calculating torsional stiffness hull

Hi Pammie

Ok...found some free time. So we first have to look at the basic's, before you do anything "detailed". What are your assumptions?

Well, let's first look at a simple transverse bending moment case. If you assume one hull to be on a wave and the other in the air, the distance between the 2 centrelines is roughly 4.80m. With the weight of (1250 - one hull) = 1030kg. Assume worst case 2g , therefore your transverse bending moment is 1030x9.81x2x4.8 = 97kNm.

Your 2 beams, from a previous post you have around 320+600+820 gm of laminate which is roughly about 2mm thick.
Given the dimensions you have provided, the aft beam if made from 2mm thick laminate has a modulus of roughly 92cm^3 and fwd beam of roughly 237cm^3 or a total of 329cm^3.

From the bending moment and assuming an allowable stress limit of say 200MPs, the required modulus is 485cm^3.
So on first inspection it is shy in stiffness.

So, lets look at the deflection.

Given the beams and establishing their Inertias, with the hull hanging off, as in the load case noted above the deflection assuming an E of 20GPa, gives a deflection of 674mm.

Thus, you need to first of all design the layup to give the stiffness you need with the right materials.

Forget torsional stiffness for now, you need to prove the simple case first.

So you need to get known hard data of the E and yield stress of the layup you want to use, or in the absence of coupon testing to prove the mechanical properties, use the minium values from data sheets. Then you can design the beam to provide the required stiffness for the basic transverse bending load case. Once you have satisfied this part, we can move onto the other cases.

How does that sound?

 

OK, I compared my mast calculation with Skene's. What I did find strange in the first calculation method (proposed in Rxcomposites earlier posted pdf) is that it uses breaking load to calculate halyard loads? In my calculations halyard loads are more than backstay load? So I skipped the first calculation as there is little difference with Skene's method in the example.
For the one's who hate to puzzle out others crappy spreadsheets a description: My calculation starts with the sailpressure of (relative) windspeed on which to put a reef. (20 knots which is about 12 knots true). The author Mike Waters calculates a factor 3 to calculate max main sheet load from mainsail load. Masts, Sails & Rigging http://smalltridesign.com/masts/Rigging-Mast-Loads.html By calculating angles and loads this leads to a calculated mast compression by sailloads. Maybe discussable hereby is that the load on the forestay is calculated as a reactive force from mainsheet load, and not by windloading of headsail. He also doesnt use a sheave calculation. Then I calculated mast compression by lifting a hull (just angles and loads) and by weight (which I forgot earlier). Together my mast compression is 22,11kN. The Pt from Skene's method is 15,79 kN. The safety factor proposed by Mike Waters is 1,3 for dynamic loads and 3 for calculation of second moment of inertia. Skene's uses 1,85. Any idea why?
I now see that I also calcalated wind speed limits according to ISO12217-2. For main+jib this is 27 knots (apparent, 19 knots true). At this sailload my mast compression would be 32 kN. Best use this number for beam calculations I think.
Any suggestions on what safety factor to use for mast itself if I want a light mast that is not going to break ?

@rxcomposite: I understand your point. Will post a new load plan in a few days.

 

Pammie- Thank you for the link on the simplified method of calculation. That is quite a lot of mast load you have there. I made my own spreadsheet and will have to revisit tonight and feed your boat's particulars to see if I come up with the same result.

A quick check on the spreadsheet showed it inputs nominal Breaking Load and uses 1/5 of BL.

The way I remember it, there were 3 methods to use. I think, the third one, Gerritsma was so far out I did not use it.

 

Hi Ad Hoc,

Yes it does, but I have some comments on the numbers. In calculating bending moment not all the rest of the weight is at 4,8 mm. 220 kg was empty hulls. Loaded hulls are 2 x 287 kg, which leaves 676 kg for the middle hull. But then things get more complicated. Great idea to introduce higher g forces, I didn't think of that.
Deflection would be less as the beams are higher in the middle (because of the spine). I think I made a mistake in thinking that L^3 = 3*(L/3)^3 which is ofcourse not true.
Beams certainly need thicker laminate.
I allready tried to find more info on the glass/ carbon but didn't get anymore than what's in it, not what it does or is able to. But will ask again. Coupontesting: could this be done by bendingtests (from laminatestrips)? Not as good as breaking tests of course

 

Perhaps ask RX, as the detailed layups and known strengths are more his bailiwick than mine.
He can give you a good layup that he knows what the design strength values to sue should be and will work...since I always sue coupon testing.

Once the 2 of you have decided best layup...we can review further.

 

Pammie. I checked my spreadsheet. I deleted the halyard load as you feel it is not important. Mast load is 31.2 kN. Almost same as ISO. Use whatever is comfortable with you.

As for the material properties, LR and ISO furnishes formula for computing properties. I will use that as a guide instead of using published data. There is a lot of variation in published data because of materials used. I just won't be using Eglass/carbon fiber cloth weave combination. Not a good practice.

I am making a new spreadsheet as the old one, I have to use three load models for computing. Maybe I can just simplify to one.

 

@ Ad Hoc: Good idea

@rxcomposite: Good that numbers on mast load are confirmed. I noticed there is a lot of different information about materal properties. As I understood it strength and modulus of Eglass is quite standard, but those of carbon depend much on its special target: high modulus and/or high strength. But I suppose the real difference is in the combination of fibres and matrix? In your experience can a calculation of such a combination predict reality?

 

LR and ISO predicts the property by calculations by using using a specific range of properties. It is reliable as they have countless data to back it up. Carbon has three types, the low modulus, medium, and high modulus and will accept only epoxy resin.

Fibers also are problematic due to weave patterns. I stick with the standards. WR, Uni, Biax and stay away from combination weave. It is not as they claim it is.

Combining with a different type of resin, especially epoxy, will produce a different result as there are many types of epoxy formulation. Class approved polyester and Vinyl seems to be consistent but there are other types of resin they do not approve. DNV approves the type but requires coupon test.

 

I use this epoxy with GL1 and GL2 harder (to be able to choose geltime). Epoxyhars L - Carbonwinkel.nl http://www.carbonwinkel.nl/nl/epoxyhars/55444456-epoxyhars-l.html

Have been thinking about coupontesting with a modyfied version of this. (Adding a lever, pressure point/cylinder can be moved). It presses 20 ton so with 1500 MPa carbon uni I could test 13 mm2. Or 26 mm2 doubling the lever. Would that be enough??

 

That will work. I do crude testing myself. Carbon is around 600 to 1,200 N/mm2 tensile strength depending on the variety of carbon and epoxy used. UD Glass/epoxy is lower at around 200 N/mm2. The simplest one I saw is a pyramid type steel tube structure with a screw type tensioner pulling the specimen.

 

Have you an English version of the epoxy material properties? need to know tensile strength, modulus, elongation. If possible the "neat resin" stress strain curve. From there I can do strength prediction.

 

From the epoxy I have this information: But it is with other hardeners. https://www.carbonwinkel.nl/nl/attachment.php?id_attachment=772
I have asked for technical info on the specific combination, and will report as soon as I got this.

Pyramid with screw tensioner: But it will be more difficult to measure what the actual force is?

 

A tensiometer is attached. It is a DIY test jig and appeared in PBB magazine a long time ago.

 

Looking at the info sheet, it is there, at the very last page. The info on "neat resin" or cured unreinforced resin specs and the typical strength when laminated with a fiber cloth.

We have to do some test. The specs is below LR standards. The specific gravity is 1.01 to 1.02 (lighter than a polyester (1.2)? Epoxy has 1.3 to 1.32) and the modulus is 2800 while the min required is 3500.

 

This is the spec with the right harder. I see that GL uses >2700 MP modulus. L+GL1 reaches almost 3500 (but cures quite fast), L+GL2 s around 3050 MPamodulus.