 1-17, 1990. R. K. Smither, "The Floppiness Factor". One Design and Offshore Yachsman. 35-37, 1970. G. Lamboley, "Weight Distribution Experiments made up to July 1975". IYRU Report 1975.

12. 13.

19
FIGURES

L
1 2

b a

CG

Figure 1 For a Lamboley test the hull is suspended from a horizontal knife edge and the two periods of oscillation T1 and T2 about two axes a distance b = 200 mm apart are measured. The pitch gyradius kp and the vertical position of the CG, a can then be calculated. The horizontal distance L from the transom to the CG can also be measured.

FD 88 Axis 1: "Amplitude

vs Time"
o

100

mrad

= 149.92 mrad
o

= 0.001323 s 40 = 0.12368 rad

-1 -1

-1

Amplitude

20

10

5 0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Time sec

Figure 2 The decay of the amplitude of pitch oscillation of an FD in a Lamboley test. The initial curvature of this "log plot" indicates the presence of nonlinear damping and the absence of any downward curvature shows that pivot friction is negligible. The data has been fit with a function representing linear and quadratic damping.

20

T/T
1.4 1.2

vs Amplitude

percent

1.0 0.8 0.6

DT1/T1 FD76

T/T

0.4 0.2 0.0 -0.2 0 50 100 150

DT2/T2 DT1/T1 DT2w/T2w

200

250

Amplitude mrad.
Figure 3 The variation of the periods of oscillation in a Lamboley test on FDs as a function of the amplitude of the swing, where T/T0 is the fractional difference in the period. Data for T1/T1 were taken in 1976 and repeated in 1988 and T/T2 are from 1988. T2w/T2w is data with 500 gm of water in coke bottles on the bow and stern, to simulate a wet boat.

21
CALCULATED FD GYRADIUS "Kp" and CG HEIGHT "a" vs AMPLITUDE

580

1530

1520

1510

CG HEIGHT "a" mm

1500

1490

560 1480

1470

550 0 100 200 300

1460

AMPLITUDE mrad
Figure 4 If the data of fig.3, at a given amplitude, are used to calculate the pitch gyradius kp and CG height a, then the results vary with the amplitude as shown.

GYRADIUS "Kp" mm

570

22

Lo l1 d1
m CG

Figure 5 For the incline-swing test the hull is suspended from a horizontal knife edge and the CG position a is found from the displacement d1 when a standard mass m is placed at a distance l1 from the axis. The gyradius kp is then found from the period of oscillation.

Figure 6 For the bifilar suspension test the hull is symmetrically suspended by two vertical wires of length l and spacing 2d. The period of yaw oscillation then gives the yaw gyradius ky directly.

23

Figure 7 For the Snipes test the hull is balanced on a 3/8" dia. rod and the period of oscillation with a set of standard springs at the bow is measured.

Figure 8 A Stewart 34 undergoing a swing test in New Zealand. Photo by Tom Yates.

24

w
B(t)
SNAP SHACKLE LOAD CELL CENTER OF PITCH

S(t)

Lb Lp L bs
Figure 9 The in the water method uses a string potentiometer B(t) at the bow and S(t) at the stern to measure the motion following the release from an upward force W near the bow. Lp and the initial angular acceleration (0) can be deduced from the bow and stern motion. The torque and hence the effective moment of inertia can then be calculated.

25

70

60

50

Position

40

Bow position
30

Stern position

20

10

Time Sec
Figure 10 The bow and stern positions of "Seguin" after release of a 400 lb pull at the bow, see fig. 9. A nonlinear least squares fit to this data, in terms of damped oscillator heave and pitch functions plus offset and drift, allows both the initial pitch acceleration (0) and Lp to be determined.

26

1600

1550

Pitch Gyradii mm

1500 D 1450

I 1400 KC F
US

1350 1350 1400 1450 1500 1550 1600

Yaw Gyradii mm
Figure 11 The pitch gyradii kp are plotted against the yaw gyradii ky for the FDs at the '88 (triangles) and '84 (diamonds) Olympic Regattas . The close correlation indicates that either kp or ky could be used to control weight distribution.

27

FD GYRADII 1976-88
5 4 3 2 1 1.35 1.40 1.45 1.50 1.55 1.60

1988

NUMBER of HULLS

3 2 1 1.35

1984
1.55

1.40

1.45

1.50

1.60

3 2 1 1.35

1976
1.40 1.45 1.50 1.55 1.60

GYRADIUS meters

Figure 12 The distributions of the FD gyradii measured in 1976, '84 and '88 are shown. The 1976 and 1988 data are pitch gyradii, while the 1984 data are yaw gyradii. The arrows indicate the average values. The trend towards increased concentration of the weight is clear.

28

FD CG POSITION 1976-88

3 2 1

1988

2.5

2.6

2.7

2.8

2.9

3.0

NUMBER of HULLS

2 1

1984

2.5

2.6

2.7

2.8

2.9

3.0

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

1976

2.5

2.6

2.7

2.8

2.9

3.0

TRANSOM to CG meters

Figure 13 The distributions of the fore and aft positions L of the FD Centers of Gravity as measured in 1976, '84 and '88 are shown. The arrows indicate the average values. The decrease of bow weight of modern FDs is demonstrated.

29

FD CG HEIGHT 1976-88
4 3 2 1

1988

NUMBER of HULLS

0.56

0.57

0.58

0.59

0.60

0.61

0.62

0.63

0.64

0.65

2 1 0

1984
0.56 0.57 0.58 0.59 0.60 0.61 0.62 0.63 0.64 0.65

6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0.56 0.57 0.58 0.59 0.60 0.61 0.62 0.63 0.64 0.65

1976

PIVOT to CG

meters

Figure 14 The distributions of the vertical positions "a" of the FD CGs in 1976, '84 and '88 are shown. The arrows again indicate the average values. The difference between 1976 and 1988 is probably due to the change from wood to fibreglass construction.

30
Figure 15 The calculated total moment of inertia of an FD is plotted for different fore and aft positions of the helmsman and crew. The crew curve assumes the helmsman at L = 1.8 m, while that for the helmsman is for the crew at L = 2.5 m. The solid parts of the curve are the practical regions.

1650
660

680

1600

Pitch Gyradii mm

640

1550
620

1500
600

1450
580

NZ

1400
F KC US

1350 2500 2600 2700 2800 2900 3000

Transom to CG mm
Figure 16 The FD pitch gyradius kp is plotted versus the fore and aft position L of the hull CG. Triangles, diamonds and circles are '88, '84 and '76 data respectively. Contours of constant total moment of inertia IT, which assume '88 average values for the other parameters, are also shown.

31

32

Measurers: [1]. P.F.Hinrichsen, [2]. H.Schoop, [3]. M.Oresic, [4]. A.Waine, [5]. J.Clarke, [6]. I.Morton, [7]. S.Forbes, [8]. D. Williams, [9]. R.K.Smithers, [1]0. L.W.Smitt [11]. W.Parks, [12]. A.Watts, [13]. A.Yates