32 gun frigate - richards model boats - homerichardsmodelboats.webs.com/pdf/southampton velocity...
TRANSCRIPT
32 GUN FRIGATE
HMS SOUTHAMPTON
VELOCITY PREDICTION
R. Braithwaite
Issue 02
Nov 2009
HMS Southampton Velocity Prediction
R.Braithwaite Page 1 Issue 02
CONTENTS 1 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 2 2 Spreadsheet Guide ............................................................................................. 4
2.1 Force and Moment Balance ......................................................................... 4 2.2 Aerodynamic Forces ................................................................................... 8
2.3 Hydrodynamic Forces ................................................................................. 9 2.3.1 Hydrodynamic Drag: ............................................................................ 9
2.3.2 Induced Drag...................................................................................... 11 2.3.3 Hydrodynamic Lift: ............................................................................ 12
2.4 Operation of Spreadsheet........................................................................... 13 3 Results ............................................................................................................. 15
4 Discussion ....................................................................................................... 17 5 Scale Effects .................................................................................................... 18
6 References. ...................................................................................................... 21
HMS Southampton Velocity Prediction
R.Braithwaite Page 2 Issue 02
1 Introduction
This report describes a spreadsheet created to model the performance of the 32 gun
frigate HMS Southampton . The ship design data used for this analysis were taken
from Refs 3 and 5. The loading condition assessed is based on the design condition
(Ref. 3).
The engineering assumptions made are described together with instructions in the use
of the spreadsheet. I have not been able to find any tank test data for 18th century
frigate hull forms and have uded the Delft model series data for upright wavemaking
resistance (Ref.2) and simple aerofoil theory for lift and induced drag characteristics.
Lift/drag properties of square sail rigs have been based on a graph in Marchaj’s book
(Ref. 1).
Despite all this the resulting spreadsheet does predict performance that is not too
dissimilar from contemporary sailing reports.
The report also presents the performance predicted for this vessel in a number of
conditions (full plain sail, deep reefed topsails, storm canvas and bare poles) and
makes some comparisons with contemporary sea trial results.
Revision 2 of this report covers Revision 2 of the spreadsheet which includes a
facility for evaluating scale models. A discussion of scale effects is included in the
report.
HMS Southampton Velocity Prediction
R.Braithwaite Page 3 Issue 02
Figure 1 HMS Southampton Body Plan
Figure 2 HMS Southampton Sail Plan
HMS Southampton Velocity Prediction
R.Braithwaite Page 4 Issue 02
2 Spreadsheet Guide
2.1 Force and Moment Balance
The model derives Speed, Leeway and Heel angle by iteratively varying these three
parameters until the calculated aerodynamic and hydrodynamic forces and moments
are balanced for these three degrees of freedom. A fourth degree of freedom (Yaw) is
balanced by varying sheeting angles and/or rudder angle to bring the center of lateral
resistance (CLR) of the underwater hull in line with the center of effort (CE) of the
sail plan.
Figure 3 shows the forces involved in the x,y plane for the vessel with zero degrees of
heel, and in yaw equilibrium. The axis system is parallel to the track of the vessel (i.e
the vessel heading differs from the x axis by the calculated Leeway angle).
Figure 3 Balance of forces
Vtw = True wind vector
Vaw = Apparent wind vector
Vs = Ship velocity vector
AWA = Apparent wind angle
AOA = Sail angle of attack
BA = Bracing angle
Lee = Leeway angle
HMS Southampton Velocity Prediction
R.Braithwaite Page 5 Issue 02
The vessel is in equilibrium when the sum of the forces in the x and y direction are
equal to zero i.e.:
0icDragHydrodynamcThrustAerodynamiFx 1
0eicSideForcHydrodynamcSideForceAerodynamiFy 2
Where:
)cos(.)sin(. AWAcDragAerodynamiAWAcLiftAerodynamicThrustAerodynami
)sin(.)cos(. AWAcDragAerodynamiAWAcLiftAerodynamicSideForceAerodynami
at zero heel
Hydrodynamic SideForce = HydrodynamicLift at zero heel
The apparent wind vector (Vaw) is calculated as the true wind vector (Vtw) minus the
ship speed vector (Vs).
The angle of attack of the sails is calculated as:
AOA = AWA – BA – Lee
The situation as the vessel heels is shown in Figure 4
Figure 4 Heel equilibrium
The variation in wind as the vessel heels is dealt with by calculating an “Effective
Apparent Wind” in the plane of the rig.
The x component of the apparent wind is unchanged and the y component is
multiplied by the cosine of the Heel Angle.
HMS Southampton Velocity Prediction
R.Braithwaite Page 6 Issue 02
The aerodynamic force acting on the rig due to this wind is then calculated for each
component of the rig, topsides etc. as the Aerodynamic Heel Force.
The Heeling moment is then calculated as the Aerodynamic Heel Force multiplied by
the lever between the center of lateral resistance of the Hydrodynamic Heel force and
the center of effect of the Aerodynamic Heel force. This Heeling Moment is opposed
by the righting moment derived from the Buoyancy/Weight couple. The third
equilibrium equation is therefore:
Aerodynamic Heel Force. Lever= 9.81. Displacement.GZ 3
Where:
Lever = Distance between the Centre of Lateral Resistance of the underwater
hull and the centre of action of the Aerodynamic Heel Force
GZ= The lever between the line of action of the weight of the vessel acting
through the center of gravity (CG)and the line of action of the
buoyancy force acting through the center of buoyancy (CB) (Figure 4)
Changes in sail setting and bracing angle will move the Center of Effort (CE) of the
sail plan so that it moves away from the Center of Lateral Resistance (CLR) of the
underwater hull in the longitudinal direction . Similarly changes in heel angle will
move the CE and CLR out of line laterally. Both of these effects will introduce yaw
moments which need to be corrected by adjustments to the sail or rudder to keep the
vessel sailing in a straight line. These adjustments will have an effect on the speed
achievable in different conditions (e.g. additional lift and drag created by the rudder)
The spreadsheet uses the following approach to account for yaw. Figure 5 shows the
forces and levers considered.
Figure 5 Yawing levers
HMS Southampton Velocity Prediction
R.Braithwaite Page 7 Issue 02
Levers and moments calculated as follows:
Hydrodynamic Levers and Moments
L1= HCLR.cos(Lee)+VCLR.sin(Heel).sin(Lee)
L2= HCLR.sin(Lee)-VCLR.sin(Heel).cos(Lee)
Where:
HCLR = horizontal distance to center of lateral resistance of hull from aft perp in ship
axes (assumed constant at a given “lead” to the center of area of the underwater
profile)
VCLR = vertical distance to center of lateral resistance of hull from base line in ship
axes (assumed constant at the center of area of the underwater profile)
The Yaw moment due to the hydrodynamic forces acting on the hull is then calculated
as follows:
HydrodynamicYaw Moment=L1.HydrodynamicSideForce+L2.HydrodynamicDrag
The yaw moment due to the rudder is calculated similarly and a combined total
hydrodynamic yaw moment calculated.
The Total Hydrodynamic Force is calculated as:
22 icDragHydrodynameicSideForcHydrodynamcedynamicForTotalHydro
The Effective Lever to the CLR is then calculated as:
cedynsmicForTotalHydro
MomentdynamicYawTotalHydroLREffectiveC
Aerodynamic forces and Moments.
L3= HCE.cos(Lee)+VCE.sin(Heel.)sin(Lee)
L4=- HCE.sin(Lee)+VCE.sin(Heel.)cos(Lee)
HCE = horizontal distance to combined center of effort of sails etc. from aft perp in
ship axes.
(calculated by dividing total moment of the side force, on all sails, spars etc., about
the aft perp by the total aerodynamic side force). This will vary with sails set, wind
strength etc.
VCE= vertical distance to combined center of effort of sails etc from base line in ship
axes (calculated by dividing total moment of the side force about base line by the total
aerodynamic side force).Again, this will vary with sails set, wind strength etc.
HMS Southampton Velocity Prediction
R.Braithwaite Page 8 Issue 02
The Total Aerodynamic Yaw Moment is then calculated as:
AerodynamicYaw Moment= -L3.AerodynamicSideForce+L4.AerodynamicThrust
The Total Aerodynamic Force and Effective CE Lever are then calculated in the same
way as the Hydrodynamic Force/Lever above.
The balancing of these yaw moment is accomplished in the program manually by
adjusting rudder angle and sail set.
NOTE: the center of lateral resistance of a long keel vessel of this kind is generally
regarded as being well forward of the center of area of the center of area of the
underwater profile (typically around 75% of LWL from the AP – Ref. 4). In this case
the “lead” was derived by setting a “full” set of sails at a 40degree bracing angle in a
10 knot beam wind (true) and assuming yaw balance with 5 degrees of weather helm.
The effectiveness of the rudder was adjusted by varying the effective aspect ratio so
that a 5 degree rudder angle moves the effective CLR by 5% of LWL.
2.2 Aerodynamic Forces
All Aerodynamic forces and moments are calculated on the “AERO” sheet of the
spreadsheet.
The forces acting on each sail are calculated as follows:
The plan area, centroid (above underside of keel and longitudinally), width and depth
were taken from the sail plan. The area is then converted to an effective area taking
account of one sail blanking another given the direction of the effective apparent wind
angle.
The Aspect Ratio is calculated for a “stack” of sails as:
Aspect Ratio= Depth2/Area
Where the depth and area correspond to the sum for the stack concerned (a stack
being taken as the square sails set on one mast)
The lift and drag coefficients for each sale is based on the angle of attack and the
aspect ratio taken from Ref. 1.
Lift and Drag for each sails are then calculated and converted to thrust and heeling
force in the track axes as follows:
)cos(.)sin(. EAWADragEAWALiftThrust
)sin(.)cos(. EAWADragEAWALiftHeelForce
AerodynamicSide Force = HeelForce.cos(Heel)
HMS Southampton Velocity Prediction
R.Braithwaite Page 9 Issue 02
Heeling Moment = HeelForce. Lever to BaseLine
Where EAWA = Effective Apparent Wind Angle
Similarly Thrust and Drag are calculated for each mast and spar and the topsides.
The area in the case of spars is taken as the length multiplied by the maximum
thickness and for the topsides the area is based on the area presented to the effective
apparent wind considering the topsides as a rectangular box with length breadth and
height equal to waterline length, max beam and freeboard respectively.
The drag coefficients were taken as 0.8 for the spars and 1.13 for the topsides and the
Thrust, Heel Force, Side Force and Heeling moment calculated as above (with no lift
force calculated)
The Thrust, Side Force and Heeling moments are then summed for all elements for
input into the balancing equations (1,2, and 3).
The center of effort of the sail plan is calculated by dividing the longitudinal moment
of the heeling forces due to each sail, spar etc and dividing by the total heeling force.
2.3 Hydrodynamic Forces
All Hydrodynamic Forces/Moments are calculated on the “HYDRO” sheet of the
spreadsheet.
2.3.1 Hydrodynamic Drag:
Hydrodynamic Drag is calculated as the sum of:
Upright resistance
Additional allowance due to heel
Induced Resistance
Upright resistance of the vessel is calculated as the sum of skin friction resistance and
wavemaking resistance:
RT=RF+RW
FF CSVR 2
21
Where:
RF= Skin Friction resistance in Newtons
ρ= density of water (kg/m3)
S=wetted surface area (m2)
V= speed (m/s)
CF= skin resistance coefficient
HMS Southampton Velocity Prediction
R.Braithwaite Page 10 Issue 02
2
10 2log
075.0
RnCF
ITTC 1957 formulation
Where:
Rn = Reynolds number based on waterline length
Wave making resistance is derived from model tests conducted by Delft University
for yacht type hulls (Ref. 2)
This calculates wavemaking resistance from a polynomial fit of model data to the
following parameters:
Displacement
Prismatic Coefficient
Longitudinal Center of Buoyancy
Beam/Draught ratio
Length/Displacement1/3
ratio
These parameters were calculated from the Maxsurf Model described in Ref. 3
It should be noted that some of the form parameters are slightly outside the range of
models tested:
Parameter Minimum Maximum HMS Southampton
LWL/BWL 2.76 5.00 3.85
BWL/Tc 2.46 19.32 2.22
LWL/Disp 1/3
4.34 8.50 4.13
LCB 0.00 -6.00% +1.99%
Cp 0.52 0.60 0.63
Table 1 Delft Series Form Parameter Range
However, previous studies have shown good agreement between model testing of an
80m 3 mast topsail schooner and the Delft polynomial prediction, despite the model
hull being outside the parameters of the Delft models (Ref. 7)
The calculated resistance curve is shown in Figure 6. It can be seen that skin friction
resistance predominates up to about 7 knots.
HMS Southampton Velocity Prediction
R.Braithwaite Page 11 Issue 02
Resistance Curve
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
140000
160000
180000
200000
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Speed (kts)
Re
sis
tan
ce
(N
)
Frictional
Total Heeled
Total Upright
Figure 6 Calculated Resistance Curve at 10 degrees heel (excluding induced resistance)
2.3.2 Induced Drag
The presence of Leeway generates induced resistance. This is calculated by the
spreadsheet as follows:
DICSVgInducedDra 2
21
Where:
S = Plan Area of Underwater Hull
CDI= Induced Drag Coefficient
AR
CC L
DI.
2
Where:
AR= Aspect ratio of underwater hull
CL= 3D Lift Coefficient
AR
LeeCL
21
.1.0
Where:
Lee = Leeway Angle
HMS Southampton Velocity Prediction
R.Braithwaite Page 12 Issue 02
2.3.3 Hydrodynamic Lift:
LCSVicLiftHydrodynam 2
21
And:
Hydrodynamic Side Force= Hydrodynamic Lift. cos(Heel)
This calculation is repeated for the rudder where the angle of attack is taken as the
Leeway angle + the rudder angle. Since the rudder is hinged on the sternpost the
aspect ratio is taken as that of the whole underwater hull. This is multiplied by a
factor to give the required rudder effectiveness (see section 2.1)
The Hydrodynamic lift and side force taken forward is the sum of that due to the
rudder and underwater hull.
HMS Southampton Velocity Prediction
R.Braithwaite Page 13 Issue 02
2.4 Operation of Spreadsheet
The only sheets requiring input are the “Design” and “Interface” sheets. Input cells
contain red text.
All the Inputs that define the design are entered into the “Design” worksheet as shown
in Figure 7. This shows the data for HMS Southampton. The spreadsheet could also be
used to assess the performance of other ship rigged vessels. Revision 2 of the
spreadsheet includes evaluation of scale models. This is achieved by altering the scale
factor from 1 to the desired scale. The input data in the design sheet is then scaled in
the Model sheet, and it is this scaled data that is used in the analysis.
Figure 7 Design Definition Sheet
Once this data has been entered the spreadsheet is operated through the “Interface”
sheet (Figure 8)
The basic process is as follows:
1. Input the True Windspeed and direction.
2. Input Y/N for each available sail together with the bracing angle. An
additional option (R) is available to reef some sails.
3. Click on the Balance Button repeatedly until equations 1,2 and 3 are balanced
within the required tolerance.
HMS Southampton Velocity Prediction
R.Braithwaite Page 14 Issue 02
NOTE: the reset button is used if speed, heel or leeway start to diverge wildly, in
order to set them to reasonable levels so as to make rebalancing possible. Balancing
can also be achieved on the “Balance” sheet either by manually adjusting the speed
heel and leeway, or clicking the balance buttons to balance these parameters
separately.
The outputs calculated are:
Speed
Heel Angle
Leeway
Velocity made good to windward (VMG)
If a significant yaw imbalance results, this can be corrected by either adjusting the
rudder angle or individual sail bracing angles. This is followed by rebalancing in the
other 3 degrees of freedom (by clicking the “balance” button).
Figure 8 Interface Sheet
The spreadsheet does include Delft University data for calculating added resistance in
waves. However, the ship speeds relevant to this study are too low and out of range
for the data. Accordingly the significant wave height has been set to zero.
HMS Southampton Velocity Prediction
R.Braithwaite Page 15 Issue 02
3 Results The spreadsheet described above was used to generate the polar diagrams, presented
in Figure 9. and the tabular results presented in Table 3 to Table 6 For each condition
the vessel was balanced as described above (yaw balance achieved to align CLR and
CE within 1% of LWL). The bracing angle was adjusted to give maximum thrust (a
minimum bracing angle of 40 degrees was assumed).
The sail combinations considered are listed in Table 2
Plain Sail Reefed Topsails Storm Canvas Bare Poles
Main Course Main Topsail (deep
reefed)
Main Staysail
Main Topsail Fore Course Fore Staysail
Main Topgallant Fore Topsail (deep
reefed)
Mizzen Staysail
Fore Course Fore Staysail
Fore Topsail
Fore Topgallant
Mizzen Topsail
Mzizen Course
Fore Staysail
Fore Topmast Staysail
Jib
Table 2 Sail Combinations
70 80 90 100 110 120 140 160 180
Speed (Knots) 4.2 6.3 7.3 7.7 7.8 7.8 7.3 6.4 4.3
Heel Angle 1.3 1.9 2.5 2.8 2.8 2.3 1.0 0.1 0.0
Leeway 5.4 3.2 3.0 2.9 2.8 2.2 1.0 0.2 0.0
VMG to windward 1.4 1.1 0.0 -1.3 -2.7 -3.9 -5.6 -6.0 -4.3
Speed (Knots) 6.5 8.5 9.4 9.7 9.9 9.9 9.5 8.3 6.7
Heel Angle 2.9 4.6 5.8 6.3 6.1 4.7 2.1 0.1 0.0
Leeway 4.8 4.2 4.2 4.1 3.6 2.8 1.3 0.1 0.0
VMG to windward 2.2 1.5 0.0 -1.7 -3.4 -4.9 -7.3 -7.8 -6.7
Speed (Knots) 8.0 10.0 10.7 10.9 11.1 11.3 11.0 9.7 8.1
Heel Angle 5.3 8.6 10.2 11.4 10.3 7.3 3.3 0.1 0.0
Leeway 5.8 5.4 5.4 5.4 4.4 3.0 1.5 0.1 0.0
VMG to windward 2.7 1.7 0.0 -1.9 -3.8 -5.6 -8.4 -9.1 -8.1
Speed (Knots) 9.0 10.9 11.4 11.6 11.9 12.4 12.3 10.8 9.4
Heel Angle 8.1 12.9 15.6 17.4 14.7 10.3 4.2 0.2 0.0
Leeway 6.9 6.7 6.8 6.6 5.0 3.4 1.4 0.2 0.0
VMG to windward 3.1 1.9 0.0 -2.0 -4.1 -6.2 -9.4 -10.1 -9.4
25
True Wind Direction (degrees)
10
Wind speed
(knots)Parameter
20
15
6
Beaufort
3
4
5
Table 3 Plain Sail
HMS Southampton Velocity Prediction
R.Braithwaite Page 16 Issue 02
77 80 90 100 110 120 140 160 180
Speed (Knots) 8.4 9.6 11.0 11.8 12.6 12.9 13.2 11.7 11.0
Heel Angle 10.3 12.0 15.2 16.4 13.4 10.8 3.6 0.7 0.0
Leeway 13.4 11.4 10.0 8.8 6.4 4.8 1.6 0.4 0.0
VMG to windward 1.9 1.7 0.0 -2.1 -4.3 -6.5 -10.1 -11.0 -11.0
True Wind Direction (degrees)
45
Wind speed
(knots)ParameterBeaufort
9
Table 4 Reefed Topsails
70 80 97 100 110 120 140 160 180
Speed (Knots) 9.7 10.9 12.4 13.1 14.0 13.0 12.4
Heel Angle 12.8 12.9 12.3 10.0 4.3 1.8 0.0
Leeway 16.0 12.4 8.6 5.8 2.1 0.8 0.0
VMG to windward -1.2 -1.9 -4.2 -6.6 -10.7 -12.2 -12.4
ParameterWind speed
(knots)
65
True Wind Direction (degrees)Beaufort
12
Table 5 Storm Canvas
70 80 90 100 110 120 140 160 180
Speed (Knots) 9.4 11.1 10.8 8.9
Heel Angle 6.1 3.9 1.7 0.0
Leeway 8.3 3.3 1.2 0.0
VMG to windward -4.7 -8.5 -10.2 -8.9
65 12
Wind speed
(knots)Parameter
True Wind Direction (degrees)Beaufort
Table 6 Bare Poles
Figure 9 Polar Diagrams for HMS Southampton
HMS Southampton Velocity Prediction
R.Braithwaite Page 17 Issue 02
4 Discussion
The stability analysis of HMS Southampton (Ref.3) suggested that a maximum heel
angle of 15 degrees would be prudent to minimise the risk of immersing gunports in
gusts. The results presented in Table 3 would therefore indicate taking in of topgallant
sails between 20 and 25 knots of wind. This aligns with the guidance given in Ref.8
that topgallant sails were generally carried up to force 5 or 6.
With full plain sail set the spreadsheet was not able to converge to a balanced solution
with a true wind of less than 70 degrees. This agrees with the statement in Ref.8 that
traditional square rigged ships could not make good a course closer than 6 points
(67.5 degrees) to the wind.
Contemporary sailing trials of HMS Southampton (Ref. 6) state that she could make 7-
8 knots close hauled in a “topgallant gale” and 12 knots before the wind. A topgallant
gale was taken as the maximum wind strength that topgallant sails would be set, in
this case assumed to be around 20 knots. The spreadsheet predicts a speed of 8 knots
close hauled , making good a course of 70 degrees to the wind(Table 3 ) in 20 knots
of wind with a maximum speed of 11.3 knots on a broad reach (wind 120 degrees
true).
Sailing trials for the Niger class (Ref.6) stated that leeway of ¼ point was achievable
(approx 3 degrees) close hauled. The Niger class was the next class of 32 gun frigate
designed by Thomas Slade. It was generally considered to have remarkably good
sailing characteristics, particularly windward ability, and so would have probably
outperformed HMS Southampton in this respect. Accordingly the leeway prediction
from the spreadsheet of 5.8 degrees close hauled in 20 knots wind does not seem
unreasonable.
Ref 8. suggests that traditional ship rigged vessels would typically reduce sail to deep
reefed topsails and fore course in Force 9 conditions. Table 4 shows the spreadsheets
predictions for this condition. Heel angles are a little high which means that operating
the main deck guns might have been difficult (particularly with a large sea running).
Making progress to windward would also be difficult. The spreadsheet failed to find a
solution for a true wind angle less than 77 degrees and predicted a velocity made good
to windward of 1.9 knots. However, the effect of wave resistance is not included and
this would have been significant in gale conditions for a ship with bluff bows like
HMS Southampton.
Table 4 and Table 6 present the spreadsheet predictions for extreme (hurricane)
conditions (again it should be noted that the effects of waves is excluded), both under
storm canvas and under bare poles. Progress to windward is impossible under these
conditions. Under sail the closest the spreadsheet can get is 97 degrees and is losing
ground at 1.2 knots to leeward. Under bare poles the spreadsheet can only make good
a course of 120 degrees to the wind, when the speed made to leeward is 4.7 knots.
Clearly not a good situation on a lee shore.
HMS Southampton Velocity Prediction
R.Braithwaite Page 18 Issue 02
5 Scale Effects
The following discussion relates to the evaluation of a scale model in which the
weight distribution (and therefore the vcg as a proportion of ship length) is the same
as the original.
The equivalent wind strength that would cause a scale model to heel by the same
amount as the full size ship can be calculated as follows:
For geometrically scaled vessels, the vertical height of the center of effort of the sail
plan etc (above the CLR) is equal to a constant times the waterline length:
CE = K1.L
Similarly the area of the sails is equal to a constant times the square of the waterline
length:
Sail Area = K2.L2
The force acting on the sails is proportional to the square of the wind velocity
multiplied by the sail area (for similar heading, sail bracing angles):
Force on sails = K3.K2.L2.Vwind
2
The heeling moment is therefore:
Heeling moment = CE. Force on sails = K1.L. K3.K2.L2.Vwind
2 = K4.L
3 .Vwind
2
Assuming similar weight distributions (i.e scale vcg) the GZ lever is:
GZ= K4.L
The displacement will scale with the cube of the length:
Displacement = K5.L3
Therefore:
Righting Lever = GZ.Displacement = K4.L. K5.L3 = K6.L
4
At the equilibrium heel angle:
Heeling moment = Righting Moment
Hence:
K4.L3 .Vwind
2 = K6.L
4
OR
HMS Southampton Velocity Prediction
R.Braithwaite Page 19 Issue 02
Vwind2 /L= K OR
'KL
Vwind
Let:
L1 is the waterline length of the original vessel
Vwind1 is the wind strength to heel the original vessel to θ degrees.
L2 is the waterline length of the scale model
Vwind2 is the wind strength to heel the scale model to θ degrees.
Then:
2
2
1
1
L
V
L
V windwind
And:
12.12 LLVV windwind
What this means is that the “scale wind” for a geometric scale model varies with the
square root of the linear scale factor.
For example the scale wind for a 1/16th scale model of HMS Southampton would be ¼
of the equivalent wind acting on the full size ship.
Results from the spreadsheet for HMS Southampton at full size and 1:16 scale with a
20 knot (full scale) and 5 knot wind (scale equivalent) are shown in Table 7.
Scale 1:1 1:16
Wind Speed (knots) 20.0 5.0
True Wind Angle (degrees) 100 100
Boat Speed (Knots) 10.9 2.6
Heel Angle (degrees) 11.4 11.3
Leeway (degrees) 5.4 6.1
VMG to windward (knots) -1.9 -0.4
Froude Number 0.283 0.267 Table 7 Results for 1:16 Scale Model
It can be seen that the heel angle is virtually identical. The Froude number is also very
similar. Froude number is a non dimensional parameter based on speed and length, it
is defined as:
gL
VFn
Where:
V is the speed of the ship (m/s)
HMS Southampton Velocity Prediction
R.Braithwaite Page 20 Issue 02
G is acceleration due to gravity (m/s2)
L is the waterline length in (m)
The significance of Froude number is that geometrically similar models travelling at
speeds with the same Froude numbers will have the same wavemaking resistance
coefficient. They will also generate a similar pattern of waves in their wake. This
relationship is the basis for using model tests for predicting the full size resistance and
wake characteristics during the design of ships.
It can be seen that the “scale” wind strength that will heel a model sailing ship to the
same extent as full size should also drive it at a speed corresponding to the same
Froude number. i.e. the wake characteristics will be very similar.
It should also be noted that at full scale wind strength of 65 knots the full size ship is
forced to reduce sail to storm staysails and can no longer make any progress to
windward. This would correspond to a wind speed of only 16.3 knots even for a
relatively large (1:16th scale model weighing 226 kg).
HMS Southampton Velocity Prediction
R.Braithwaite Page 21 Issue 02
6 References.
1. Marchaj, .AeroHydrodynamics of Sailing
2. J.Gerritsma, J.A.Keuning and R.Onnink, Sailing yacht performance in calm
water and in waves, Report No. 925-P, 12th International Symposium on Yacht
Design and Construction, HISWA, November 1992.
3. R.Braithwaite, 32 Gun Frigate, HMS Southampton Stability Analysis,
http://richardsmodelboats.webs.com/
4. S.Wallis, The Design of a Brigantine Rigged Sailing School Research Vessel
for the Sea Education Association, Transactions of the Royal Institution of
Naval Architects, 2003
5. R.Braithwaite, Notes to accompany Reconstructed Drawings of HMS
Southampton , http://richardsmodelboats.webs.com/
6. Robert Gardiner, The First Frigates, Conway 1992
7. G.J.C. Nijsten, J,de Vos, Propulsion Aspects of Large Sailing Yachts, 17th
International Symposium on Yacht Design and Yacht Construction (HISWA)
2002
8. J. Harland, Seamanship in the Age of Sail, Conway Maritime Press, 1985.