Boat Design Forums  |  Boat Design Directory  |  Boat Design Gallery  |  Boat Design Book Store  |  Thanks to Our Site Sponsors

Go Back   Boat Design Forums > Design > Stability
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Most Recent Posts Gallery Images Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-06-2008, 04:22 PM
expedition's Avatar
expedition expedition is offline
Thorwald Westmaas
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Rep: 81 Posts: 84
Location: Panama
what helps to downsize the stabilizer requirements

Our trawler conversion project may need stabilizers as it really likes to roll (beyond what is comfortable). The GM value is currently 1.05.

There will be weight taken from the main deck and there are opportunities to remove weight from or near the bottom of the vessel.

This will make the ship more stable but also make it roll faster and less comfortable.

But, assuming we employ stabilizers, will a more stable ship help the stabilizers (i.e. allow us to get a smaller size stabilizer or even better, get 2 instead of 4) or not?

Any feedback is greatly appreciated.

Thorwald Westmaas
__________________
-----------------------------------------
www.expeditionyacht.org

The ultimate expedition yacht conversion
Reply With Quote


  #2  
Old 01-06-2008, 04:37 PM
Guillermo's Avatar
Guillermo Guillermo is offline
Ingeniero Naval
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Rep: 2230 Posts: 3,607
Location: Pontevedra, Spain
Quote:
Originally Posted by expedition View Post
The GM value is currently 1.05.
In what load condition?
What is the beam?
__________________
Guillermo Gefaell
Gestenaval S.L., Naval Architecture & Marine Engineering
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 01-06-2008, 05:07 PM
expedition's Avatar
expedition expedition is offline
Thorwald Westmaas
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Rep: 81 Posts: 84
Location: Panama
Hi Guillermo,

The beam is 9 m. The load condition? Well. The ship weights about 700+ tons so the only thing affecting the load is the amount of fuel we carry on board (up to 95 tons in the central fuel tanks at the bottom). we have space for more fuel in the back but won't use it. We can also carry about 20 tons of ballast water in the forepeak and about 30 tons of fresh water also forward.

Realistically, we'll rarely take more than 50-60 tons of fuel (we recently crossed the Atlantic starting with about 60 tons). The forepeak will always be full and I think we'll have to add some extra weight there to keep that nose a little down and as far as fresh water is concerned, for the same reason we'll keep that pretty much filled up.

With that, we had a foreward draft of 3.4 m. and 4.6 after during our last crossing.

HOpe this helps.

Thorwald
__________________
-----------------------------------------
www.expeditionyacht.org

The ultimate expedition yacht conversion
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 01-06-2008, 06:05 PM
Guillermo's Avatar
Guillermo Guillermo is offline
Ingeniero Naval
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Rep: 2230 Posts: 3,607
Location: Pontevedra, Spain
If an inclining test and stability calculations have been not performed, how do you know GM?

With a GM of 1,05 m and a beam of 9 m, your rolling period should be around 7,8 seconds, so not that bad.

You should check with designers. They should be the ones answering you.
__________________
Guillermo Gefaell
Gestenaval S.L., Naval Architecture & Marine Engineering
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 01-06-2008, 06:21 PM
expedition's Avatar
expedition expedition is offline
Thorwald Westmaas
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Rep: 81 Posts: 84
Location: Panama
That's the current GM. Now that we will start removing weight and add new one, obviously things will change. A new inclining test will have to be done obviously.

Remember, my question was: IF we add/remove weight here/there, what will happen with the sizing of the stabilizers ....

Thorwald
__________________
-----------------------------------------
www.expeditionyacht.org

The ultimate expedition yacht conversion
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 01-07-2008, 11:51 AM
Guillermo's Avatar
Guillermo Guillermo is offline
Ingeniero Naval
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Rep: 2230 Posts: 3,607
Location: Pontevedra, Spain
Thor,
The equation of to find out the Fin area in the 'wave slope capacity' method, depends on displacement and GM as:

A = Disp*GM*sin(theta-wsc)/(density*CL*V^2*arm)

So in my opinion lowering displacement and GM lowers the required area.

Cheers.
__________________
Guillermo Gefaell
Gestenaval S.L., Naval Architecture & Marine Engineering
Reply With Quote


  #7  
Old 01-07-2008, 01:24 PM
expedition's Avatar
expedition expedition is offline
Thorwald Westmaas
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Rep: 81 Posts: 84
Location: Panama
Thanks! Well we're going to take of some items the next few weeks and then do a new inclining experiment. That will give us more info.

Saludos,

Thorwald
__________________
-----------------------------------------
www.expeditionyacht.org

The ultimate expedition yacht conversion
Reply With Quote
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Why no aerodynamic control/stabilizer surfaces on high speed cats? RatliffFranklin Boat Design 100 01-21-2014 08:15 AM
gyroscopic stabilizer blary Boat Design 12 10-29-2005 08:34 PM
Freeboard requirements Alik Boat Design 1 05-07-2005 10:38 PM
Specific Math Requirements JFine Education 2 08-08-2003 07:31 PM
gyroscopic stabilizer blary Boat Design 0 02-13-2002 08:11 AM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:51 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Web Site Design and Content Copyright ©1999 - 2014 Boat Design Net