Mast Compression Loads

Discussion in 'Sailboats' started by yades, Feb 27, 2008.

  1. yades
    Joined: Aug 2006
    Posts: 95
    Likes: 13, Points: 8, Legacy Rep: 166
    Location: italy

    yades Senior Member

    As a matter of technical interest would perhaps be useful starting a new thread entirely dedicate to the evaluation of mast compression loads.
    As with regard to this issue, would like to propose on the initial stage what I have inserted in the motorsailer forum.....

    Adds-on and comments on the subject...are more then welcomed

    Cheers

    YADES :cool:
     

    Attached Files:

  2. catsketcher
    Joined: Mar 2006
    Posts: 1,315
    Likes: 161, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 790
    Location: Australia

    catsketcher Senior Member

    Hello Yades

    Thank you for your information. I am quite interested in total mast compression loads in catamarans.

    cheers

    Phil Thompson
     
  3. tspeer
    Joined: Feb 2002
    Posts: 2,319
    Likes: 293, Points: 83, Legacy Rep: 1673
    Location: Port Gamble, Washington, USA

    tspeer Senior Member

    I haven't gone through your calculations in detail, but I think your approach is quite reasonable, at least through the calculation of the compression load. I presume that the coefficients (K factors) are based on buckling of the mast with the calculated loads. Dynamic loads can also be important, and you should include some allowance for them as well. I don't know if they've been factored into the coefficients, either.

    It is true that multihulls require a stronger rig for their length or displacement than a monohull. Multihulls also have a higher roll radius of gyration, and a faster natural frequency in roll. I would expect this to increase the dynamic loads compared to a monohull, too.
     
  4. yades
    Joined: Aug 2006
    Posts: 95
    Likes: 13, Points: 8, Legacy Rep: 166
    Location: italy

    yades Senior Member

    Mast loads and factor of safety.....

    Just to clear matters out....the factor of safety in all computational procedures...(Skene's, BV, DNV and so and so forth..) are obviously considering the dynamic loads applied on mast. Furtermore the procedure shown on the previous thread enclosed paper (.pdf file) is not considering rigging loads derived from Knock-down by main+genoa and is not considering rig arrangement with spreaders, where loads evaluation is slightly more complex. Will elaborate a further technical script on the subject and will splash it on this forum soonest.
    Meanwhile any other elaborations on this issue would be welcomed.,,,,,

    :cool:
     
  5. brian eiland
    Joined: Jun 2002
    Posts: 4,964
    Likes: 187, Points: 73, Legacy Rep: 1903
    Location: St Augustine Fl, Thailand

    brian eiland Senior Member

  6. yades
    Joined: Aug 2006
    Posts: 95
    Likes: 13, Points: 8, Legacy Rep: 166
    Location: italy

    yades Senior Member

    Reply to B. Eiland...

    Thks yr tip will go through and revert on this forum....
    :cool:
     
  7. yades
    Joined: Aug 2006
    Posts: 95
    Likes: 13, Points: 8, Legacy Rep: 166
    Location: italy

    yades Senior Member

    Reply to B. Eiland....

    Thanks again...as you said a lot of good material....(I've just gone through......it took quite sometime though...but v.m. of interest !).

    Few comments though.....

    First..
    I share your statement which I red on one of yr posts....
    "....I don't pretend to be any kind of an expert in these engineering/computer structural analyses. I would just like to get a clearer picture of how the sails actually transmit their forces to the vessel; at what points, and in what path(s)"...??[/I]

    and it is right to try getting matters clear enough on the issue....

    Second..
    as suggested by S. Ditmore ....."At http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/sho...354#post112354 Guillermo posted a paper. Appendix G of that paper (page 95) details spar & rigging calculations. How do people feel about what they see there?".......
    The spar and rig calculations coming out from that Sot'on Institute project (...it reminds me of good old times....) bears a procedure involving, besides the usual forces acting transversally on a rig, (and generated by a heeling moment), also the longitudinal forces acting on the rig (and generated by the driving force). However, it does not seem necessary the calculation of longitudinal forces, as, the longitudinal inertia could easly be determined in fairly good manner (and giving sound results) by applying to Euler's formula an adequate FS which has been established in years of what is reputed beeing the ........"best practice"...

    Third..
    Yes...I am interested in a 'rig mapping' exercise. Let me have, if you like it, the proposal....as I didn't see it on C. Mitchell address you pointed it out.

    Forth..
    Nevertheless I will splash on this forum the main mast and rig calculation for a 36m alu ketch rigged (3 sets of spreaders and built by Abeking and Raasmussen) which clearly and simply shows the computational procedure used for compression loads and shrouds tension calculation based on the following steps:
    1. Knock down by main + genoa (assumed)
    2. max RM at 30° (assumed)=HM= F(Wind Pressure * Sail Area) * H(distance CE to CLR)
    3. determination of the WP [kg/m^2]
    4. determination of the main sail load per unit luff
    5. determination of the genoa load on mast head
    6. determination of indirect loads acting on the rig
    7. determination of shrouds tension
    8. determination of mast panels compression loads
    9. determination of spreaders loads
    10. determination of both tranverse inertia (Ixx) and longitud. inertia (Iyy) of main mast section
    (as seen....the procedure involves the wind pressure...acting on sails...!).

    Besides the calculation which I will enclosed ...and time allowing...I will try to enclose a spreadsheet for the above procedure....let's see....

    It would the be nice to share some others computational procedures and relative results regarding a job already performed by a good willing fellow...nice if shared in this forum....but perhaps I'm asking to much....am I?
    :cool:
     
  8. brian eiland
    Joined: Jun 2002
    Posts: 4,964
    Likes: 187, Points: 73, Legacy Rep: 1903
    Location: St Augustine Fl, Thailand

    brian eiland Senior Member

    I'll be back to you in a day or so. I'll send you a private message or email.
    Brian
     
  9. brian eiland
    Joined: Jun 2002
    Posts: 4,964
    Likes: 187, Points: 73, Legacy Rep: 1903
    Location: St Augustine Fl, Thailand

    brian eiland Senior Member

    Hello Yades,
    Please send me a private email so I might forward a proposal to you. Send it to info@runningtideyachts.com if you would
     
  10. catsketcher
    Joined: Mar 2006
    Posts: 1,315
    Likes: 161, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 790
    Location: Australia

    catsketcher Senior Member

    something wrong somewhere

    Hello Yades

    Thanks again for the mast compression stuff. When I worked out the loads using the Skenes formula I came up with a greater second moments of area required athwartships than fore and aft. This is because the factor is less for fore and aft than sideways. Should this not be the other way around?

    cheers

    Phil Thompson
     
  11. yades
    Joined: Aug 2006
    Posts: 95
    Likes: 13, Points: 8, Legacy Rep: 166
    Location: italy

    yades Senior Member

    reply to phil thompson

    I've enclosed herein mast sections and dimensions extracted from Whale Spars Catalogue as well as the details referred to section WS307. It clearly shows all relevant characteristics as well as the inertias Ixx on the xx axis (running along the centre line...fore-and-aft...so to speak..) and the Iyy running transversally, along the yy axis (...athwartships...as you mentioned).
    As shown, Iyy is more or less 2 or 3 times, the inertia on Ixx (in all cases !!).

    Trust this clears matters further......




    :cool:
     

    Attached Files:

  12. catsketcher
    Joined: Mar 2006
    Posts: 1,315
    Likes: 161, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 790
    Location: Australia

    catsketcher Senior Member

    I still don't get it

    I don't mean to be obtuse and I very much value your work. It has helped me a huge amount in my design but I seem to find an inconsistency between your own method and the Skene's C factor.

    In your own method you do end up with the Ixx less than Iyy (as it should be) However when I use the Skene formula 1.422 C P L 2 I come to a conundrum.
    By having a greater C factor (single spreader deck stepped - 16.2 ) for the athwartships than the 8.9 C factor for longitudinal I get more I required athwartships than longitudinal.

    It is probably just a matter of definitions but I wold like to properly understand my misconceptions.

    cheers

    Phil Thompson
     
  13. yades
    Joined: Aug 2006
    Posts: 95
    Likes: 13, Points: 8, Legacy Rep: 166
    Location: italy

    yades Senior Member

    reply to phil thompson last.....

    thanks yr punctual comment.........

    as a matter of fact i have extracted the table under question from the book....."Sailing Yacht Design - theory; edited by Claughton, Wellicome & Shenoi" - mast and rigging design pag. 205".
    It seems like the decimal place regarding the values of coefficient "C" is somewhat misplaced for the units used. I have revised carefully the table on the doc previously enclosed (considering the same subdivision used on the book and updating with data partially extracted from other papers - namely from E.G.Van De Stadt coefficients used for alu masts only) and now it seems being ok!
    Check it out.....and see if it works satisfactorily.....:D

    Will also revert shortly on this thread with the complete loading and inertias computational procedure performed with a spreadsheet, for a 36.50m loa ketch main alu mast three spreaders rig arrangement, assuming knock down from main sail + fore triangle......

    :cool:
     

    Attached Files:

  14. MAINSTAY
    Joined: Feb 2005
    Posts: 60
    Likes: 2, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 24
    Location: Lake Pontchartrain

    MAINSTAY Junior Member

    Spread sheet for mast compression from stays

    This ExcelSS was posted in Aft-mast thread for other purposes. But it calculates the compression in a masthead rig due to forestay, backstay and halyards using only I, J, L(modified), forestay tension and halyard tensions. The bugger is determining the tensions.

    Ignore the two rigs on the right.
    Larry Modes
     

    Attached Files:


  15. brian eiland
    Joined: Jun 2002
    Posts: 4,964
    Likes: 187, Points: 73, Legacy Rep: 1903
    Location: St Augustine Fl, Thailand

    brian eiland Senior Member

    Bergstrom & Ridder (B&R) rig

    Please help clarify a few points about the B & R rig

    ...from one website...
    Are there not some conflicting statements here?
    1) With more spreaders, isn't the summation compression loading to the mast base increased?
    2) With a narrower shroud base, and the shrouds having to double for backstays, isn't the compression loading to the mast increased?

    ________________________________________________________

    ....from this site
    My reading is that with the multiple spreaders and reverse diagonals, it is a goal to contain much of the mast compression loads within the mast section itself...even those that might arise from the more conventional use of backstays. Normally this would predispose that the mast section needs to be larger and heavier than normal to absorb this increased compression loads. Diamond staying by the reverse diagonals must be particularly high.

    But they say they can use a smaller mast section, and a lighter mast section.??

    I can see where the use of multiple spreaders would allow it to stay in column more easily, and thus allow for a smaller mast section, but wouldn't the increased compression loading call for a heavier mast section?
     
Loading...
Forum posts represent the experience, opinion, and view of individual users. Boat Design Net does not necessarily endorse nor share the view of each individual post.
When making potentially dangerous or financial decisions, always employ and consult appropriate professionals. Your circumstances or experience may be different.