Stability - basic information, links

Discussion in 'Stability' started by dougfrolich, Apr 26, 2006.

  1. dougfrolich
    Joined: Nov 2002
    Posts: 661
    Likes: 21, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 225
    Location: San Francisco

    dougfrolich Senior Member

  2. Vega
    Joined: Apr 2005
    Posts: 1,606
    Likes: 26, Points: 58, Legacy Rep: 132
    Location: Portugal

    Vega Senior Member

    Yes I agree, but I can not open your link:(
     
  3. dougfrolich
    Joined: Nov 2002
    Posts: 661
    Likes: 21, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 225
    Location: San Francisco

    dougfrolich Senior Member

    Sorry Vega try it now.
     
  4. Guillermo
    Joined: Mar 2005
    Posts: 3,644
    Likes: 185, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 2247
    Location: Pontevedra, Spain

    Guillermo Ingeniero Naval

  5. Vega
    Joined: Apr 2005
    Posts: 1,606
    Likes: 26, Points: 58, Legacy Rep: 132
    Location: Portugal

    Vega Senior Member

    Looks like this is the stability thread so, take the time to download this:

    http://web.usna.navy.mil/~phmiller/offshore.ppt#1

    Nothing new,and quite simple but a very well made document (and a very complete and nice one) about stability and general hull form (sailboats).
     
  6. dougfrolich
    Joined: Nov 2002
    Posts: 661
    Likes: 21, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 225
    Location: San Francisco

    dougfrolich Senior Member

    Nice presentation--but I have to take issue with what is depicted in slide 14--there is no reason why a "beamy" must have a higher CG ( represented by W in the slide )
    Slide 5 shows an open 60 inverted--too much faith was put in its high initial stability at the expense of its total range of possitive stability, and its high degree of inverted stability was ignored. We all know that bulb weight in that example was reduced way too much to reduce overall weight--That is what happens when you go to extreams
    Going back to slide 14; if you build the wide boat light, yet strong, and add the saved weight in the from of a bulb, enough so that the VCG is in the same possition as on the narrow boat, then your overall stability behavior will be better on the beamy boat--especially if you camber the deck, and can count on the intact volume of the coach roof, also intellegent use of water ballast can increase initial stability, and roll inertia. 2cents
     
  7. Vega
    Joined: Apr 2005
    Posts: 1,606
    Likes: 26, Points: 58, Legacy Rep: 132
    Location: Portugal

    Vega Senior Member

    I think that you misunderstood what he is saying. He says that to have equal righting arms in those two boats (the narrow one and the beamier) the narrow one will have to have a lower CG. And that is so, because the beamier boat can add a lot more form stability while the narrow one will have to rely a lot more on the ballast, though the lower CG (see slide 15).

    I agree in what concerns initial stability (the beamier boat will be faster and can carry more sail) but in what concerns negative stability, the beamier boat will also have a lot more inverted stability ( its form stability is even better with the boat inverted). For that reason the narrow boat will recover a lot faster from a capsizing. Roll and motion comfort would also be a lot worst on the beamier boat, we can see why on the slide 18.

    To decide who has the best overall stability, will depend on what you value most: speed or safety and comfort.;)
     
  8. Guillermo
    Joined: Mar 2005
    Posts: 3,644
    Likes: 185, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 2247
    Location: Pontevedra, Spain

    Guillermo Ingeniero Naval

    1 person likes this.
  9. mflapan
    Joined: Oct 2005
    Posts: 81
    Likes: 9, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 154
    Location: Sydney, Australia

    mflapan Junior Member

    Some very interesting links. Thank you.

    Guillermo, the last link did not seem to work. Any ideas?

    Regards
    Mori
     
  10. Guillermo
    Joined: Mar 2005
    Posts: 3,644
    Likes: 185, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 2247
    Location: Pontevedra, Spain

    Guillermo Ingeniero Naval

    Mori,
    Here you have the document in PDF
    Cheers.
     

    Attached Files:

  11. Guillermo
    Joined: Mar 2005
    Posts: 3,644
    Likes: 185, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 2247
    Location: Pontevedra, Spain

    Guillermo Ingeniero Naval

  12. mflapan
    Joined: Oct 2005
    Posts: 81
    Likes: 9, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 154
    Location: Sydney, Australia

    mflapan Junior Member

    Guillermo

    Thank you for the file regarding fishing vessel stability. I will read it with interest. As part of the work that I am doing on the section for stability tests and stability information, I am considering the function of stability documentation. The following is proposed wording from the standard.

    "The stability documentation shall incorporate the following functional documents:
    a) A stability compliance report prepared for the purpose of confirming the vessel’s compliance with the relevant stability criteria and to allow independent verification if required.
    b) An operator’s stability manual containing the information needed to safely operate the vessel in respect of its stability."

    I am not sure that the two functions are necessarily always well served by being incorporated in the same document, particularly with smaller vessels where the competencies of the operator might not cover the skills needed to investigate and interpret stability calculations. I notice that the USCG require stability letters for certain vessels that are posted in the wheelhouse. Also that the Marine and Coastguard Agency in the UK have published generic stability manuals for certain types of vessels less than 24 metres in length. Then there is the possibility of adopting electronic formats for use by the operator which allow complex calculations to be undertaken without the operator fully understanding them.

    I would be interested to hear of your views and those of other participants to this forum as to the most effective formats for stability documentation.

    Best regards
    Mori
     
  13. Guillermo
    Joined: Mar 2005
    Posts: 3,644
    Likes: 185, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 2247
    Location: Pontevedra, Spain

    Guillermo Ingeniero Naval

    Mori,
    I think the idea of providing two separate documents, one for the technicians and other, more simplified and easy to understand, for the captains and crew, is the way to go.
    I'm collaborating with SMC systems (http://www.shipmotion.se/) on the developing of a computerized system able to provide the fishing captains with real time information on their vessel's stability. You may be interested in contacting Helge Vestin, their chairman, for more information.
    I attach an interesting document from the Wolfson Unit on the matter (regarding fishing vessels).
    Cheers.
     

    Attached Files:

  14. mflapan
    Joined: Oct 2005
    Posts: 81
    Likes: 9, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 154
    Location: Sydney, Australia

    mflapan Junior Member

    Dear Guillermo

    Thank you for the report and the contacts for computerised stability analysis. The latter is certainly a good way to go.

    One problem that fishing vessels face is that they load at sea in conditions that can be difficult to read drafts for the purposes of stability analysis. Have you any thoughts on this?

    Regards
    Mori
     

  15. Guillermo
    Joined: Mar 2005
    Posts: 3,644
    Likes: 185, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 2247
    Location: Pontevedra, Spain

    Guillermo Ingeniero Naval

    Mori,
    SMC are working on devices and programs able to permanently and accurately measure draft(s) when at sea, whatever the load condition. I think the system will be a great tool for fishermen (and not only).
    Cheers.
     
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.