Foils Moth Thesis

Evaluation of the Performance of a Hydro-Foiled
Moth by Stability and Force Balance Criteria

with the Software Tool FutureShip Equilibrium
31. Symposium Yachtbau und Yachtenwurf
Hamburg, November 2010
Christian Bgle (TU-Berlin)
Dr. Karsten Hochkirch (FurturShip)
Heikki Hansen (FutureShip)
Gonzalo Tampier-Brockhaus (TU-Berlin)
Department of Ocean Engineering and Naval Architecture
TU-Berlin
Berlin, Germany
Table of Content
Zusammenfassung...........................................................................................3
Abstract............................................................................................................4
1 Introduction...................................................................................................5
1.1 Motivation.........................................................................................................5
1.2 Project Objectives............................................................................................7
1.3 Methodology.....................................................................................................7
1.4 Evaluation.........................................................................................................9
2 Velocity Prediction......................................................................................10
2.1 Force Balance................................................................................................10
2.2 Design Criteria and Design Parameters........................................................13
2.3 FS-Equilibrium................................................................................................16
2.3.1 Force Modules................................................................................................. 16
2.3.2 Input Data ........................................................................................................ 19
2.4 Velocity Prediction and Result Interpretation.................................................21
2.4.1 Variation........................................................................................................... 22
2.4.2 Results............................................................................................................. 24
3 Stability.......................................................................................................28
3.1 Small Disturbance Theory..............................................................................29
3.2 In-stationary Simulation..................................................................................31
3.3 Stability Investigation and Results Interpretation...........................................33
4 Evaluation...................................................................................................38
5 Conclusions and Future Work ...................................................................43
Tables and References...................................................................................46
List of Figures........................................................................................................46
List of Tables.........................................................................................................48
Nomenclature........................................................................................................49
References............................................................................................................51
Appendices.....................................................................................................52
A Feedback control system (mathematical approach) ........................................52
B Preliminary foil system design tool...................................................................53
C FS-Equilibrium..................................................................................................58
C.1 Predefined Modules..................................................................................62
C.2 User Modules............................................................................................66
C.3 Input Data .................................................................................................74
C.4 Force Module Validation............................................................................98
D Foil Set-Up for VPP........................................................................................101
E VPP Results....................................................................................................104
F Stability Results...............................................................................................111
ii
Zusammenfassung
Zusammenfassung
Die International Moth (Motte) ist eine der am weitesten entwickelten Bootsklassen der
Welt. 1928 erfunden, war es die erste Bootsklasse, in der Tragflgel (Hydro-Foils) in den
Klassenregeln erlaubt wurden. Diese Entwicklung hat 2001 mit V-Tragflgeln begonnen,
heutiger stand der Technik sind Doppel-Tragflchen Systeme mit einer, durch einen
Oberflchen Sensor gesteuerten, aktiv geregelten Haupt-Tragflche am Schwert.
Die letzten Entwicklungen beschrnkten sich hierbei hauptschlich auf die Optimierung der
Tragflchen Profile und Formen, um den Widerstand zu verringern und den Auftrieb zu
vergrern. Tiefergehende Untersuchungen der Flchenverhltnisse der Tragflchen, sowie
Einflussgren des Sensor gesteuerten Kontroll-Systems wurden nicht durchgefhrt, oder
wurden nicht verffentlicht.
Grundlage fr den Vergleich verschiedener Tragflgel und Kontroll-Systeme ist die
Bestimmung der Gleichgewichtszustnde in Abhngigkeit von Kurs und Wind-
geschwindigkeit. Ein Programm, mit dem die Gleichgewichtszustnde bestimmt werden
knnen, ist FS-Equilibrium. Im Vergleich zu anderen Software Lsungen, besteht bei FS-
Equilibirium die Mglichkeit, eigene Module, die das Verhalten der Tragflchen wiedergeben,
zu programmieren und implementieren.
Ziel dieser Arbeit ist der Vergleich verschiedener Tragflgelsysteme hinsichtlich Ihrer
Stabilitt und Geschwindigkeit. Hierfr wurden die Einflussgren des Kontrollsystems
definiert und Grundprinzipien bezglich des Verhaltens des Tragflgelsystems bei
verschiedenen Bedingungen hergeleitet. Auf der Basis der Einflussgren wurden die
mathematischen Beziehungen hergeleitet und in die offene modulare Umgebung von FS-
Equilibrium eingebunden.
Nach der Verifikation der Module konnte ein Vergleich von verschiedenen Tragflgel-
systemen, abhngig von Kurs und Windgeschwindigkeiten, durchgefhrt werden. Fr die
Bestimmung der Einflugren wurde im Vorfeld ein Tabellendokument erstellt, mit dem,
unter Bercksichtigung stark vereinfachender Annahmen, das Verhalten der Motte fr das
Abheben simuliert werden konnte. Die Ergebnisse aus dieser Vereinfachung konnten mit den
Ergebnissen aus FS-Equilibrium abgeglichen werden.
Die gefundenen Gleichgewichtszustnde wurden auf Ihre Stabilitt hin untersucht. Mit Hilfe
der Small Disturbance Theory und einer in-stationren Simulation konnte gezeigt werden,
dass viele gefundene Lsungen, speziell die am-Wind Kurse, hochgradig instabil sind.
Die Ergebnisse dieser Arbeit zeigen, dass, fr die Auslegung des Tragflgelsystems, ein
strkerer Fokus auf die Stabilitt gelegt werden sollte. Der Ansatz einer vereinfachten
Tabellen Berechnung zur Bestimmung der Parameter fr das Tragflchensystem hat sich
bewhrt, und kann als Ausgangspunkt fr weitere Untersuchungen hinsichtlich Stabilitt und
fr die Herleitung eines Stabilittskriteriums genutzt werden. Zustzlich hat sich gezeigt,
dass sich FS-Equiblibrium gut fr die Bestimmung der Gleichgewichtszustnde und der
Stabilitt eignet. Fr weitergehende Untersuchungen sollten noch zustzliche Module
definiert bzw. bestehende verfeinert werden, um weitere Kraftkomponenten zu
bercksichtigen. Hierdurch knnen realere Ergebnisse erzielt werden und ein Abgleich mit
realistischen Segelzustnden und den Erfahrungen von Seglern wre besser mglich.
3
Abstract
Abstract
The International Moth is one of the most advanced boat classes in the world. Invented in
1928, it was the first class with hydro-foils in their class rules. This development started in
2001 with v-shaped foils, today a two hydrofoil system with an active flap control for the main
foil via a surface sensor is state of the art.
Recent investigations were mainly focused on the foil and the profile shape, for reducing the
drag- and increasing the lift coefficient. In depth investigations concerning the plan form area
of the rudder- and centreboard foil, as well as an investigation concerning the geometrical
parameters of the control system have not been conducted, or at least not published yet.
To be able to perform a comparison of different parameters of the foil and the control system,
the equilibrium states of different sailing conditions have to be found. One tool which is
capable of performing this task is FutureShip Equilibrium. In comparison to other velocity
prediction programs, additional modules representing foils etc. can be added and time
dependent calculations can be performed.
The goal of this work is the comparison of different foil / control system configurations based
on their velocity and stability. Therefore the basic geometric parameters, influencing the foil
system, have been defined and the basic principles, how the control system should react,
and the design principles of the foils have been found. On this basis the influence of these
parameters was formulated by mathematical means and implemented into the open modular
workbench FS-Equilibirium by different force modules.
After the validation of the force modules, the performance of different foil system
configurations have been compared and evaluated due to their speed. For setting
appropriate parameters defining the foil systems, a spread sheet has been set-up for the
simulation of the take off behaviour of the Moth, on the basis of very simplified assumptions.
The results of this spread sheet have been verified using the results of FS-Equilibrium.
Using the results of the Velocity Prediction Program, the obtained equilibrium conditions have
been investigated due to their stability. Performing a dynamic investigation with the small
disturbance theory and a fully in-stationary analysis showed, that especially the upwind
courses are highly unstable.
Using the results from this work, a major focus must also be set on the stability and not only
the velocity. As the spread sheet seems to be a good starting point, this can be the basis for
a further investigation of the stability and the definition of a suitable stability criteria. In
addition it is shown, that using the open modular workbench FutureShip Equilibrium is an
appropriate way for the prediction of the velocity and the stability. For using this approach in
any further investigations, additional force modules should be defined and existing ones up-
dated to take additional force components into account. By this, more realistic results can be
achieved and compared to real conditions and the experience of sailors.

4
1 Introduction
1 Introduction
The International Moth, invented in 1928 by Len Morris, is one of the most advanced boat
classes in the World. At his time, Len built a cat rigged (single sail) flat bottom scow to sail on
Andersons Inlet at Inverloch, 130 km from Melbourne. The boat was hard chined, 11 feet
long and carried a 80 square feet single mainsail. After building another two boats the
Inverloch Yacht club was formed out of these three boats. Restrictions for the class, known
as the Inverloch Eleven Footer class, were then drawn up, with the distinguishing
characteristic that of being not a one-design boat but rather that of a boat permitting
development within the set of design parameters.
In 1929, Captain Joel Van Sant of Atlantic City, New Jersey set up another development
class. The major difference between the Australian and American boats early on was that the
American boat used only 72 square feet of sail area on a somewhat shorter mast. The US
development class was formally organized in 1932 as the "National Moth Boat Association"
and in 1935, due to increasing overseas interest, changed its name to the "International Moth
Class Association" or IMCA.
In 1933 the US Moth class got recognized by the Australians by an article in an American
magazine. The Australians noted the similarities between the two boats and intuitively
realized that the name "Moth Boat" rolled more easily from the tongue than "Inverloch Eleven
Footer Class", and changed the name of their class to Moth [1].
After some changes in the class rules over time, the rules can be summarized as followed:
maximum length (without outrigger): 3355 mm
maximum beam: 2250 mm
maximum luff length: 5600 mm
maximum sail area: 8 m
2
minimum displacement at DWL: 70 Kg
Those few rules makes the International Moth one of the fastest developing boat-classes in
the world. Today boats have a hull beam of approx. 30 cm, fully built in carbon fibre, full
batten pocket sails, and a total weight of less than 30 kg. The latest improvement was
hydrofoils.
1.1 Motivation
Andy Paterson of Blodeaxe boats is wildly considered to have developed the first functional
foiling moth. In 2001 Brett Burvill sailed a Moth skiff with surface piercing foil, at the world
championship in Australia. Afterwards this hydrofoil configuration was rated as muultihull and
therefore from the class. As a result, Gath and John Ilett developed a two hydrofoil system
for the Moth with an active flap control for the main foil via a surface sensor [2].
5 Years after the first attempts of hydrofoil sailing, the brake through for foiled Moths came
with the introduction of Bladerider, a hydro-foiled moth, developed by Andrew McDougall in
Melbourne and built in China for volume production and worldwide sales. These boats were
extensively tested and further developed by world class sailors. Subsequently, the Moth
5
1 Introduction
became far more commercialised and development more professionalized and confidential.
This makes it hard for the private Moth builder, to built a competitive boat or even improve
the existing foil systems.
This leads to the question, what makes a foils system a good foil system and how can a foil
system be improved?
There are two major requirements on a hydro-foiled Moth the Moth should be fast and
good to handle. This two aspects can be reduced to one common denominator - the stability.
Stability in this case can be seen as static stability, having an equilibrium condition of all
reacting forces at a maximum speed and knowing the tendency of the craft to return to its
equilibrium position and the dynamic stability.
Using the system hydro-foiled Moth, two major influences on the stability can be identified,
the mechanical components and the crew, where each can be subdivided in more influencing
variables. This breakdown can be demonstrated by the tree diagram, shown in Figure 1-1:
Following the discussions in different forums, the main focus in the last years has been set
on the evaluation of the best wing sections and foil shapes to minimize the drag of those
components. Just little attempts had been made improving the overall performance, hence
6
Figure 1-1: Aspects influencing the stability of a hydro-foiled Moth
1 Introduction
the static and dynamic stability. If the foil shape and the foil-section is regarded as a sub-
component of the foils, the best way of improving the foil system is the reduction of the
influence of the human component the sailor and improving the feedback control system,
as a major component of the foil system.
Even though the development of hydro-foiled Moths is very evolved, today control systems
are extensively tested by sailors, but the theoretical influence of the different aspects of a foil
system on the performance, hence the stability, is not documented so far.
1.2 Project Objectives
Stability for conventional yachts and boats is mainly expressed by stability curves, which
show the ability of the boat to create an upright moment. Hereby the centre of buoyancy of
the hull is moved relative to the centre of gravity, due to the change of heel or pitch, creating
an upright moment. For the stability of a hydro-foiled Moth additional force components have
to be considered, while the stabilising forces components from the hull are missing.
The transverse stability is the sporty part for the sailor, while the longitudinal stability is
dependant of the rudder- and the centreboard-foil and the acting forces. As the rudder foil is
controlled by the sailor, whose influence on the stability should be minimized, main focus is
set on the prediction and improvement of the centreboard foil system.
For the evaluation of the foil system, the geometrical parameters influencing the behaviour of
the foil system have to be identified. The derivation of the parameters has been done by
criteria, defining the different states and conditions of the hydro-foiled Moth. These design
principles are also the basis for the evaluation of the foil systems static stability.
As the designer of a hydro-foiled moth is faced with many geometrical parameters, a set-up
of the foil system, which should be close to most current set-ups, will be used as initial foil
system. Afterwards single parameters or even a set of parameters will be varied, for
derivation of the influence of this parameters on the velocity.
The equilibrium conditions are the basis for the evaluation of the static and dynamic stability.
Hereby techniques known from aircraft design will be used for the prediction of the grade of
stability.
1.3 Methodology
Basis for the stability - static and dynamic - is the prediction of the force components and the
calculation of the equilibrium states. A common approach for calculating the force balance,
are velocity prediction programs (VPP).
Most VPPs do not have the opportunity to define hydrofoils and a feedback control system.
The VPP from FutureShip, FS-Equilibrium, is a open modular work bench, based on
programmable force modules. Additional force modules can be programmed with common
program languages or even a c++ based api program language, and added to the program.
As the name FS-Equilibrium already implies, the used program calculates the equilibrium
state of the forces and optimizes the trim variables and conditions to minimize a specific
design value, normally the ship speed or the velocity made good (VMG).
7
1 Introduction
As there is already a large number of predefined modules available within FS-Equilibrium,
there is none for an actively controlled foil system. For the use of FS-Equi, these force
modules have to be defined first.
The additional forces are mainly driven by the foils and thereby the control system, reacting
on different conditions. State of art is the already mentioned foil system, invented by Gath
and John Ilett from Fastacraft. This system consists of a sensor wand controlled main foil at
the centreboard and a user controlled rudder foil. The concept is well illustrated in an article
of David Schmidt at www.sailmagazin.com [3] with an illustration of Jason Lee in Figure 1-2.
With the knowledge of the function of the foil system, geometrical parameters, influencing the
foil system, can be predicted and the mathematical relationship of these parameters, the
conditions and resulting forces of the foils be derived.
As there are numerous geometrical parameters defining the influence of the feedback control
system, the determination of the input data is not an easy task. Also most parameters are
interacting with each other, making the prediction even more complicated. Therefore a
preliminary foil design tool has been created on the basis of a spread sheet, giving a rough
estimation of how a specific parameter influences the foil system. Together with the
preliminary defined design criteria, the input data for the the specific modules can be
created.
8
Figure 1-2: Principle function of the foil system [3]
1 Introduction
In addition all geometrical, hydro- and aerodynamic data for the calculation of the different
forces had to be determined. This has been done by using test data, theoretical approaches
like 3D panel codes, or by estimation from theoretical thoughts.
With the definition of the input data, the calculation of the equilibrium conditions can be
performed and the derived data can be used for the evaluation process.
1.4 Evaluation
Using the VPP with the defined model of a hydro-foiled Moth, the sail condition as well as
optimised trim-variables can be calculated for a set of wind speeds (TWS) and courses
(TWA). This data is used for the validation of the velocity dependant criteria used for the
preliminary foil design, hence the preliminary foil design tool.
Thereby the validation of the design tool is important, as this is also used for the definition of
an optimised foil set-up for specific requirements and conditions. In the following calculations
the performance of different foils plan-form areas with and without optimised feedback
control systems has been compared.
The equilibrium states, which has been found with the VPP are also the basis of evaluation of
the dynamic stability. In a first step FS-Equilibrium gives the possibility to evaluate the small
disturbance stability. This is a method known from aircraft design, linearising the equations of
motion at a certain condition and apply a small disturbance in one degree of freedom.
Afterwards the oscillation of the motion will be evaluated. For a dynamical stable set-up, the
oscillation will dying out. The time needed for the amplitude to die out to half of its value is an
indicator for the grade of stability.
Another approach for the evaluation of the stability is the usage of the in-stationary module of
FS-Equilibrium. By taking a equilibrium condition as start point, the response of the boat on
small disturbances or even the time dependent behaviour without any disturbances can be
analysed. For both criteria the major interest is the self-stabilising ability of the system.
Concluding the status of the work and the method for the definition and the evaluation of a
foil system are shortly discussed.
9
2 Velocity Prediction
As already mentioned, the prediction of the force balance is the basis for the evaluation of
the static and the dynamic stability. Hereby the six condition variables are calculated by
solving the set of linear equations defining the forces and moments. Commonly this is known
as velocity prediction.
The forces and resulting condition are also influenced by additional trim variables, e.g. crew
position, de-power of the sail. In a second loop these have to be optimized, minimizing a
prior defined optimisation objective. In most cases this is the negative speed or velocity
made good (VMG).
For conventional yachts, this is the major design criteria. For a hydro-foiled moth, maximum
speed is not the only important aspect, but also sailing at different stages non-foiling, take
off, foiling at design speed and foiling at maximum speed. Therefore various design criteria
have to be defined. Finding the best compromise of the geometrical influencing parameters
is the main task of the designer.
Thus the knowledge of the forces and the influence of the geometrical parameters is an
essential part.
2.1 Force Balance
Main focus by means of stability is set on the force components influencing the longitudinal
behaviour of the Moth. Transversal stability is mainly driven by the centre of gravity, which is
primarily influenced by the sailor, who makes up to 70% of the total weight, and the
geometrical dimensions of the boat, which are fixed in the class rules hence the maximum
upright moment.
Using the transversal force balance in Figure 2-1, the body fixed lift components of the
rudder and the centreboard-foil can be split up into a horizontal and vertical component . For
a windward heel angle, this leads to a significant side force, counteracting the sail side force
by little reduction of the vertical lift component. This is important as the side force from the
struts will be reduced due to the change in plan-form area and the flight height, but also gives
the possibility to sail without leeway angle and thereby reducing the induced drag of the
struts. Also the vertical component of the sail side force will not be levelled out by the vertical
component of the strut, giving an additional lift.
Besides the transversal force balance, Figure 2-1 also shows that the main lift components
are the lift forces acting on the rudder- and the centreboard foil. These have to be in balance
with the gravity force of the sailor and the boat. In addition the Pitch moments have to be
balanced. These are influenced by the lift and gravity forces and additionally by the drag
components of the foils and the struts and the driving force. Correspondingly the drag forces
are influenced by the lift components, hence the the control mechanism of the boat.
10
The lift at the rudder foil is controlled by the sailor. The first rudder foils had been built with a
flap, however modern boats are turning the whole foil changing the angle of attack. The
centreboard- or main foil is controlled by a feedback control system, which controls the flap
angle of the main foil. The basic concept of the feedback control system is shown in Figure 1-
2. For the prediction of the lift forces the relation between the flap angle and the sensor
wand has to be evaluated.
The feedback control system contains a sensor wand, connected at the bow. This sensor is
turned by the drag in the water, due to speed and the height of the centre of rotation (CoR).
Additionally a rubber robe is attached to the the sensor wand, creating a counter moment as
shown in Figure 2-2. The rotation angle of the sensor wand can be calculated by the force
balance of the hydrodynamic drag and the robe tension force at the CoR.
11
Figure 2-1: Force balance of a hydro-foiled Moth
Also connected to the sensor wand is the control wire, which controls the pushrod in the
daggerboard and thereby the flap angle. With the assumption that the forces of the flap onto
the pushrod are small, the relation can be expressed purely geometrically and is illustrated in
Figure 2-3.
12
Figure 2-2:Sensor force balance
Figure 2-3: Geometrical relation between sensor ans flap angle
The geometrical parameters, shown in Figure 2-2 and Figure 2-3 have a big influence on the
lift force at the main foil, hence the stability of the Moth. A major task of the designer is the
right prediction and evaluation of these parameters.
In appendix A all formulas, used for the prediction of the lift-force, are extensively explained.
2.2 Design Criteria and Design Parameters
For the design of the feedback control system, four different stages have to be considered.
First stage is the non foiling state. Here the foil system should generate no lift, reducing the
induced drag at the foils. Second stage is the take off speed. At this speed the foils are
creating enough lift force, to heave the boat out of the water. Next stage is the travel speed
for a certain condition. At this stage the drag is ideally minimized and a maximum speed can
be achieved for a range of wind speeds. The last stage is maximum speed. Here the lift of
the foil is minimized and the foil cannot pierce the water surface.
Due to this four stages, the response function of the flap angle due to speed and sinkage/
altitude have to be calculated.
Non-foiling: at non foiling stage the lift at the foils should be minimized. Influencing
parameter therefore is the pretension of the robe, but also has an influence on the
sensitivity of the foil systems.
Take off Speed: The first professional build moth by means of profit the bladerider
has a take off wind speed of approx. 3 Bf. Assuming that the take-off speed is close
to wind speed and the lift of the main foil is about 60 to 70 % of the overall lift, the
main foil must create a lift of 70 to 80 kg at a boat speed of 3-4 m/s and a altitude
equal to the draft of the canoe body of the hull. But it should also create a significant
lift while sailing at DWL. This criteria should be updated and validated through the
further calculations and is just a starting point at this stage.
Design speed: This should be the speed range, at which the control system together
with the main foil operates at an optimum. Lift off effects can be neglected, as boat is
already in flying state. As the driving force and the drag forces at the foil system
produce a significant pitch moment, it can be assumed that the lift is only created by
the main foil, and the rudder foil produces no lift or even a down force for keeping the
boat horizontal. The optimum design speed may vary due to condition and region.
Maximum speed: At this speed the moth should still be able to be handled properly,
but any further speed will lead to suction or ventilation at the main foil and therefore
uncontrollable conditions. At this speed, the minimum flap angle will be reached. The
rudder foil also produces no lift.
Looking at the given parameters / possibilities influencing the feedback control system, it is
hard to find the ideal set-up, as many possible combinations have to be considered. Using a
simplified spread sheet, the lift characteristic at the main foil can be calculated for the
different stages, and a start-up of the Moth can be very rudimentary simulated. Basis for the
prediction of the forces are formulas given by Speers [4] and Abott [5].
Starting with the prediction of the flap angle, the lift force of the centreboard is calculated due
to speed, sink and pitch for all 4 stages. Hereby the speed, sink and pitch can be set
13
manually to get the desired value for the lift at the main foil. Now the drag at the centreboard
foil is calculated at the take-off condition. Using a predicted value for the lift at the rudder foil
of approximately 35%, the drag at the rudder foil can be back-calculated by the section drag,
the induced drag and the geometry of the foil. Ideally the leeway angle is zero, hence no
induced drag at the struts. Now the total drag at take off condition is calculated and used as a
constant driving force. With this force, and very simplified assumption concerning the drag
and lift of the hull, an in-stationary lift-off simulation can be performed. Thereby it is assumed
that heel and pitch are constant, hence just the weight of the sailor, but not the position will
be considered.
Together with the drag components of the hull, and the centreboard foil geometry, it can now
be simulated, if the specific parameters of the feedback control system may lead to take off
of the Moth. Result is a plot, as in Figure 2-4, of the speed and the z-offset versus the time,
whereas the time may not be realistic as not all force components and conditions are
considered.
Input parameters of the control system, used in Figure 2-2 and Figure 2-3 are renamed for
the use within FS-Equilibrium. The feedback control system can now be defined by the
parameters from Table 2-1. The corresponding lift and drag coefficients are calculated by the
foil section and the shape of the foil, as well as the plan-form area.
Table 2-1: Parameter names of feedback control system within FS-Equilibrium
CoR Sensor.CoR Centre of rotation (DWL)
l
S
Sensor.Length Length of sensor wand
D
S
Sensor.Diam Diameter of sensor
c
D
Sensor.DragCoeff Drag coefficient of sensor
l
R
Robe.DistCoR Distance robe attachment to CoR of the sensor
14
Figure 2-4: Boat speed and z-offset vs. time plot
F
R
Robe.Tension Pretension of robe
l
CW
Flap.SensorDistCoR Distance from sensor CoR to the control wire
cable attachment
S0
Flap.DeltaSensor_0 Angle offset for the sensor cable attachment
f Flap.fDeltaFlap Reduction factor between sensor robe and
vertical pushrod in the daggerboard (R
2
/R
1
)
l
Fl
Flap.FlapDistCoR Distance pushrod attachment to flap CoR
FL0
Flap.deltaFlap_0 Flap angle at 0 sensor angle
The influence of these parameters on the operation of the feedback control system are briefly
discussed:
sensor length: The length of the sensor is responsible at which speed the control
system starts to work at which speed a significant lift will be created. As long as the
robe moment MR > Mhydro, the minimum flap angle will be used, producing small, or
even negative lift at the main foil. A small lift coefficient is reducing the induced drag.
The maximum lift angle as well as the maximum z-offset (altitude) are influenced by
the sensor length as well. For a long sensor the height and the maximum flap angle
will be increased.
sensor diameter and DragCoeff: Together with the length of the sensor, the diameter
and the drag coefficient influencing the starting point of the control system. But also
the sensitivity of the system can be changed a long sensor with a small diameter
will be more sensitive than a short sensor with a big diameter.
Robe distCoR and Tension: The distance of the tension robe and the pretension of
the robe are responsible for the speed at which the feedback control system starts to
react.
Flap sensorDistCoR, fdeltaFlap, FlapDistCoR: Those parameters are defining the
reduction between the sensor distance and the flap control distance. The distances
to the CoR at the sensor and the flap should be set by real means. The reduction
factor

fdeltaFlap should be set to a value,
that the flap reaches the maximum Lift
coefficient needed for take off.
DeltaSensor_0: This parameter defines
the angle offset of the cable attachment
and the sensor. Having no angle offset
defined, a Moth in flying mode will react
very sensitively on a change of the sensor
angle, as the sensor angle is low and the
steering cable changes the flap by the
sinus of the sensor angle (S1). By
15
Figure 2-5: Angle offset DeltaSensor_0
definition of an angle offset, this movement can be reduced (S2) hence the boat
reacts less sensitive at a higher flight height.
deltaFlap_0: Minimum flap angle low drag in low-rider mode, minimum necessary
lift coefficient at maximum speed
2.3 FS-Equilibrium
The program used for the prediction of the static stability, and hereby the prediction of the
velocity, is the open modular workbench FS-Equilibrium from FutureShip. The advantage of
FS-Equi is the possibility of integration of user programmed force modules, in different
program languages. For this work the C++ based internal api-language is used, giving the
possibility of using graphical user interfaces as well as standard information output for
debugging or additional informations during a run. Also many predefined force modules are
available. A brief introduction is given in Apendix C on the basis of a paper from Richards [6].
The prediction of the speed is done by solving the set of linear equations defining the motion.
This is done using a Newton-Raphson solver which represents the inner loop of the solution.
In an outer loop, the trim-variables are optimised by means of maximizing the speed. Trim-
variables are dependant on the chosen predefined force modules or the self programmed
force modules. For the hydro-foiled Moth four trim possibilities have been used de-
powering of the sail, called FLAT, crew position, defined by MassMove1 and MassMove2,
and a trim-variable for controlling the flap angle of the rudder foil which is called deltaFlap.
With the modular structure of FS-Equilibrium, an arbitrary number of force modules can be
defined, influencing the grade of details, for the investigation of special effects. To give an
overview, the used force modules are listed and shortly discussed in the following section. An
detailed representation is listed in appendix C.1 and C.2 for predefined and user-defined
modules.
2.3.1 Force Modules
The predefined force modules can be categorized in three different groups gravity-,
aerodynamic- and hydrodynamic forces.
Gravity force modules: The gravity force modules used for the Moth, are the fixed mass
of the boat and the flexible positioned mass of the crew. Hereby two different force
modules can be used MoveableMass2D and ControlledMass, where in the first one, the
position is defined as a trim variable, in the second as control variable, influencing the
solution technique.
Aerodynamic force modules: the major aerodynamic force acting on a sail boat are the
lift and drag forces from the sail. Hereby the possibility of de-powering the sail is
implemented as the trim-variables FLAT. Additional REEF and TWIST are included,
deactivated in this case. Another force component is the windage the aerodynamic drag
due to the hull and other appendices. As shown in the paper of Beaver and Zseleczky [7]
for a hydro-foiled Moth the aerodynamic drag of the Moth is about 70% of the hydro-foil
16
drag for upwind courses. This makes windage a major drag component of a hydro-foiled
vessel.
Hydrodynamic force module: predefined module in this category is the buoyancy force
module. Here the buoyancy force and moments are calculated due to heel, pitch and
sinkage of the hull. In addition the viscous drag is calculated by the wetted area and the
form-factor, due to the ITTC57 drag coefficient calculation.
For the velocity prediction of a hydro-foiled vessel, an additional hydrodynamic force module
has been defined. Hereby the main focus was set on the flight-height dependent struts
daggerboard and rudder and the foils together with the control mechanism. An additional
penalty drag module has been written for adding drag due to heel, pitch and leeway angle.
The main focus here was stabilising the trim- and the balance algorithm, but realistic values
can be set due to the use of response functions.
UserRudder / centreboard (struts): For the calculation of the side force and drag of the
rudder and the centreboard, almost the same routines had been implemented. The
difference therefore is the consideration of the rudder angle for the calculation of the lift
and the drag. For the prediction of the lift and drag forces, 2-dimensional lift and drag
coefficient-curves have to be defined and are recalculated to 3-dimensional lift and drag
force by the aspect ratio. In addition spray and parasitic drag coefficients can be declared.
Input values are the same for both types of struts and are summarised in Table 2-2.
Table 2-2: Input data centreboard and rudder
TopLE Top leading edge point of the centreboard (CB) /
rudder
Length Strut length
Thckness Thickness in % of the chord length
Chord Chord length of CB / rudder
vCoE Vertical centre of effort as distance from geometric
CoA normalized by immersion vs. immersion
normalized by lenght
alpha Forward angle of CB / rudder
fAReff Factor for calculating effective aspect ration (oswald
factor e included) vs. immersion normalized by length
+ Foil CoP2D Centre of pressure of foil (% chord)
cL Lift coefficient vs. abs(angle of attack)
cD Drag coefficient vs. abs(angle of attack)
cDSpray Spray drag coefficient
cDPara Parasitic drag coefficient
Options Debug Additional output in command window
UserTrim Use trim variable instead of rudder angle (rudderFoil
only)
Rudder- / centreboard foil: Other than the struts, the lift and drag curves are
implemented for the whole foil / wing, giving the possibility to calculate the data with 3-D
17
panel codes, ranse codes or test data. Thus no surface piercing can be regarded this
should be prevented by setting the right boundaries, as this is not an aspired condition.
The curves have to be defined as 3-D response surfaces, with the lift-/drag-coefficient
versus the pitch and the control angle the flap angle or the rotation angle of the whole
foil. Difference between the the rudder-foil and the centreboard-foil force module is the
implementation of the feedback control system within the centreboard foil module, and a
trim-/control variable for the rudder foil. Therefore the modules are named as
ControlSysFoil and TrimVarFoil. In addition wave drag, intersection drag and parasitic
drag can be considered. The summary of the input data for the ControlSysFoil module is
shown in Table 2-3. For the TrimVarFoil module, all data concerning the feedback control
system (Sensor, Robe, Flap) can be neglected. Instead a trim-variable for the foil-control
is defined.
Table 2-3: Input data ControlSysFoil / TrimVarFoil
+ Foil CoP Centre of pressure equiv. acting point of pressure
forces
Planform Plan-form area of foil
AReff Effective aspect ratio
Thickness t Thickness in % of chord length
Chord c Chord lenght
cL 3-dim. response function (c
L
vs. angle of attack and flap
angle)
cD 3-dim. response function (c
D
vs. aoa and deltaFlap)
cDwave Wave drag coefficient
cDInter Interference drag coefficient
critAoA Critical angle of attack (warning message option only)
+ Sensor CoR Centre of rotation connection point of sensor
Length Length of sensor
Diam Sensor diameter (constant)
DragCoeff Drag coefficient of sensor geometry (rod approx. 0.5)
+ Robe DistCoR Distance robe attachment to CoR (lever arm)
Tension Tension force
+ Flap sensorDistCoR Distance to flap attachment at sensor
Deltasensor_0 Angle offset between flap attachment and sensor
fDeltaFlap Reduction factor between sensor and flap (DS
D
/DS
FL
)
FlapDistCoR Distance flap attachment to CoR at flap
deltaFlap_0 Flap angle at 0 sensor angle (minimum angle)
Options Debug Detailed output for debug purpose
Warning messages Warning if flap angle exceed specified max. angle
Use_FlapRespFctn Option for using flap response function flap angle vs.
speed and z-offset instead of predefined sensor
18
Penalty drag module: As already mentioned, the penalty drag module is mainly done for
stabilising the balance algorithm. The calculation is done using a separate response
function drag coefficient versus the specific angle. The reference area is a response
function versus the sinkage. The minimum drag condition can be established using heel
and pitch parameters defined as reference angles. As a result of using this extra
parameters the entire drag curve will shift. Due to the use of response function, measured
data for the dependency of the heel, pitch and yaw on the drag can be defined. Here also
a specific wave drag, dependant from heel, pitch, yaw and sinkage can be defined by its
components, in case measured data is available.
The explanation of the predefined modules and the mathematical implementation of the user
defined modules are listed in the Appendices C.1 and C.2 .
2.3.2 Input Data
A major task within this work was the determination and derivation of the input data. In the
opinion of the author, the validation and prediction of more accurate data and therefore better
and more realistic results is one of the main tasks that should be performed in the future. On
this basis more realistic force modules could be implemented.
The data for this work is derived from various resources. For a brief overview the different
approaches are shortly discussed. A detailed description is given in Appendix C.3 . The
description is separated into the three different force groups.
Gravity forces:
Moth mass: Data for the MassModule was derived by using an FE-model of a hydro-
foiled Moth. Hereby the properties where defined in accordance to mass data
researched from the internet or predicted by the total mass. Masses of the different
parts, the centre of gravity and the mass moment of inertia has been calculated by
the pre-/post-processor ALTAIR Hyperworks.
Crew (MassMove2D): The mass of the sailor is set to a weight of 80 Kg. Position is
set to a fixed height in the body fixed coordinate system, predicted from the geometry
of a Moth, to 0.4 meters. The position in x and y direction is flexible. For the
calculation of the mass moment of inertia, the body was split in easy to calculate
geometrical bodies tube, box, bowl for which the mass moment of inertia can be
predicted and recalculated to the centre of gravity of the sailor [8].
Aerodynamic forces:
FWindage: The prediction of the windage data is done using the raw data from
Beaver and Zseleczky [7]. Hereby the lift force from the hull is subtracted from the
forces components to predict the drag coefficients. These are constant for all courses.
The lift-force of the hull is neglected at this stage. For further investigations this force
components should be predicted and modelled, as this is a significant side force,
especially for upwind courses. Principal data can be found in [9]. The reference area
is predicted by the basic geometrical dimensions of the sailor and the boat.
FRig: For the calculation of the aerodynamic sail data, more information is necessary.
On one hand, this are the lift and drag curves for the sail, but also the centre of effort
19
and the basic geometrical data from the rig and the boat needs to be given. For the
prediction of the lift and drag curves, two sets of data have been used. First set is the
data given for a yacht, DYNA from the TU-Berlin, documented by Hansen [9], which
has been transformed the the upwind course data, provided by Chris Williams,
calculated with the north sails panel code FLOW. This seems to be a good approach
as no whole sail-polar is measured so far. The centre of effort is back calculated from
the FLOW raw data, and fit to the curvature of the DYNA data from [9] . All other data
is measured from actual boat designs.
Hydrodynamic forces:
Buoyancy force: Hull offset data is imported from a CAD file. The design is made in
many discussions by Juryk Henrichs and the author, for the basic shape and finalized
by Juryk in 2008. Design data is given in Appendix C.3.6. As no reliable wave drag
data is available, a high form factor of 1.3 as been used for the frictional drag. Wave
drag is not implemented at this stage. Therefore the influence of the heel, pitch and
yaw, as well as sink would have to be considered and would exceed the scope of the
report.
Struts (centreboard / rudder): The struts rudder and centreboard are defined by
the geometry data and the lift and drag characteristic. This is calculated in 2D with
XFLR5, a C based and GUI supported version of XFOIL. This data is internally
recalculated due to the change in geometry by the flight height into 3 dimensional lift
and drag coefficients and lift and drag forces. Section geometry is set fixed to NACA
63-012 for the centreboard and NACA 0012 for the rudder. Coefficients for the
additional drag components are predicted by Beaver and Zseleczky [7], on the basis
of Hoerner in [10] and [11], or scaled with the overall forces also provided in [7].
Foils: Other than the struts, the lift and drag data of the foils is already calculated as
3D data with the wing module of XFLR5, in which the 3 dimensional characteristic
can be predicted with an implemented 3D panel code. The foil section is set to a
NACA 64-412 for the centreboard foil. Most rudder-foils also have a unsymmetrical
foil section, but in the opinion if the author, also a down-force is needed for high
speed foiling. Therefore a symmetric NACA 63-012 section is used. The shape of the
foil was set to semi-elliptical shape for all foil geometries. The shape and profile is an
aspect for foil optimization, but not considered in this work.
Feedback control system: The characteristic of the feedback control system is
calculated with the already explained preliminary foil design tool. Here also the plan-
form area is defined. For the main foil an initial area of 0.11 m
2
is used which will be
varied. The plan-form area for the rudder is set to 0.08 m
2
.
Before using FS-Equilibrium for the velocity prediction, the implemented routines were
verified, using the input data. The signs of the forces had been checked for a first overview.
Afterwards the absolute values were evaluated by plotting the selected force components
versus the true wind speed (TWS) and the true wind angle (TWA). All validation is printed in
appendix C.4.
20
2.4 Velocity Prediction and Result Interpretation
A typical form of the velocity prediction is the polar plot. Hereby the data, commonly the ship
speed is plotted versus the TWA. Plotting different wind speed in one polar plot, gives a very
good overview on how the boat reacts at different conditions. A typical polar plot for the
speed of a Moth is shown in Figure 2-6.
In the case of the hydro-foiled Moth, the change in speed is a clear indicator for the craft
reaching foiling state. Different foil / -control configurations can now be analysed and
compared to each other. Not given by the velocity prediction is the take off behaviour of the
Moth. Assuming that the drag of the Moth is maximized shortly before take off and will drop to
a certain level after take off, the VPP does not give the answer if the Moth can actually reach
the foiling state at the given course and wind speed. This must be done with a in-stationary
21
Figure 2-6: Moth polar plot
simulation, considering the sailor position and trim changes during take off. A simple
approach has been done with the preliminary Moth deign tool, which will also be taken for
defining different foil set-up's.
2.4.1 Variation
It is unlikely to find the best set-up with the criteria for the foil-system in a single approach.
Rather getting a feeling of the influence of the parameters, that can be changed and
optimised during the design process. Therefore a initial foil-system has been defined.
As already discussed in the previous chapter, some parameters, which, by themselves,
would be worth an optimisation, are taken as fixed values. Main focus is set onto the control
system and the plan-form area of the main foil. Also the plan-form area of the rudder should
be optimised, but is also set fixed at the beginning, as this characteristic can easily be
updated at a later stage.
Initial plan-form is set to 0.11 m
2
which can be taken as a very common value as shown in
[7]. The shape was set to a straight tailing edge and a elliptical leading edge. When changing
the plan-form area, the aspect ratio is kept constant.
According to actual Moth design, the take-off speed is set to 3.5 m/s. Modern Moth start
foiling at a wind speed of 2-3 Bft., which is approximately 3 to 4 m/s. Assuming that the Moth
can be sailed as fast as wind speed for non-foiling, this leads to an take off speed of 3.5 m/s.
The first calculations have been done using one set-up for the feedback control system and
changing the plan-form area of the main foil. This set-up is optimised for the initial foil plan-
form area of 0.11 m
2
and the predicted take off speed of 3.5 m/s. To get a good feeling how
changes will in the plan-form area will effect the behaviour of the Moth, the area is set to
0.08 m
2
and to 0.14 m
2
in further calculations.
While estimating the values for the control system, one effect becomes clear. For reaching
the foiling state a higher driving force is needed as the actual drag force when just reaching
flying state. Therefore a drag-bump must be resolved, shorty before take off. As the drag
force versus the time is also plotted in the preliminary foil design tool, this effect is clearly
visible and illustrated in Figure 2-7.
22
Figure 2-7: Drag vs. time - default control system 0.11 m
2
main foil
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Total drag vs. time
Time [s]
D
r
a
g

f
o
r
c
e

[
N
]
An experienced sailor would change course to get a higher driving force, get airborne and
head back when foiling.
For the next calculations a separate set-up for each plan-form area is created. Hereby it will
be assumed that, while the take off speed for the default area of 0.11 m
2
is 3.5 m/s, the take
off speed will be affected as well. Therefore the take off speed was set to 4 m/s for the 0.08
m
2
foil, and 3 m/s for the 0.14 m
2
foil. It is obvious that this will lead to different drag forces,
as the plan-form area is included linearly in the equation for calculating the drag force, and
the speed by the square. For getting an overview over all set and calculated values, these
are summarized in Table 2-4. The full set of parameters is listed in Appendix C.3 . Here also
the velocity-/ offset plots are documented.
Table 2-4: Foil system set-up
Parameter / Condition Foil set-up 01 Foil set-up 02 Foil set-up 02
Est. take off seed 3.5 m/s 4.0 m/s 3.0 m/s
Est. total drag at take off 64.0 N 69.6 N 60.47 N
+ Foil Plan-form 0.11 m 0.08 m 0.14 m
+ Sensor Length 0.9 m 0.9 m 0.9 m
+ Robe Tension 10 N 10 N 10 N
+ Flap DeltaSensor_0 35 35 35
fDeltaFlap 0.125 0.140 0.118
deltaFlap_0 -5 -5 -4
Looking at the calculated values for the total drag at take off speed shows the clear influence
of the speed onto the drag. Now it seems to be an advantage of having a big centreboard
foil, as the drag is much lower for the big foil. But the size of the foil will have an effect onto
the maximum speed that can be reached. Using the same spread sheet, but setting a
constant driving force, shows the difference for the maximum speed. The driving force was
set well above the force needed for take off to 80 N.
Table 2-5: Max. speed and flight height at constant driving force
Plan-form
Set-up
0.11 m2
01
0.08 m2
02
0.14 m2
03
Driving force 80 N 80 N 80 N
Max. Speed 5,38 m/s 7,18 m/s 4,98 m/s
Flight height 0.58 m 0.62 m 0.55 m
Time to take off 9 s 13 s 8 s
23
The corresponding results indicate, that a foil system is always a compromise between take
off speed and maximum speed. It must be considered that the values in Table 2-3 can not be
regarded as absolute values, as not all drag components and pitch influence are included in
the calculations. Also the limits like stall flap angle and crew position are not regarded by this
calculation. Restrictions in the calculation are discussed in more detail in Appendix B .
Taking the three different control system configurations and the three plan-form areas, leads
to seven variations.
Table 2-6: Variation of plan-form area vs. foil set-up
Plan-form area Foil set-up 01 Foil set-up 02 Foil set-up 03
0.11 m
2
X X X
0.08 m
2
X X
0.14 m
2
X X

2.4.2 Results
As the feedback control system is mainly set up by the take off condition, first glance is at a
TWS of 3.5 and 4 m/s where all set-ups have their first flight condition. As has been
mentioned the foil with a plan-form area of 0.14 m
2
will first tend to take off, Figure 2-8 shows
that this is different. For the reference foil with a plan-form area of 0.11 m
2
a first flight
condition is found at a TWS of 3.5 m/s and a TWA of 105. The 0.14 m
2
foil follows at 85. All
other set-ups have their first take off condition at a TWS of 4 m/s and a TWA of 110 5.
At this stage it should be mentioned that finding the equilibrium states is done with a variation
of solver settings. Due to the significant change in drag in foiling state, values change over a
big range. This may lead to problems for the solver while finding the optimum condition.
Therefore one solver or at least the settings for the solver might be good for foiling state, but
do not converge in low rider mode. Thereby the take off stage is always critical as values
varies by the biggest range and results may vary by 5.
Another point that surprises is the behaviour of the feedback control system. Leaving the
plan-form area and changing the control system leads to a slightly different behaviour at take
off and landing, while top speed and low rider speed is as good as not affected. This
behaviour is visible at all true wind speeds. One reason therefore are the minor changes at
the different control systems, mainly focusing on a similar take off condition. Hereby the
factor defining the ratio between the sensor wand control wire and the main-foil pushrod was
mainly adjusted together with the minimum flap angle.
Although the plan-form area shows a clear visible effect on the speed at low-rider and foiling
condition. Having a bigger foil reduces the speed in low-rider and in foiling state, but also
decreases the take off wind speed. Here the first theoretical foiling conditions are possible at
a TWS of 3.5 m/s for the plan-form area of 0.11 m
2
and 0.14 m
2
while the foil system with a
main foil of 0.08 m
2
does starts foiling at a 4 m/s. It's also very clear that by using similar
geometric dimensions of the sensor wand, the maximum reachable speed seems to depend
by the plan-form area only. Also visible is the circumstance, that bigger foils tend to stay
24
longer in foiling condition while heading windward at low wind speeds as shown in Figure 2-
8.
Considering the progression of the heel angle versus the TWA shows, that while heading
windward the heel to weather increases, as could be seen in Figure 2-9 (positiv heel
windward).
25
Figure 2-8: Moth Polars for take off condition, a) TWS = 3.5 m/s, b) 4 m/s)
Figure 2-9: Heel angle vs. TWA for 0.11 m
2
/ 0.08 m
2
/ 0.14 m
2
main foil
This effect occurs while the remaining strut can not, or at least not with minimum drag, create
enough side force due to the reduction of the wetted surface area with increasing flight-
height of the Moth. While heeling windward, a significant horiziontal side force component
can be created by the lift force of the foil, in fact by the sinus of the heel, but also the vertical
lift component will be reduced by the cosine (Figure 2-1). Together with delimited range of
crew position and the angle of the rudder foil control surface, not enough lift will be available
while heading windward.
As this effect can also result from a badly designed feedback control system, the heel angle
should be considered in the preliminary foil design.
For high wind speeds the foiling range is, with some exception, the same. According to the
polars in figure Figure 2-10, the foil with the plan-form area of 0.08 m
2

seems to have a clear
advantage in comparison to the bigger foils.
Using the VPP FS-Equilibrium has shown some difficulties with the mathematical formulation
of the force modules as well as the solver settings. Problem hereby is optimisation of four
trim-variables, which, on one hand, have a relatively wide range, and on the other hand are
interfering with each other. Thereby MassMove2 and Flat are counteracting as well as
MassMove1 and deltaFlap. MassMove1 tends to have a more backward position, which
seems to be better by means of maximising the speed.
26
Figure 2-10: Moth polars - travel- and max. speed (TWS = 6 m/s / 10 m/s)
By considering three different plan-form areas and three different set-up for the feedback
control system, even the changes at the feedback control system are minor, some clear
trends can be found:
Take off condition: Foils size seems to have an optimum between a) 0.08 m2 and b)
0.14 m2 where take off speed will be reached at a later stage due to a) too small
plan-form area and b) to much drag.
Foiling range at low wind speed: Small foils do not have enough vertical lift at upwind
courses due to increase of heel angle.
Cruising speed, high wind speeds: small foils have a better performance by means of
speed at all courses.
Feed back control system: small changes (deltaFlap_0, initial flap angle, and ratio)
effects take off speed, travel and maximum speed are hardly effected. For changing
the performance at high wind speeds, the sensor should also be changed.
27
3 Stability
3 Stability
Knowing the equilibrium conditions for a set of TWS and TWA shows the best velocity for the
Moth, but it does not show anything about how stable the moth performs at this specific
conditions.
Using an approach from aircraft design, the stability of an aircraft is measured by two types
of stability, the static stability and the dynamic stability. The static stability shows the
tendency of the craft to return to its equilibrium position. Three conditions of the static stability
can be distinguished stable, indifferent and unstable. This three conditions are sketched in
Figure 3-1.
In addition to the static stability, the craft must also be dynamically stable. A craft can be
considered dynamically stable if, after being disturbed from its equilibrium condition, the
ensuing motion diminishes with time [12].
For the prediction of the static stability of an aircraft, the motions can be divided into
longitudinal and lateral motion, where only the desired force of each plane can be
considered. Looking at the force balance of a hydro-foiled Moth in Figure 2-1 shows, that,
while having a big side force component at the sail, the influence of the yaw, drift and heel on
the longitudinal motion is much bigger than at an aircraft. Therefore the prediction of the
stability has to be done three dimensionally, which would exceed this work and the brain of
the author. Instead the numerical possibilities of FS-Equilibrium will be used.
With the use of FS-Equilibrium there are two ways for investigating the stability at the found
equilibrium states the prediction of the dynamic stability with the linearised equations of
motion and the small disturbance theory and by solving the equations of motion in a time
dependant scheme with the in-stationary mode.
The equations of motion can be obtained from Newtons second law, which states that the
summation of all external forces acting on a body is equal to time rate of change of the
momentum of the body, and the summation of the external moments acting on the body is
equal to the time rate of change of the moment of momentum (angular momentum) [12]. This
can be expressed in the vector equations:

F=
d
dt
mv
M=
d
dt
(r X v)m
(1)
28
Figure 3-1: Static stability conditions
3 Stability
3.1 Small Disturbance Theory
Basis for the use of the small disturbance theory is the assumption, that the motion of the
craft consist of small deviations from a reference condition of steady motion. With this
assumption the equation of motion can be linearised and be brought into the following form
[13]:

x(t )=Ax(t )+bu(t )
(2)
Where x(t) is the vector of the state variables or state vector, u(t) is the control vector and A
and B are the linearised system matrices at the specific condition.
The solution of this first order differential equation is of the form

x(t )=X
0
e
\t
(3)
Where x
0
is an eigenvector and is an eigenvalue of the system. The solution contains of n
eigenvalues and eigenvectors whereby n is the number of the degree of freedom of the
system. Since any of the eigenvalues can provide a soultion, and the equation is linear, the
most general solution is the sum of all x(t):

x(t )=
i
X
0i
e
\
i
t
(4)
The eigenvalues contains from a real and a complex part. The conjugate pair of the
eigenvalues describes an oscillation mode that, depending on the sign of real part of the
eigenvalue, grows or decays. Thereby it can bee seen that the question of stability can be
answered just by the sign of the real part of the eigenvalues. If all real parts are negative, the
system is stable. For the prediction of the handling quality of an aircraft not just the
qualitative characteristics are of importance, but also the quantitative. For an aircraft these
are the period T, the time to double or half the amplitude and the number of cycles to double
or half the amplitude.
Using FS-Equilibrium for the prediction of the stability, the equations of motions can be
linearised at every equilibrium condition. The result of the linearisation is shown in the output
window in the form of the system-matrix (A), the trim matrix (B), the control vector b and a
noise matrix describing the change in aerodynamic values, as well as the eigenvalues and
the eigenvectors of the system.
Together with the eigenvalues, the decay time, the damping and the period is directly given in
the output window. The output of an arbitrary condition is shown in Figure 3-2. Another
benefit of FS-Equilibrium is the ability of directly visualising the reaction of the boat due to an
applied disturbance within the motion viewer. Therefore some predefined motions will be
applied to the system and the response will directly be calculated at the linearised condition.
29
Figure 3-2: Eigenvalue output in FS-Equilibrium
3 Stability
Looking at the eigenvalues it is obvious that the system is unstable as eigenvalue 9 has a
positive sign. Using the motion viewer of FS-Equilibrium to analyse the response due to
different perturbations it becomes clear, that the heel is the unstable degree of freedom
(DoF). This is obvious as a foiled Moth does not have any self-stabilising moments. Making a
new linearisation with a system decoupled from the heel (disable of heel as degree of
freedom), the system turned out to be stable as all real parts of the eigenvalues are negative
or zero.
The response of the conditions can also be plotted over the time. Figure 3-3 shows the
response ot the pitch due to an disturbance of rising the pitch angle from 0.23 to 1.23,
Figure 3-4 shows the same for the z-coordinate and an offset from -0.627 m to -0.527 m.
Both curves show that the amplitude diminishes hence the system reacts stable to a
disturbance in pitch and z when the heel is fixed.
30
Figure 3-3: Pitch response pitch = 1
Figure 3-4: Z-response for Z = - 0.1 m
3 Stability
While these graphs are showing very clearly the damping and oscillation of the response, the
creation is very time consuming. The same results can be achieved by comparing the
eigenvalues of the different systems. FS-Equilibrium directly calculates the decay time, the
damping coefficient and the period if an imaginary part exists. Looking at the eigenvalues of
the above configuration in Figure 3-5, most eigenvalues have a very short decay time and
even no imaginary part , hence no oscillation at all.
For a Moth only those modes are of interest, which are actually effecting the sailor. Therefore
the short period and highly damped motions are not used for comparison of the set-ups.
The investigation has been done with a set of preselected conditions. The first set affects the
take off condition. This might be the most unstable condition as the boat is just out of the
water and not a high reserve by the driving force is given. Next condition will be set to
cruising speed, as this is the most common sailed condition. For cruising condition a higher
wind-speed is considered, a speed of 6 m/s seems to be a very common condition. Thereby
two courses has been taken into account, a fore wind course at a TWA of 120 and a upwind
course at 60 TWA. Also considered for those two courses is a high wind speed of 10 m/s.
3.2 In-stationary Simulation
In addition to the small disturbance investigation, the in-stationary simulation has been
performed, in which the motions are described via the equations of motions including all
external forces, calculated by their respective force modules. The equation of motion will not
be linearised, as by using the small disturbance theory, but solved due to the change of the
condition. Hereby FS-Equilibrium gives a range of possibilities for controlling the behaviour of
the craft. Manoeuvring simulations for instance operate with changing rudder angles.
Thereby a fixed course can be set, or may also be controlled by the use of predefined
manoeuvres. A PID-controller is implemented to keep the desired coarse.
As during the stationary simulation the trim-variables will not be updated automatically, some
restriction have to be done. As already mentioned at a earlier stage, a Moth in low rider mode
have limited, in foiling mode no possibilities of stabilising itself in transversal direction. The
Moth must be levelled out by the crew. As transverse stability is not of interest for the
evaluation of the foil- and the feedback control system, the heel will be set to a fixed value,
which is given through the initial condition, knowing that the side-force is influenced by the
heel.
Using the auto-pilot to keep to keep the moth on the initial course, the plot of the speed, the
pitch and the sinkage as in Figure 3-6 is given as output.
31
Figure 3-5: Eigenvalue output with fixed heel
3 Stability
Comparing the result of the dynamic response of the small disturbance theory of the shown
initial condition and the in-stationary simulation shown in Figure 3-6, the condition seem not
very stable at a first glance. Speed is dropping instantly by approx. 37.5 % of the initial
speed, as well as the pitch changes from 0.23 to 1.8 and down to -2.4. Sinkage also
increases (height drops) by approx. 36%. But the craft tends to get stabilised as, after first
dropping, the speed increases and pitch as well as sinkage converges. This condition seems
to be stable by means of static stability, as the system shows the ability to return to its initial
condition.
If the chosen conditions converge, the trim variables can be updated by a predefined value,
in case of the investigation of the longitudinal motion and stability, the trim-variable
MassMove1, the x-position of the sailor, and deltaFlap, the rudder-foil control angle. The
change of this two variables will be done, creating either an positive or an negative pitch
angle.
As the the size of the change is dependant on the boundaries of the trim-variable, the
disturbance is set to about 5% of the range. This is approximately a X of 0.1 m for the
crew and / or 1 for the flap angle. Using the in-stationary simulation from Figure 3-6, the
disturbance will be applied at approximately 30 s of simulation time with an macro, so both
changes are applied together. The result of the disturbance look like Figure 3-7.
32
Figure 3-6: Output of in-stationary simulation - speed / pitch / sink vs. time
Figure 3-7: In-stationary simulation with disturbance
3 Stability
Starting with the initial condition, the speed drops first to a certain level, but the motion is
stabilizing and the speed increasing. Hereby the pitch and the sinkage converges as the
amplitude drops over the time and tends toward a fixed value. Giving a disturbance at 30
seconds, here negative movement of the crew plus decreasing of the lift at the rudder-foil,
the pitch drops instantly and the speed is reduced due to the increase in drag of the foils. Its
clearly visible that the disturbance destabilises the Moth or at least, cannot be stabilised
within the given boundaries as the sinkage tends toward the draft of the canoe body and
speed drops below take-off speed.
For the consideration of other inertia effects than the pure mass moments of inertia, an
additional mass- and damping matrix can be defined with an extra module within FS-
Equilibrium. If the behaviour shows such an instant drop from the initial condition, other
damping effects should be considered, and the option of defining this extra damping matrix
should be used.
Basis for the conditions of the in-stationary simulation are the conditions used for the small
disturbance theory. As the simulation and evaluation of all conditions used for the small
disturbance investigations would be very time consuming, the critical conditions are used for
verifying the results from the small disturbance theory. These are the diverging conditions in
the first place. For a cross-check, the condition with the minimum damping ratio, hence the
longest decay times, should also be investigated.
3.3 Stability Investigation and Results Interpretation
Starting with the already mentioned conditions for the investigation of the stability by means
of dynamic stability, the resulting eigenvalues show, that especially the upwind conditions are
showing an unstable condition. Thereby the destabilizing degree of freedom is the rotation in
z direction. Although the rudder, as well as the heel is influencing the side forces, the values
will be assumed to be fixed while the influence of the feedback control system is of interest.
Performing the stability investigation with constrained heel and yaw, the number of unstable
conditions dropped from 13 to 3. So the majority of the investigated conditions seem to be
stable.
As the main criteria for defining the parameters of the feedback control system was the take-
off condition, first closer look is set on this results. Hereby just the 0.14 m
2
foil with the set-up
01 (optimized for 0.11 m
2
) shows an instability with quite a long decay time compared to the
other amplitudes. The results are summarized in Table 3-1.
Table 3-1: Results dynamic stability take off condition
Identifier
Plan-form/
Set-Up
Condition
(TWS [m/s] /
TWA [])
Eigenvalue Decay Time Damping Period
Real Imaginary
P0.11 / F.01 3.5 / 105 -0.267 0.00 2.592 1.00 0.00
P0.11 / F.02 4.0 / 115 -0.326 0.00 2.127 1.00 0.00
P0.11 / F.03 4.0 / 115 -0-267 0.00 2.013 1.00 0.00
P0.08 / F.01 4.0 / 115 -0.337 0.00 2.049 1.00 0.00
33
3 Stability
P0.08 / F.02 4.0 / 115 -0.344 0.00 2.021 1.00 0.00
P0.14 / F.01 4.0 / 110 0.012 0.00 -59.223 -1.00 0.00
P0.14 / F.03 3.5 / 85 -0.230 0.00 3.013 1.00 0.00
Including the other investigated conditions, two more unstable conditions at TWS of 6 m/s
and a TWA of 60 can be identified. Hereby the foils with a plan-form area of 0.08 m
2
and
0.11 m
2
have a positive real part in its eigenvalue. As this conditions are both using foil set-up
F02, one conclusion could be, that this set-up is either not suitable for the plan-form areas or
not well predicted at all. But it is remarkable, that these foil set-up are stable at a TWS of 10
m/s, leading to the conclusion, that the trim configuration, maximising the speed, by itself is
unstable.
This unstable conditions have been taken for a closer investigation. By using the in-
stationary simulation within FS-Equilibrium, the results from the dynamic stability
investigation can be validated.
For each of the unstable set-up, a stable configuration will be used for a direct comparison.
This might make it possible to get a direct link between a specific variable and the unstable
behaviour. For the unstable set-up at a TWS of 6 m/s the corresponding condition at 10 m/s
will be used. The unstable configuration at take off, which is P014F01 (plan-form 0.14 m2, foil
set-up 01), has been compared with P014F03, which shows a quite similar condition.
The chosen set-up's and conditions are confronted in Table 3-2. The unstable conditions are
marked with light grey, below, in white, is the compared, dynamically stable condition.
Table 3-2: Used set-up's / conditions for in-stationary simulations
ID TWS TWA Vs Heel Pitch Lee Sink Rudder Mass-
Move1
Mass-
Move2
delta-
Flap
Flat
[m/s] [] [m/s] [] [} [] [m] [] [m] [m] [] [-]
P014F01 4 110 5.34 2.11 0.23 1.21 -0.6 -1.59 -1.46 -0.72 6.18 0.89
P014F03 4 115 5,92 2.05 1.13 1.4 -0.63 -2.06 -1.66 -0.9 6.28 1.
P011F02 6 60 4.73 5.4 -1.84 2.47 -0.52 -2.54 -1.21 -1.4 3.59 0.65
P011F02 10 60 6.83 8.5 0.61 1.61 -0.61 -3.33 -1.26 -1.4 2.43 0.28
P008F02 6 60 4.69 7.99 -1.82 1.95 -0.43 -2.52 -1.21 -1.3 3.59 0.65
P008F02 10 60 6.97 7.41 0.75 1.69 -0.6 -3.73 -1.63 -1.4 3.37 0.27
Comparing the conditions from TWS = 6 m/s and 10 m/s shows, that the pitch angle has a
difference of over 2 degrees, for take off condition still approx. 1 degree. Having a small or
negative pitch angle seems to de-stabilise the Moth. Assuming that the condition by itself is
stable and shows a static stability, the disturbance should be applied in a nose up way,
which seems to be more conservative.
34
3 Stability
Performing an in-stationary analysis shows, that all conditions and set-ups considered for the
simulation are unstable. For the prediction of the stability the sinkage is plotted versus the
time as shown in Figure 3-8.
This can also be done with the pitch, showing the same results, while the ship speed might
be misleading, as heel and yaw are not regarded in the stability investigation, and therefore
tend to be higher as the predicted results from the velocity prediction. The plots shown in
Figure 3-8 are indicating the unstable behaviour, as flight height drops immediately from the
initial height to more or less zero meters, hence low rider condition.
These results shows that a dynamically stable condition does not automatically denote that
the condition is also static stable. This has already been mentioned by Cook [14] for the
prediction of the stability of an aircraft. For a hydro-foiled Moth, the dynamical behaviour
according to the small disturbance theory, seems to play a minor role in comparison to the
static stability, therefore an in-stationary simulation has to be performed.
Leaving the question if the set-up of the foil system is badly chosen or the condition which
might lead to the maximum speed is unstable by itself. Therefore the initial foil system is
investigated in the preliminary defined five conditions TWS 6 / 12 m/s at upwind and
downwind and at take-off condition.
The upwind and take off condition of the stability reacts like in the already discussed
conditions highly unstable. The height and the speed immediately drops to low-rider
condition while the pitch rises very fast. In contrast the down-wind conditions behave very
stable. Also applying a disturbance at approximately 10 s simulation time will keep the
system stable. Hereby a disturbance of 1 rudder foil angle is applied, in either plus or minus.
The sailor position was kept constant, as already positioning at the rear end and no further
35
Figure 3-8: Ship speed vS vs. time
3 Stability
distortion can be applied to the range limitation. For the reference foil system this is
demonstrated in Figure 3-9 for the sinkage versus the time. Same behaviour can be seen at
other chosen foil systems configurations.
The decrease of sinkage can be drawn back on the increase in speed due to constrained
heel and yaw. Looking at the speed shows an instant increase from initial to a maximum
speed before falling back to a higher level in accordance to the sinkage.
The results from the stability investigations regarding the static and dynamic stability can be
outlined by the following points:
Dynamic stability with constrained heel and pitch achieved in most cases
Proof of static stability given by in-stationary simulation in a mathematical sense.
Dynamic stability might be given for static unstable conditions.
Up wind force equilibrium conditions predicted by maximising the boat speed
seemed highly unstable.
For down-wind courses a high grade of stability can be achieved.
36
Figure 3-9: Dynamic response sink vs. time
4 Evaluation
4 Evaluation
Using the program FS-Equilibrium for the prediction of the velocity and the stability shows
clearly, that the prediction of the parameters for the feedback control system is a central point
for the design of a foil system. The main focus hereby is set on an optimised set of
parameters for a given plan-form area of the main foil, meeting the requirements for reaching
take off at a predefined take off speed. Also considered is the cruising speed and the
maximum speed, which has to suppress the tendency for the main foil to break through the
water surface instantly destroying lift.
Hereby the preliminary foil design tool, described in Appendix B, was not just helpful, it was
absolutely necessary, as the prediction of the parameters could not have been handled
properly in another way. Using the tool during the process of velocity prediction also showed,
how effective the tool is working in a design process, but also showed the limits of the tool. At
the stage of the preliminary foil design, some values had to be estimated, concerning the
conditions defined as design criteria. The take off speed plays a major role for the definition
of the parameters. Other parameters influencing take off, is the pitch angle at take off and
the lift ratio, defining the load on the main foil. The load on the main foil is defined by the ratio
of lift at the main foil in relation to the over all lift, which has to level out the weight of the crew
and the boat. Cruising and maximum speed have been regarded as, more or less, a result
from the foil system a pitch angle of 0 and 100% load on the main foil.
By means of these preliminary defined values, the results of FS-Equilibrium can now be
discussed in correlation to the estimated results from the preliminary design tool.
Take off speed: The initial take off speed for the reference foil system with a plan-form area
of 0.11 m
2
is set to 3.5 m/s. This value results from the known take off wind speed of actual
designs and the assumption, that a moth can be sailed near to wind speed. Also assumed is
the circumstance that a foil with a smaller plan-form area needs a higher wind speed for take
off, while a bigger foil needs a slower one. Therefore the take off speed for the 0.08 m
2
foil is
set to 4 m/s and for the 0.14 m
2
foil to 3 m/s.
Plotting the sinkage, or flight-height for the use of positive values, as an indicator for take off
versus the boat speed shows the actual take off condition. Thereby the actual take off speed
of the three foil configurations in Figure 4-1, predicted with FS-Equilibirum, show a good
accordance with the assumed values from the preliminary foil design tool. The predicted
values are slightly higher, which may results from additional drag components, not taken into
account by the preliminary design tool.
As outcome it can be accepted, that the take off behaviour is mainly controlled by the set-up
of the feedback control system in accordance with the plan-form area of the main foil.
37
4 Evaluation
Lift ratio: Together with the take-off speed, the lift ratio of the main-foil relative to the total lift
has been set. As a starting point this value was set to a constant value of 65%. Looking at
the lift ratio of the foiling conditions in Figure 4-2 suggests, that the assumption of a fixed
value for all foils is not best chosen as the results vary between 80% and 50%.
The bigger foils seem to have more load on the main foil with an average value of 65% to
70%, the small foil has approx. 60% with a rising tendency for the higher speeds. As the
rudder foil for the small foil creates enough lift to carry up to 50% of the load, it should be
38
Figure 4-1: Take off speed vs. speed for 0.11 m
2
/ 0.08 m
2
/ 0.14 m
2
main foil
Figure 4-2: Lift ratio vs. speed for 0.11 m
2
/ 0.08 m
2
/ 0.14 m
2
main foil
4 Evaluation
reduced in size for the bigger foils. This is also mentioned by Beaver and Zseleczky [7], as
the main foil is able to produce enough lift. Therefore the assumption, that the main foil
carries up to 100% of the load can not be confirmed. The lift ratio does hardly reach more
than 80%.
Pitch angle: The last assumption made for the preliminary foil design is the pitch angle for
creating enough lift during take off and at high speeds. This value is not easily verified,
especially for take off, as the dynamic take off behaviour of the craft is not simulated at this
stage. It's known that sailors pump the boat out of the water by dynamically decreasing the
pitch (nose up) to shortly create more lift, while, due to inertia, speed can be seen constant.
Still the pitch angle of the three foil set-ups, plotted in Figure 4-3 versus the boat speed,
shows, that the pitch tends to be in a nose up position for take off, while being in a positive
pitch range in stationary conditions.
Cross-checking the pitch, the lift ratio and the crew position of the three set-ups may lead to
the assumption, that the range of the main foil flap angle, is not well chosen. Looking at the
crew-position in Figure 4-4 shows, that the sailor tends to be at the stern for an optimised
boat speed. This increases the load on the rudder foil, while the load on the main foil, and
hereby the induced drag, is decreased by a positive pitch, showing that the minimum flap
angle is to high.
Also using Figure 4-4 it is visible, that the crew positions is already at the stern for relatively
low boat speeds, while for the bigger foil, the crew positions varies in a wider range. This can
be interpreted, that more combinations of conditions and trim-variables are possible for
reaching a near to maximum velocity. Using this effect, it should be able to reduce the range
of the sailor movement and therefore the influence of the sailor.
Another point affecting the pitch is the robe tension, which controls the break away moment
of the sensor wand. Increasing the robe tension and therefore keeping the flap in minimum
39
Figure 4-3: Pitch vs. speed for 0.11 m
2
/ 0.08 m
2
/ 0.14 m
2
main foil
4 Evaluation
position may decrease the positive (nose down) pitch as the foil will have a lower induced
drag. This may lead to a harmonized pitch distribution over the speed range, also reducing
the movement of the sailor and / or control surface at the rudder foil.
Outlining the results from the velocity prediction in comparison to the preliminary foil design
tool, shows the advantage of using such a tool in a early design stage but also the
restrictions. One major point of using the design tool is to put a stronger focus on the
maximum speed. This should also be done using the time dependant simulation by setting a
initial condition (speed, sinkage) and a fixed driving force, which can be estimated by the
maximum speed. Hereby the flap-range, hence Centreboard.Foil.deltaFlap_0 and the sensor
wand control wire pushrod ratio for a good take off behaviour can be verified.
According to the velocity prediction, the foil design tool should be extended by the following
points for a better understanding of the foil system in the preliminary design stage:
The heel should be considered in the preliminary design stage. According to Figure 2-
9 (page 25) the heel changes with the course. For up-wind courses the side-force of
the sail increases. By heeling windward, the foils create a significant horizontal side-
force, which can compensate the side-force of the sail, but also the vertical lift
component will be decreased. By considering the heel, the decrease of lift will be
taken into account and foiling state can be extended at up-wind courses.
For the evaluation of the maximum speed, the driving force as well as the initial
condition for the time dependant calculation should be user definable. Hereby the
range for the flap angle and the reduction factor at the pushrod, set for take off
condition, can be verified.
Pitch moment should be considered. For a given pitch angle either the crew position
for a given lift ratio or the lift ratio for a given crew position can be back calculated.
By calculating the pitch moment, control surface angles for the rudder-foil can be
predicted and plan-form area optimised.
40
Figure 4-4: Long. crew position vs. speed for 0.11 m
2
/ 0.08 m
2
/ 0.14 m
2
main foil
4 Evaluation
Concerning the stability by means of static and dynamic stability, it is clearly visible that
dynamic stability is reached more easily than static stability. With constrained heel and yaw
most conditions are dynamically stable. But the static stability seems to be more of
importance, as the results shows a completely different behaviour.
Thereby the in-stationary simulation shows that especially the up-wind conditions are highly
unstable. This shows that not only the performance by means of speed is important, but also
a stability investigation is necessary. For the proper design of a foil system the stability,
especially the static stability, should be considered at an early stage.
Basis for this kind of investigation can be a stability consideration as made for an aircraft.
Starting at an equilibrium point, the components should create an upright moment when
changing the pitch to either side nose up or nose down. This behaviour is sketched in
Figure 4-5.
Using this criteria in aircraft design shows, that the gravity force should act in front of the lift
force for a wing only design. Considering a similar behaviour for the Moth, the reason for the
in-stability of the moth could be found in an equilibrium condition, where the crew position is
at the stern of the Moth. As the moments of the driving force and the drag forces must also
be considered within the moment equation, the best crew position might be not in front of the
main foil, but tends to be in a more forward position than predicted by the VPP for best
velocity.
Altogether the velocity prediction with an additional stability investigation is an appropriate
method for the evaluation of the performance of a hydro-foiled moth. But also conditions
near the optimum, concerning the velocity, should be considered in any further investigation.
The variation of the results shows, that many different combination of conditions / trim-
variables are possible to achieve a good solution. Thereby many solutions, which may be
more stable by means of static stability are not considered in the stability investigation. This
result may also be achieved by setting appropriate boundaries. These boundaries can be
predicted by theoretical thoughts concerning stability, the already calculated results and by
the experience of current Moth sailors.
41
Figure 4-5: Static stability criteria for a craft
5 Conclusions and Future Work
Using a VPP for the prediction of the performance of a sail-boat is a common approach
within yacht-development and improvement of a given design. Therefore additional force
modules have been programmed for the use within the open modular workbench FS-
Equilibrium.
For using a VPP, the parameters influencing the the foil system and especially the feedback
control system have been evaluated and the influence on the forces mathematically
formulated for the implementation in the different force modules. While defining the force
modules, it became clear, that additional forces should be taken into account for further
investigations. This is especially necessary when the experience of Moth sailors should be
considered for the definition of more realistic ranges for the trim variables and conditions.
Especially the wave drag from the hull is a missing force component. This should have a
major influence on the take-off condition. As this force is dependant of at least 4 degrees of
freedom, this will be a substantial task. Another force component that should be included is
the aerodynamic lift of the hull/frame. The drag component is considered within the windage
force module, but the prediction of the drag coefficients showed, that there is also high side
force due to aerodynamic lift at upwind courses. Other components are the drag at the
sensor wand, the influence of the pressure field of the struts onto the pressure field of the
foils and more. Also the flap hinge moment at the main foil can influence the working way of
the feedback control system and is not considered at this stage.
The formulas for the calculation of the lift at the main foil were the basis for the definition of a
design criteria which consist of the four stages for a hydro-foiled Moth low rider, take off-,
cruising- and maximum speed. These four stages and the mathematical formulation have
been used for creating a preliminary foil system design tool, for the simulation of the take off
behaviour and prediction of the cruising and maximum speed for a set of given parameters.
Reducing the problem to two degrees of freedom speed and sinkage good results can
be achieved for the take-off condition.
Also some tendencies have been found, which define the best conditions for maximising the
speed. Hereby it is clearly visible that the heel angle has a major influence, especially at
upwind courses with a high side force component. Therefore the heel should be taken into
account within the preliminary foil design. For the prediction of cruising condition and
maximum condition, the tool should be extended by setting a user defined start condition,
which contains the speed, sink and a fixed pitch.
Hereby the initial foil system with a plan-form area of 0.11 m
2
shows the best over all
perofamce low take off speed, good range in foiling mode at lower wind speeds and only a
little lower maximum speed. Using the consideration made by the results of the velocity
prediction in chapter 2.4, it should be possible to reduce the influence of the sailor by
updating the parameters of the foil system. Therefore a final analysis has been made with a
slightly smaller foil. The following values has been changed:
MassMove1 (crew x-position) is set to a range of -0.25 to -0.75 m
Plan-form area decreased to 0.1 m
2
deltfaFlap_0 at the main foil is -10
42
reduction factor adjusted according to the range of the flap angle at the main foil to
0.16
Robe tension is increased to 25 N
Sensor wand increased to 1.0 m while reducing the diameter to 5 mm.
The polars in Figure 5-1 show that by updating the foil system a quite similar behaviour of the
moth can be achieved, even as the crew position will only change in a range of 0.5 m. This
gives the designer the chance to built a foil system, which is far better to handle. Just the
take off at a TWS of 3.5 m/s will not be reached with the modified foil. But low rider boat
speed has been improved by the lower minimum flap angle and higher robe tension.
Looking at the stability of the equilibrium conditions shows the necessity to consider these at
an early stage within the design process. Hereby the small disturbance theory shows good
results with constrained heel and yaw. Static stability, assessed by an in-stationary
simulation, showed that this criteria is hardly reached. Just down wind courses can be seen
as statically stable. Therefore a criteria, which can be applied directly while designing the foil
system, should be evaluated.
43
Figure 5-1: Moth polars - reference vs. updated foil system
As the use of a VPP is standard for yacht design, it can only be seen as a basis for the
design of a hydro-foiled Moth. For an optimised design, more criteria than best speed on
different courses are necessary. According to the stability investigations, made in chapter 3,
no foil system, on the theoretical bases made in this work, could be found which reaches
static and dynamic stability on an up-wind course. On the other hand, modifying a foil system
that reaches similar performance by means of speed is much easier to achieve. Therefore a
major focus should be set on the development of a stable foil system and the required
stability criteria.
It can be assumed that an experienced sailor may achieve a higher speed with a more
unstable Moth, but still - a slow foiling Moth will be faster than a unstable capsized one.
44
Tables and References
List of Figures
Figure 1-1: Aspects influencing the stability of a hydro-foiled Moth.........................................6
Figure 1-2: Principle function of the foil system [3]..................................................................8
Figure 2-1: Force balance of a hydro-foiled Moth..................................................................11
Figure 2-2:Sensor force balance........................................................................................... 12
Figure 2-3: Geometrical relation between sensor ans flap angle...........................................12
Figure 2-4: Boat speed and z-offset vs. time plot..................................................................14
Figure 2-5: Angle offset DeltaSensor_0 ................................................................................15
Figure 2-6: Moth polar plot ................................................................................................... 21
Figure 2-7: Drag vs. time - default control system 0.11 m2 main foil ....................................22
Figure 2-8: Moth Polars for take off condition, a) TWS = 3.5 m/s, b) 4 m/s)..........................25
Figure 2-9: Heel angle vs. TWA for 0.11 m2 / 0.08 m2 / 0.14 m2 main foil............................25
Figure 2-10: Moth polars - travel- and max. speed (TWS = 6 m/s / 10 m/s)..........................26
Figure 3-1: Static stability conditions..................................................................................... 28
Figure 3-2: Eigenvalue output in FS-Equilibrium...................................................................30
Figure 3-3: Pitch response pitch = 1..................................................................................30
Figure 3-4: Z-response for Z = - 0.1 m................................................................................31
Figure 3-5: Eigenvalue output with fixed heel........................................................................31
Figure 3-6: Output of in-stationary simulation - speed / pitch / sink vs. time..........................32
Figure 3-7: In-stationary simulation with disturbance.............................................................33
Figure 3-8: Ship speed vS vs. time........................................................................................ 35
Figure 3-9: Dynamic response sink vs. time.......................................................................36
Figure 4-1: Take off speed vs. speed for 0.11 m2 / 0.08 m2 / 0.14 m2 main foil....................39
Figure 4-2: Lift ratio vs. speed for 0.11 m2 / 0.08 m2 / 0.14 m2 main foil..............................39
Figure 4-3: Pitch vs. speed for 0.11 m2 / 0.08 m2 / 0.14 m2 main foil...................................40
Figure 4-4: Long. crew position vs. speed for 0.11 m2 / 0.08 m2 / 0.14 m2 main foil.............41
Figure 4-5: Static stability criteria for a craft..........................................................................42
Figure 5-1: Moth polars - reference vs. updated foil system..................................................44
Figure B-1: Influence of flap angle on lift curves....................................................................54
Figure B-2: cL vs. angle of attack - analytical approach........................................................55
Figure B-3:Preliminary foil design FS-Equi input data........................................................56
Figure B-4: Preliminary foil design -common input data........................................................56
Figure B-5: Condition spread sheet input data .....................................................................57
Figure B-6: Boat speed and z-offset vs. time plot..................................................................58
Figure B-7: Drag vs. time plot................................................................................................ 58
Figure C-1: FS-Equilibrium GUI ............................................................................................ 59
Figure C-2: Solution sequence FS-Equilibrium [6].................................................................61
Figure C-3: Instationary manoeuvring simulation with FS-Equi [6]........................................62
Figure C-4: Offset data definition in FS-Equi buoyancy module............................................64
Figure C-5: Bladerider dimensions........................................................................................ 75
Figure C-6: FE-model property region plot ..........................................................................77
Figure C-7: Geometrical bodies for estimation of mass moment of inertia............................79
45
Figure C-8: Aerodynamic force gage axes [BeZc09].............................................................81
Figure C-9: Wind velocity ratios............................................................................................. 82
Figure C-10: Centre of effort rudder / centreboard................................................................84
Figure C-11: Vertical centre of effort distribution....................................................................85
Figure C-12: Polars - NACA 0012......................................................................................... 86
Figure C-13: Polars - NACA 63-012...................................................................................... 86
Figure C-14: NACA 0012 cL vs. AoA cD vs. AoA................................................................87
Figure C-15: NACA 63-012 cL vs. AoA cD vs. AoA.............................................................87
Figure C-16: NACA 62-012 foil section with flap....................................................................88
Figure C-17: Daggerbord foil (wing) definition in XFLR5.......................................................88
Figure C-18: Graphical output of XFLR5...............................................................................89
Figure C-19: Daggerboard foil cL vs. flap angle and AoA......................................................89
Figure C-20: Daggerboard foil cD vs. flap angle and AoA.....................................................89
Figure C-21: Rudder foil definition in XFLR5.........................................................................90
Figure C-22: Rudder foil cL vs. flap angle and AoA...............................................................90
Figure C-23: Rudder foil cD vs. flap angle and AoA..............................................................90
Figure C-24: Daggerboard T-Foil drag components..............................................................92
Figure C-25: Rudder T-foil drag components.........................................................................92
Figure C-26: Centre of area moth sail - North Sails, Chris Williams......................................93
Figure C-27: Sail lift curve cL vs. AWAeff..............................................................................94
Figure C-28: Sail aspect ratio................................................................................................ 95
Figure C-29: Sail drag curve cD vs. AWAeff..........................................................................96
Figure C-30: Sail centre of effort vs. AWAeff.........................................................................96
Figure C-31: Offset definition of moth hull by Juryk Henrichs................................................97
Figure C-32: Curve of sectional area of hull..........................................................................97
Figure C-33: Lift and drag at main foil vs. sinkage.................................................................99
Figure C-34: Lift and side force vs. heel and speed..............................................................99
Figure C-35: Lift at foils vs. pitch......................................................................................... 100
Figure C-36: Rudder lift and drag vs. deltaFlap ..................................................................100
Figure D-1: Speed / sinkage vs. time set-up F01.................................................................101
Figure E-1: Moth polar plan-form area 0.11 m2 set-up F01..............................................104
Figure E-2: Moth polar plan-form area 0.11 m2 set-up F02..............................................105
Figure E-3: Moth polar plan-form area 0.11 m2 - set-up F03...............................................106
46
List of Tables
Table 2-1: Parameter names of feedback control system within FS-Equilibrium....................14
Table 2-2: Input data centreboard and rudder......................................................................17
Table 2-3: Input data ControlSysFoil / TrimVarFoil.................................................................18
Table 2-4: Foil system set-up................................................................................................. 23
Table 2-5: Max. speed and flight height at constant driving force..........................................23
Table 2-6: Variation of plan-form area vs. foil set-up..............................................................24
Table 3-1: Results dynamic stability take off condition .......................................................34
Table 3-2: Used set-up's / conditions for in-stationary simulations.........................................35
Table C-1: Standard link of degree of freedom to free variables [6].......................................60
Table C-2: Weight estimation of a International Moth............................................................77
Table C-3: Density of materials.............................................................................................. 77
Table C-4: FE-weight due to estimated properties ...............................................................78
Table C-5: Mass moment of inertias of basic bodies.............................................................80
Table C-6: Proportion of weight of a human body [8].............................................................81
Table C-7: Centreboard and rudder data...............................................................................84
Table C-8: Reynolds numbers for centreboard an rudder.....................................................85
Table C-9: Additional drag coefficients...................................................................................92
Table C-10: Moth sail data FLOW Chris Williams, North Sails............................................95
Table C-11: Main parameters of hull...................................................................................... 99
Table C-12: Mathematical signs and tendencies of force modules........................................99
Table D-1: Geometrical parameter for feedback control systems........................................102
Table F-1: Linearisation results for one fixed DoF (heel)......................................................112
Table F-2: Linearisation results for one fixed DoF (heel, yaw).............................................113
47
Nomenclature
aoa Angle of attack
AR, AR
eff
Aspect ratio, effective aspect ratio
AWA, AWA
eff
Apparent wind speed, effective apparent wind speed
,
eff
Apparent wind angle, effective apparent wind angle
Bft Beaufort
c
D
Drag coefficient
c
L
Lift coefficient
CoE Centre of Effort
CoR Centre of rotation
C
s
Separation constant
D
CB
, D
CBF
Drag centreboard, drag centreboard foil
Fl
Actual flap angle from minimum flap angle
S0
Angle offset sensor wand attachment
deltaFlap Trim-variable flap angle at rudder foil
Fl
Actual flap angle from neutral position
Fl0
Minimum flap angle from neutral position
DoF Degree of Freedom
D
R
, D
RF
Drag rudder, drag rudder foil
S
Sensor angle to vertical
D
Sail
Driving force sail
s
CW
Actual travel of control wire from zero position
s
Fl
Actual travel of flap / pushrod from zero position
DWL Design water line
e Oswald factor
A
Aerodynamic efficiency
H
Hydrodynamic efficiency
f Reduction factor from control wire travel to pushrod travel
F
Hydro
Hydrodynamic force (sensor)
F
R
,

F
Robe
Robe tension force
48
Heel angle
k Form factor
Leeway angle
L
CB
, L
CBF
Lift centreboard, lift centreboard foil
l
CW
Distance control wire attachment to sensor CoR
l
Fl
Distance flap attachment to flap CoR
L
H,CBF/RF
Horizontal component of lift force at centreboard-/rudder-foil
l
R
Distance robe attachment to centre of rotation at sensor
L
R
, L
RF
Lift rudder, lift rudder foil
l
S
Sensor wand length
L
V,CBF/RF
Vertical component of lift force at centreboard-/rudder-foil
L
V,dra
Dry vertical length (sensor)
L
vim
Vertical immersed length
m Mass
M
CoR
Moment at centre of rotation (sensor)
M
R
Moment due to robe tension force
M
S
Sensor wand moment due to hydrodynamic drag
Kinematic viscosity
R
e
Reynolds number
S
Sail
Side force sail
TWA True wind angle
TWS True wind speed
VMG Velocity made good
VPP Velocity prediction program
V
s
Ship speed
WSA Wetted surface area
49
References
[1]
Wikipedia, Moth (dinghy), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moth_%28dinghy%29,
2010.
[2] Wikipedia, Sailing Haydrofoiled, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sailing_hydrofoil,
2010.
[3]
Schmidt, D., Learning to Fly, www.sailmagazine.com, 2009.
(http://www.sailmagazine.com/racing/learning_to_fly)
[4] Speer, T. E., Aerodynamic of Teardrop Wingmasts, Des Moines, Washington,
USA.
[5] Abbott, I. H., VonDoernhoeff, A. E., Theory of Wing Sections, Dover
Publications Inc., 1959.
[6] Richards, T., Harries, S., Hochkirch, K., Maneuvering Simulations for Ships and
Sailing Yachts using FS-Equilibrium as an Open Modular Workbench, Papar, FS-
Systems, Potsdam.
[7] Beaver, B., Zseleczky, J., Full Measurement on a Hydrofoil International Moth,
19
th
Chesapeake Sailing Symposium, March 2009.
(www.moth-sailing.org/download/CSYSPaperFeb09.pdf)
[8]
Sa, Dr. M., Moment of Inertia, Eperiment tutorial part 1, Physik Department,
TU-Munich, Munich, 2004.
[9] Hansen, H., Enhanced Wind Tunnel Techniques and Aerodynamic Force Models
for Yacht Sails, Phd-Thesis, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand,
2006.
[10] Hoerner, S. F., Fluid-Dynamic Lift, Published by Author, 1975.
[11] Hoerner, S. F., Fluid-Dynamic Drag, Published by Author, 1965.
[12]
Nelson, R. C., Flight Stability and Automatic Control, McGraw-Hill, Inc., USA,
1989.
[13]
Edkin, B., Reid, L.D., Dynamics of Flight, Stability and Control, John Wiley and
Sons, Inc., New York, Toronto, 1996.
[14]
Cook, M. V., Flight Dynamic Principles, Second Edition, Elsevier, Amsterdam,
Boston, Heidelberg, 2007.
[15] Marchaj, C., A., Aero- Hydrodynamics of Sailing, 3
rd
Edition, Tiller Publishing, St.
Michaels, 2000.
50
Appendices
Appendices
A Feedback control system (mathematical approach)
The feedback control mechanism is driven by a sensor wand attached at the bow, by which
the flap angle at the foil is set due to speed and altitude of the flying moth. The mechanical
concept is shown in Figure 1-2.
The sensor angle
D
can be computed with the sum of moment at the centre of rotation
(CoR). The drag-moment must be the same as the moment from the robe attached at the top
of the sensor, hence:

M
CoR
=M
R
+M
S
=0 (5)
MCoR is the moment at the centre of rotation, MR the moment due to robe tensions and MS the
sensor moment.
The length of the robe is assumed to be big in comparison to the distance to the centre of
rotation. Therefore the moment can be calculated with a constant force F
R
:
M
R
=cos(6
S
)l
R
F
R
(6)
The sensor moment is related to the drag force of the sensor and its lever arm. This can be
expressed by the vertical dry length of the sensor l
Vdry
, the sensor rotation angle
S
and the
hydrodynamic relevant data - the diameter D
S
, the drag coefficient c
D
and the speed v.
M
S
=
1
2
(l
S
2
cos
2
(6
S
)l
Vdry
)c
D
j
2
v
2
D
S
(7)
Hereby the vertical dry length of the sensor can be written as the quotient of the vertical
position of the centre of rotation and the cosine of the heel angle.
With the robe moment MR the result is the following quadratic equation:
cos
2
(6
S
)2
l
R
F
R
l
S
c
D
j
2
v
2
D
S
l
S
cos(6
S
)
l
Vdry
2
l
S
2
=0
(8)
The sensor angle is limited by the vertical position of the sensor. This condition is given if the
initial brake away moment is not reached or the sensor does not touch the water surface due
to sink, heel and pitch. This means mathematically, that the robe moment is bigger than the
sensor moment and can be expressed by
1
4
(l
S
2
l
Vdry
2
)c
D
j
2
v
2
D
S
l
R
F
R
(9)
To control the flap angle, the flap is connected at the distance lFl to the vertical pushrod,
which is also connected to the sensor wand control wire at the foil control bell crank on top of
the daggerboard. The sensor wand control wire is attached at the distance l
S
from the centre
of rotation.
51
Appendices
For a more sensitive reaction of the sensor at fly height, it is state of the art methodology to
attach the sensor cable with an angle offset to the sensor S0. The influence of the angle
offset shown in Figure 2-5 on page 15. Hereby the distance SS, given by the sensor, can be
expressed by
As
S
=l
s
sin(6
S
A6
S0
)+l
s
sin(A6
S0
)
(10)
To compensate the difference in the connection length of the control cable at the sensor lS
and the Flap lFL, the distance SD is reduced by a factor f which is the quotient of the turning
radius R2 and R1. At a moth this will be the connection point of the sensor cable and the
vertical pushrod in the daggerboard as shown in Figure 2-3 on page 12.
The flap angle can now be computed by
6
Fl
=6
Fl0
+A6
Fl
with
tan (A6
Fl
) =
AS
Fl
l
Fl
=
f AS
S
l
Fl
(11)
Now the lift and drag coefficient can be determined with the angle of attack and the flap angle
FL as a function of speed and altitude.
The lift and drag coefficient is implemented as a 3-dimensional response function, with the
FL
and the angle of attack () as dependant variables.
B Preliminary foil system design tool
The characteristic of the feedback control system is influenced by many parameters, which
are interacting each other. This makes it hard to achieve a proper set-up for the feedback
control system. Therefore a spread-sheet had been programmed, in which the interaction of
the basic parameters can be simulated.
Basis of this simulation is the assumption that a constant driving force is given, independent
from the ship speed. This driving force is estimated by the take off condition. For calculation
of the sink and the ship speed, only the x and z forces are considered. The drag components
are reduced to the major components, hull drag, foil drag and strut drag. The induced drag
of the struts is neglected, as in ideal condition a moth can be sailed with minimum leeway
angle.
Starting point is the calculation of the driving force. For a target take off speed and the lift at
take off speed, which is the draft of the hull, the flap angle of the main foil could be calculated
with the formulas given in Appendix A. Now the lift coefficient of the main foil had to be
estimated. The lift coefficient of a symmetric foil can be calculated due to Speers [4] by:
a =
dc
L
o
=
a
0
1+
180
n

a
0
nAR
eff
e
with AR
eff
e = ARfAR
eff
(12)
Here a0 is the lift curve slope for an 2 dimensional analysis. As most main foils have a non-
symmetric shape, the lift coefficient at zero angle off attack had to be added to the lift
coefficient.
52
Appendices
The influence of the flap on the lift coefficient can be calculated by comparing the lift curves
of different flap angles. The lift curve slope a can be determined by freeware panel codes,
here XFLR5 from Andre Deperrois, a c++ programmed and gui supported version of the
famous XFOIL from Marc Drela.
As could be seen from the curves in Figure B-1, the influence of the flap angle could be
regarded as linear. This made it possible to calculate the lift coefficient with a flap angle,
scaled by the factor f to be directly converted to an additional angle of attack.
The over all lift coefficient can now be determined by:
c
L
= c
L0
+
a
0
1+
180
n

a
0
nAR
eff
e
( f 66
Fl
+aoa)
(13)
Where f is the factor for scaling the flap angle which had been calculated by
f 6=
aoa(6
Fl
, c
L
=0)aoa(6
Fl
=0, c
L
=0)
6
Fl
(14)
Figure B-2 shows the corresponding curves for a NACA 63-412 foil with the necessary
values.
53
Figure B-1: Influence of flap angle on lift curves
Appendices
Next the parameters of the feedback control system could be approximated, with a resulting
lift at the main foil is approx. 60% to 70% of the over-all weight. The additional lift must be
achieved by the rudder foil.
The drag force of the foil is calculated by
c
D
= c
D0
+
c
L
2
nAR
eff
e
(15)
With the back calculation of the lift coefficient at the rudder foil, the total Drag of the Moth can
be calculated at take off condition, by adding the rudder strut/foil drag and the centreboard
strut/foil drag.
For the calculation of the hull displacement and wetted surface area, two polynomial fitted
curves for WSA vs. sink and displacement vs. sink had been implemented in the spread
sheet. This is necessary to calculate the lift force and the resistance of the hull as a function
of ship speed and sinkage. As the wave drag of a hull is hard to estimate, a hight form factor
K~1.3 had been used, to take wave drag into account.
Now the take off behaviour can be calculated by a time dependant scheme. For a given
condition at t = 0 s the over-all lift and drag forces are calculated and subtracted from the
weight and the driving force at take off speed. As the force is equal to the product of mass
and acceleration, the acceleration, and by integration over the time, the speed and the offset
in z direction could be calculate, leading to a new condition for the next time step. Result is
the speed and the altitude versus the time.
54
Figure B-2: cL vs. angle of attack - analytical approach
3,11 1,41
Appendices
For the use within the spread sheet a input mask was created. The first part ,shown in Figure
B-3, is for defining the parameters concerning the feedback control system. This data could
also be exported into a macro by an additional sheet .
55
Figure B-3:Preliminary foil design FS-Equi input data
Figure B-4: Preliminary foil design -common input data
Appendices
The additional data, concerning the calculation of the drag components, will be defined in the
common data block in Figure B-4. This includes the lift characteristic of the main foil, as this
will be implemented as a 3 dimensional response function within FS-Equilibrium.
After the definition of the control system and the common parameters, the different conditions
have to be defined. Therefore 4 lines are reserved within the spread sheet where the
different speeds, trim angles and offsets have to be set. As an Result the flap angle deltaFlap
and the lift in N is given.
State 0 is the non foiling condition. This line is for checking the flap angles at different
speed and altitudes, that no separation or stall might occur. The next line is important,
defining the take off condition. At this condition the driving force is calculated. Here the take
off speed and the draft should be set. Depending on the foils, a pitch angle of about 1 to 3
degrees might be necessary. The next 2 lines are for checking the flight conditions at travel
and defined maximum speed at which hight the boat will be levelled out.
Next part is the definition of a time step, where the values range is about 0.1 to 0.25
seconds, and a damping coefficient to prevent oscillation when choosing a higher time step.
For the calculation of the total lift and drag the fraction of the lift at the main foil has to be set.
This value is set for a starting point to 65%.
The result is a graph showing the speed of the boat and the z-offset (altitude) vs. the time. As
not all drag components are considered, the absolute values might differ from reality. But its
assumed to be a good approach to understand the influence of the different parameters and
to get a set good starting values. As the driving force is also calculated without those missing
drag components, the error can be assumed to be small.
56
Figure B-5: Condition spread sheet input data
Appendices
As an additional information the total drag is plotted vs. the time. Its shows clearly how the
drag rises until take off, the dropping to certain level before raising again due to increase of
speed.
C FS-Equilibrium
The description of FS-Equilibrium had been already made for different papers and thesis,
hence the following description is taken from Maneuvering Simulations for Ships and Sailing
Yachts using FRIENDSHIP-Equilibrium as an Open Modular Workbench by Tanja Richardt,
Stefan Harries and Karsten Hochkirch, with some minor modifications [6].
57
Figure B-6: Boat speed and z-offset vs. time plot
Figure B-7: Drag vs. time plot
Appendices
FutureShip-Equilibrium (formerly FRIENDSHIP-Equilibrium) is an advanced workbench for
the analysis of stationary and instationary modes of motion of both ships and sailing yachts.
The external forces acting on a vessel for a given state are calculated via various force
modules. Each force type like buoyant forces, gravitational forces, rudder forces, keel forces,
hull resistance, aerodynamic forces, added resistance in waves, windage etc. is calculated in
specific modules. All forces are added up by the program to determine the resulting forces
on the vessel.
These modules can be added to and taken out from the simulations individually depending
on the design task at hand. A wide selection of force modules is already available. In addition
any kind of force acting on the vessel can be defined in a high level language such as
FORTRAN, C or C++ and introduced at run time via individual modules. In the new versions
also a C++ based API programming can be used for adding GUI supported force modules.
The modular structure thus allows for the integration of user provided modules. A prominent
application for such a user specific adaptation is the Real-Time VPP at the Twisted Flow
Wind Tunnel (TFWT) in Auckland were a force module links the aerodynamic forces
measured by the wind tunnels balance to the program, see Hansen et al. (2003).
Figure C-1 shows an example window of FRIENDSHIP-Equilibrium when used for a velocity
prediction of a sailing yacht. The added modules are declared in the Input Modules window.
58
Figure C-1: FS-Equilibrium GUI
Appendices
Active modules are marked. Forces which should not be summed up can be declared non-
active. The states to be calculated are defined in the Cycle Range window. For the given
cycle range the equilibrium conditions are output in the Velocity Prediction table. In the force
window, the forces of all modules are displayed for the selected state.
For all calculations the desired degree of freedom can be chosen by the user. Up to all six
degrees of freedom may be considered in the simulations. The standard link between the
degrees of freedom and the free variables is summarized in Table C-1.
Table C-1: Standard link of degree of freedom to free variables [6]
Free Variable Condition Comment
Symbol Name Equilibrium
1 V
s
Ship speed FX= 0 basic forces along the centerline, e.g. resistance and
aerodynamics, propeller thrust
2 Heel angle MY = 0 heeling and righting moments
3 Leeway angle FY = 0 aerodynamic side force to be compensated by
hydrodynamic
components
4 r
Rudder angle MZ = 0 yawing moment to be equalized
5 Pitch angle MY = 0 trimming moments to be compensated
6 dz sinkage FZ = 0 vertical forces especially by adding loads as additional
cargo, crew, gear or water ballast as well as
dynamic effects to be compensated by additional sinkage
7 t
Trim tab angle FY = 0 trim angle to be set to a value giving optimum speed
Figure C-2 illustrates the structure of FutureShip-Equilibrium. The used modules and the
required parameters are defined in one or several input files. The acting forces are
determined for specified environmental conditions. Depending on the force modules these
conditions are part of the required input. For instance the force calculation on sailing yachts
requires the wind speed and the wind direction as input.
59
Appendices
Three simulation modes are offered by the program for different applications:
stationary mode
hydrostatic mode
instationary mode
In the stationary mode the steady state of the ship will be determined for specified
environmental conditions. The program will resolve the equilibrium in which the sum of all
forces add up to zero in the defined degrees of freedom by a nonlinear equation solver. The
balance will be computed by means of a Newton-Raphson algorithm. Velocity predictions in
steady conditions may also be calculated within this mode. Depending on the considered
degrees of freedom, the output contains the state variables displayed in Figure C-1.
For the analysis of motions the program offers an instationary mode. For instationary
analysis the excitation forces have to become part of the input. Manoeuvring simulations for
instance operate with changing rudder angles. Fixed rudder angles can be set. The rudder
angles may also be controlled by the use of predefined manoeuvres A PID-controller
(Proportional Integral Derivative) is implemented as autopilot to keep a desired course. An
additional manual maneuvering module offers the possibility to steer the boat interactively
with a joystick. Either way, steering changes are accounted for while running the process.
The motions are described via the equations of motions including all external forces,
calculated by their respective force modules. Additional added mass and damping forces are
determined via a further force module and are then considered as part of the excitation force.
60
Figure C-2: Solution sequence FS-Equilibrium [6]
Appendices
A module for linear coefficients of added mass and damping is readily available.
Alternatively, an additional module which describes these forces can be defined by the user.
Nonlinear coefficients as used by Masayuma et al. (1995) for instance, may be implemented
in more advanced modules. The accelerations are calculated by solving the equation of
motions via a time-step method with a chosen integration routine. FutureShip-Equilibrium
currently makes available a fourth-order Runge-Kutta scheme, a fifth-order Runge-Kutta-
Feldberg scheme as well as a fifth-order Cash-Karp Runge-Kutta variable time step scheme.
In the variable time step integration the time step is adjusted so that the difference of the
result using a fourth order Runge-Kutta scheme and the result using a fifth order scheme is
less than a selected tolerance for each of the state variables. A time scale can be set such
that the maneuver is executed in real time or a specified fraction of that. The process flow of
the time-stepping procedure is sketched in Figure C-3. All state variables are computed as
functions of time. The trajectory is displayed in global coordinates. Moreover, any desired
state variable can be plotted during the operation.
C.1 Predefined Modules
Within FS-Equilibrium a lot of predefined as well as experimental force modules are
available. In the following chapters the modules and the input data will shortly be described.
Explanation to the implemented modules are taken from the the module description within
FS-Equilibrium.
C.1.1 BuoyancyForce module
The BuoyantForce Module describe the buoyant forces of submerged components of the
vessel. The total displacement of the vessel can be expressed as one or more
BuoyantForce modules. The geometry of a component is described in an offset file
As an option the hydrodynamic mass and damping terms can be computed by means of a
strip theory approach using conformal mapping with lewis transformation of the heeled hull.
61
Figure C-3: Instationary manoeuvring simulation with FS-Equi [6]
Appendices
The module provides the private shared keys Volume, Lwl, Bwl, WPA, WSA, XCB, YCB,
ZCB, XWL, YWL, CB, CP, AM, ALat, Draft and the global key ':TotalVolume', the latter being
the sum of all previous Volumes.
Input Data:
+ Edit Offset Spec
OffsetGroup Offset data
Coomands Command sequence to achieve the desired offset group
Transform Transformation of the offset group
Import Import geometric objects (IGES, SHF)
FormFactor Form factor if viscous forces shall be approximated
Fluid Fluid properties
Impermeability Impermeability of the compartment. 1 for all closed and
0 for totally flooded compartments when computing
damage cases via the lost buoyancy method.
Plate
Thickness
If defined an additional displacement is added
depending on the wetted surface
Added Mass Compute added mass matrix for the body
WaveHeight Wave hight as a function of x position (stability effects
due to stationary wave system)
WaveScale Factor to scale wave height
SactionalDrag Sectional drag coefficients (computation of viscous
damping based on a strip theory approach)
+ Options DEBUG
Bohlmann
Munk
ViscDamp
NoWLIntersection
The definition of them hull is done by section-points which can be imported directly or be
created by an imported surface within the module. The imported hull can be visualized as
shown in Figure C-4.
62
Appendices
C.1.2 FRig Hansen
The FRig module calculates the aerodynamic force components acting at the sail centre of
effort. The FRig module uses lift, parasitic drag, longitudinal and vertical centre of effort in a
standardized form so that the size of a rig with the same or similar proportions can be scaled
without modifying the input curves. The sails are de-powered with the trim parameter TWIST
and EASE (FLAT) as introduced by Hansen et al.. The trim parameter REEF is also included
in the model to describe the 'physical' reefing. It should only be used manually for reducing
the sail area but it should not be an active trim parameter.
Input Data:
DWL Design waterline length of yacht
MastHeight Height of mast above water
BoomHeight Height of boom above WL (for REEF param. only)
SailArea Reference sail area
CentreOfArea Centre of area (rel. to DWL)
Efficiency Increase of induced resistance compared to ellip. loading
SeparationCon Separation constant
TwistWeight Influence of twist parameter
TwistWeightLift Influence of the twist parameter on lift
63
Figure C-4: Offset data definition in FS-Equi buoyancy module
Appendices
Sopt Optimum position of CoE as fraction of mast height
Fluid Fluid property to use
CL Lift coefficient vs. effective wind angle (EWA)
CDp Parasitic drag coefficient vs. effective wind angle (EWA)
XCE Longitudinal centre of effort relative to CentreOfArea,
normalized by DWL vs. EWA
ZCE Centre of effort height relative to CentreOfArea, normalized
by MastHeight vs. EWA
REEF Trim Parameter REEF
FLAT Trim Parameter FLAT
TWIST Trim Parameter TWIST
+ Options Debug
Euler
C.1.3 FWindage
The windage module calculates the parasitic aerodynamic drag from the drag coefficients in
the three planes and the projected areas in the three planes. The centre of area is also
required so that the moments and the wind velocity at the height of the feature can be
calculated. The type parameter indicates if the windage should be included in the sum of the
aerodynamic or hydrodynamic forces. It does not have any influence on the performance of
the yacht.
Input Data:
Area Projected Area in each plane
Cd Drag coefficient in each plane
Centre Centre of area
Type Force type (aero- or hydrodynamic)
Flui Fluid property to use
+ Options Debug
Euler
C.1.4 Mass
The mass module allows to calculate the forces due to a point mass located at a point in
body fixed coordinates. If dynamic simulations are considered the gyradii referred to the
centre point need to be specified as well. Any number of mass items can be included in a
model.
The centre may be scaled and translated on input using the keywords 'scale' and 'origin',
however only the transformed centre will be saved.
Input Data:
Mass The mass in Kg
Centre Centre of gravity in body fixed coordinates
64
Appendices
Gyradius The gyradii with repect to the centre of gravity
CrossProductGyradius The radii of the products of inertia with respect to the
centre of gravity
+ Options Debug
Euler
C.1.5 ControlledMass / MoveableMass2D
The mass module allows to calculate the forces due to a point mass located at a point in
body fixed coordinates. If dynamic simulations are considered the gyradii referred to the
centre point need to be specified as well. Any number of mass items can be included in a
model.
The centre may be scaled and translated on input using the keywords 'scale' and 'origin',
however only the transformed centre will be saved.
This specific version allows to modify the centre of gravity as expressions of the current
condition
Input Data:
Mass The mass in Kg
Centre Centre of gravity in body fixed coordinates
Gyradius The gyradii with repect to the centre of gravity
CrossProductGyradius The radii of the products of inertia with respect to the
centre of gravity
+ Options Debug
Euler
dX_Expression Expression for displacement of dX component
dY_Expression Expression for displacement of dY component
dZ_Expression Expression for displacement of dZ component
C.2 User Modules
Within FS-Equilibrium is the possibility to implement user defined force modules. This could
be c, c++ or fortran based programs, as well as a c++ based api language which creates GUI
supported force modules. This programming language had been used to add the necessary
force modules, needed for the simulation of a hydro-foiled moth.
C.2.1 Centreboard / Rudder
The centreboard and rudder module calculate the drag and side forces of a vertical profile
with a additional foil at the bottom. The plan-form area and the centre of effort will be
recomputed due to the z-offset. Also the effective aspect ratio can be varied over the
sinkage. The lift and drag data is calculated out of 2-dimensional data.
65
Appendices
Input data:
TopLE Top leding edge point of the centreboard (CB) / rudder
Length Strut length
Thickness Thickness in % of the chord length
Chord Chord length of CB / rudder
vCoE Vertical centre of effort as distance from geometric
CoA normalized by immersion vs. immersion
normalized by lenght
alpha Forward angle of CB / rudder
fAReff Factor for calculating effective aspect ration (oswald
factor e included) vs. immersion normalized by lenght
+ Foil CoP2D Centre of pressure of foil (% chord)
cL Lift coefficient vs. abs(angle of attack)
cD Drag coefficient vs. abs(angle of attack)
cDSpray Spray drag coefficient
Options Debug Additional output in command window
UserTrim Use trim variable instead of rudder angle (rudderFoil
only)
Calculation:
// CACLULATION OF GEOMETRICAL PARAMETERS
// Top of leading edge (LE) relative to waterline (WL)
TopLE.tranformBA
TopLE| 2 += zOffset
// sensor vertical length and vertical immersion
vLenght =lenghtcos(alpha)
vImmers=vLenght
TopLE| 2
cos(heel )sin( pitch)
// Parameters dependant on altitude planform area, vertical Centre of effort, spray
drag switch (1 foiling, 0 non-foiling)
if (vImmers>vLenght ) then // lowrider
Plan=lenghtchord
vCoE=0.5RespFctn( vCoE)vLenght
fSpray=0
else // foiling
Plan=vImmerschord
vCoE=( vLenght vImmers)+(0.5RespFctn(vCoE))vImmers
fSpray=1
end
// CoE, aspect ratio AR
66
Appendices
CoE| 2=TopLE| 2vCoE
CoE|1=0
CoE|0=TopLE| 0ChordCoP2D+CoE| 2sin(alpha)
AR
eff
=
Planform
Chord
2
fAR
eff
=
Planform
Chord
2
fctn( vImmerse)
// CALUCATION OF FORCES AND MOMENTS
// Angle of attack (aoa)
aoa=tan
(
localFlow(CoE)|1
localFlow(CoE)| 2
)
// For calculation of rudder forces:
aoa=aoa+RudderAngle
// Lift and drag coefficients (section / induced / spray)
c
L
= fctn(aoa)
c
D0
= fctn(aoa)
c
DInducd
=
c
L
2
nAReff
// Lift and drag force components
Force| 0=c
L
roh
2
v
S
2
Planform
Force| 2=( c
D0
+c
DInduced
+c
DParasitic
)
roh
2
v
S
2
Planform+cD
Spray
roh
2
v
S
2
Thickness
2
Force| 3=0
// calculate moments and transform to global (A) coordinate system
Force.setCentreOfEffort (CoE)
Force.tranform(TransformationMatrixBA)
Limitations:
Influence of T-foil pressure field neglected
C.2.2 ControlSystemFoil
The control system foil force module calculates the the lift and drag forces of a sensor
controlled T-foil. The default usage is the sensor, described in Chapter 1.1 and the
mathematical formulation in Appendix A. As an option, a 3 dimensional control-field, flap
angle vs. ship speed and height, can be specified.
Input data:
forces
AReff Effective aspect ratio
67
Appendices
Thickness t Thickness in % of chord length
Chord c Chord length
L
vs. angle of attack and
flap angle)
cD 3-dim. response function (cD vs. aoa and deltaFlap)
+ sensor CoR Centre of rotation connection point of sensor
Length Length of sensor
Diam sensor diameter (const.)
DragCoeff Drag coefficient of sensor geometry (rod approx.
0.5)
+ Robe DistCoR Distance robe attachment to CoR (lever arm)
Tension Tension force
+ Flap SensorDistCoR Distance to flap attachment at sensor
Deltasensor_0 Angle offset between flap attachment and sensor
fDeltaFlap Reduction factor between sensor and flap (DS
D
/DS
FL
)
FlapDistCoR Distance flap attachment to CoR at flap
deltaFlap_0 Flap angle at 0 sensor angle (minimum angle)
Warning messages Warning if flap angle exceed specified max. angle
Use_FlapRespFctn Option for using flap response function flap angle vs.
speed and z-offset instead of predefined sensor
Calculation:
// COMMON PARAMETERS
// Lokal flow at centre of pressure in fixed coordinate system (CSYS) and angle of
attack
lokalFlow=lokalVelocityB(CoP) v
a
=.(lokalFlow| 0
2
+lokalFlow| 2
2
)
aoa=atan
(
lokalFlow| 2
lokalFlow| 0
)
// Centre of rotation at current position in absolute CSYS relative to waterline
CoR
AWL
=CoR.transform(TransformationMatrixBA)
CoR
AWL
| 2+=SINK
// FLAP ANGLE due to speed and zCoR (CoR
AWL
[2])
// vertical position of CoR in body-fixed system
68
Appendices
vCoR
B
=
CoR
AWL
| 2
(cos( heel))
// Robe- and hydrodynamic initial breakaway torque
M
Robe
=Robe.distCoRRobe.Tension
M
Hydro
* =Sensor.c
D
j
2
v
a
2
1
2
( Ditcher.Lenght
2
vCoR
B
2
)
// Check boundaries
if (vCoR
B
>Sensor.lenght ) then
6
D
=0.
else if ( M
Hydro
* M
Robe
) then
6
D
=0.
else
6
D
=fctn(v
a
, vCoR
B
)
end if
// Calculate
Flap
from
sensor
AS
D
=Flap.SensorDistCoR(sin (6
D
6
D0
)+sin(6
D0
))
6
Flap
=Flap.deltaFlap
0
+atan
(
Flap.fdeltaFlapDelta S
D
Flap.FlapDistCoR
)
// FORCES AND MOMENTS
// Lift and drag coefficients
c
L
=RespFctn(aoa)
c
D0
=RespFctn(aoa)
c
DInduced
=
c
L
2
nAR
eff
e
=
c
L
2
nfARAR
// Lift and drag forces
lift=c
L
j
2
v
a
2
Foil.Planform
drag=(c
D0
+c
DInduced
+c
DWave
)
j
2
v
a
2
Foil.Planform+c
DInter
j
2
v
a
2
Foil.Thickness
// Force components in absolute CSYS
force| 1=drag
force| 2=
lift
sin( Heel )
force| 3=
lift
cos( Heel )
// Transform CoP in absolute CSYS
Foil.CoP.transform(TransformationMatrixBA)
// Calculate moments
69
Appendices
forces.setCentreOfEffort ( Foil.CoP)
Limitation:
Rope tension force is assumed to be constant, as the total length of robe >> change
of robe length
force action from the flap on the sensor is neglected due to lack of data. This can be
important for damping purpose.
Influence of the centreboard pressure field on foil pressure field is neglected.
C.2.3 TrimVarFoil (ControlVarFoil)
Input Data:
forces
AReff Effective aspect ratio (not used yet)
Thickness t Thickness in % of chord lenght
Chord c Chord length
L
vs. angle of attack and
flap angle)
cD 3-dim. response function (cD vs. aoa and deltaFlap)
Calculation:
// Local flow at centre of pressure in fixed coordinate system (CSYS) and angle
of attack
lokalFlow=lokalVelocityB(CoP) v
a
=.(lokalFlow| 0
2
+lokalFlow| 2
2
)
aoa=atan
(
lokalFlow| 2
lokalFlow| 0
)
// Centre of rotation at current position in absolute CSYS relative to waterline
CoR
AWL
=CoR.transform(TransformationMatrixBA)
CoR
AWL
| 2+=SINK
// FLAP ANGLE
70
Appendices
// Get flap angle as trim variable (or control variable)
// Get Flap angle
6
Flap
=trimvar (deltaFlap)
// FORCES AND MOMENTS
// Lift and drag coefficients
c
L
=RespFctn(aoa)
c
D0
=RespFctn(aoa)
c
DInduced
=
c
L
2
nAR
eff
e
=
c
L
2
nfARAR
// Lift and drag forces
lift=c
L
j
2
v
a
2
Foil.Planform
drag=(c
D0
+c
DInduced
+c
DWave
)
j
2
v
a
2
Foil.Planform+c
DInter
j
2
v
a
2
Foil.Thickness
// Force components in absolute CSYS
force| 1=drag
force| 2=
lift
sin( Heel )
force| 3=
lift
cos( Heel )
// Transform CoP in absolute CSYS
Foil.CoP.transform(TransformationMatrixBA)
// Calculate moments
forces.setCentreOfEffort ( Foil.CoP)
Limitation:
Influence of the centreboard pressure field on foil pressure field is neglected.
C.2.4 PenaltyDrag
The penalty drag modules calculates a penalty drag due to heel, pitch, yaw and sinkage.
Thereby the influence of heel pitch and leeway is defined by a drag coefficient which is
implemented 2D response function c
D
vs. heel / pitch / leeway. The reference area needed
for the calculation of the dreg is dependent from the sinkage.
This module is used for stabilising the solver but also for creating smooth limits for e.g.
frame drag due to high heel in low rider mode.
Input Data:
RefArea Reference area vs. SINK
refHeel Reference heel (min. drag)
CDHeel Drag coeff. vs. heel angle (at refHeel)
refPitch Reference pitch-angle
71
Appendices
CDPitch Drag coeff pitch vs. pitch angle (at refPitch)
CDLeeway Drag coeff. leeway vs. leeway angle
Calculation:
A
ref
= fctn(SINK )
c
D, HEEL
= fctn( HEELrefHeel )
c
D, PITCH
= fctn( PITCHrefPitch)
c
D, LEE
= fctn( LEEWAY )
// FORCE CALULATION
drag = (c
D , HEEL
+c
D , PITCH
+c
D , LEE
)
roh
2
v
2
A
ref
force| 1=drag
force| 2... 6=0.
Limitation:
Main purpose for stabilising the solver.
Reference area only a function of the sinkage
C.2.5 DynMovMass
The module Dynamic Movable Mass defines a counter torque for the in-stationary
simulation of the moth (or any narrow hull). As the static equilibrium state of a flying moth, or
a boat with a slender hull, not stabilizing itself, is unstable, the boat would always capsize in
a in-stationary simulation. This counter torque which is normally done by small movements of
the crew or the sailor, is calculated by the heel angle and a virtual torque radius. As the
movements are small in comparison to the crew position, the mass moment of inertia can be
seen constant and are remaining unchanged.
Input Data:
Mas Crew mass as defined in MassMove2D
rmax Maximum moving radius - maximum torque that can
be applied
vmax Maximum moving speed calculation of the virtual
radius
refheel Reference Heel angle heel offset for calculation of
counter torque
- turning speed dheel
- virtual torque radius
72
Appendices
Calculation:
// virtual radius
r
virtual
=
v
max ,crew
dheel
dheel : actual turning speed
// calculation of counter torque
M
dyn ,rotX
= (heel heel
reference
)
n
180
r
virtual
Massg
// checking if dynamic torque > max. dynamic torque
if M
dyn ,rotX
> r
max
Massg
then M
dyn, rotX
= r
max
Massg
// checking signs
if AWA>0 then
if heel >heel
reference
then M
dyn ,rotX
=M
dyn ,rotX
else
if heel heel
reference
then M
dyn ,rotX
=M
dyn ,rotX
Limitation:
Module for in-stationary use only
C.3 Input Data
C.3.1 Geometrical Dimensions
As already mentioned, one type of boat set a new state of the art in moth building the
Bladerider. This boat not only was the first really industrial build boat, but also went through a
real development phase. Therefore it can be seen as a very good reference concerning
geometric dimensions and positions.
As CAD data could not be obtained, a photo from the internet will be used to measure the
basic dimensions of the Bladerider.
73
Appendices
Today other dimensions and positions than those shown in Figure B-5 might be in favour, but
they represent a good starting point to perform the velocity prediction and the stability
investigations
C.3.2 Masses and gyradii
C.3.2.1 Boat
Modern Moth Skiffs approximately weight about 30 Kg. As no exact data can be provided at
this stage, an approximation of the weight has been done as shown in the following table.
The values for take over parts are from manufactures or moth pages in the internet. Some
other data are estimated by the thickness of the laminate and checked with the FE-model of
a user designed moth.
With this FE model also the mass moment of inertia will be obtained, as these values are
much more accurate than geometric approximation as it will be done for the sailor.
74
Figure C-5: Bladerider dimensions
Appendices
Table C-2: Weight estimation of a International Moth
Part Weight Reference
Hull 9.15 Kg www.fastacraft.com
Frame/ trampoline/
fittings
6.00 kg estimated
Mast / spreader ,
boom, fittings etc.
3.0 Kg / 3.0 Kg www.imoth.de -
Sail 3.00 Kg estimated
Centreboard / -foil 1.50 Kg / 1.50 Kg www.fastacraft.com (~1 Kg/m +
mechanical parts)
Rudder/ -foil 0.85 Kg / 1.00 Kg www.fastacraft.com (see above)
Outrigger 0.65 Kg estimated
Sum 29.65 Kg
The shape of the hull was designed by Juryik Henrichs. This task was planned already for
2008 but was delayed. Thus just the construction of the mould was finished recently. The FE-
model is set up with the FE-tool Hyperworks, with special permission by Advanced
Composite Engineering (ACE), the current employer of the author.
For the calculation of the weight matrix of the FE-model, a basic laminate lay-up is defined.
Other thickness has been estimated or scaled due to known values. For the calculation of the
mass, the densities in Table C-3 has been used. The density of Glass-Fibre-Reinforced-
Plastic (GFRP) and Carbon-Fibre-Reinforced-Plastic (CFRP) are calculated for a fibre
volume fraction of 50%. The value for polyester is used for the sail, robes and the trampoline.
For sail and trampoline a thickness between 0.25 mm and 0.5 mm is assumed. Steel robes
have a diameter of 2 mm, polyester of 5 mm.
Table C-3: Density of materials
Steel Adhesive Polyester CFRP GFRP Core (C70)
[kg / m
3
] [kg / m
3
] [kg / m
3
] [kg / m
3
] [kg / m
3
] [kg / m
3
]
7900 1000 1100 1500 1880 70
A colour plot of the different property regions is shown in Figure C-6:
75
Appendices
Using the estimated property sets, the following weight distributions have been achieved:
Table C-4: FE-weight due to estimated properties
Component / Part FE weight
Hull 9.15 Kg
Wings
Frame 4.14 Kg
Trampoline + fittings 1.88 Kg
Rig
Mast 2.31 Kg
Boom 1.84 Kg
Fittings, fore-stay, shrouds 0.33 Kg
Sail 4.56 Kg
Centreboard / centreboard-foil 2.27 Kg
Rudder / rudder-foil 2.16 Kg
76
Figure C-6: FE-model property region plot
Appendices
Outrigger 0.58 Kg
Total mass 29.23 Kg
As a result, the centre of gravity and the mass moment of inertia tensor, with respect to the
centre of gravity, is printed in Hypermesh (Hyperworks preprocessor).
(
x
CoG
y
CoG
z
CoG
)
=
(
0.26
0.00
0.85
)
and
(
I
XX
I
XY
I
XZ
I
YY
I
YZ
I
ZZ
)
=
(
90.22 0.00 2.19
114.45 0.00
31.47
)
(16)
With the mass moment of inertia the gyradii and the cross product can be calculated with the
formula:
i
ij
= sign( I
ij
)
.
I
ij
m
(17)
Where i
ij
is the resulting gyradius / cross product, Iij the term in the mass moment of inertia
matrix and m the over all weight. For the calculation of the diagonal terms, the signum and
absolute values are not necessary, as those terms can not become negative.
The result is the following matrix with the gyradii and the cross products:
(
i
XX
i
XY
i
XZ
i
YY
i
YZ
i
ZZ
)
=
(
1.76 0.0 0.274
1.98 0.00
1.04
)

C.3.2.2 Crew
For the calculation of the mass moment of inertia and the cross product, the body will be
divided in simple geometric bodies (Figure C-7), from which the mass moment can be
calculated by basic functions.
The input of the gyradii and the cross products is done with respect to the centre of gravity of
the sailor and parallel to the body fixed coordinate system of the skiff (marked with x,y,z).
77
Appendices
As for a modern skiff the position of the crew is not fixed and highly dynamic, especially on a
30 cm wide moth, a normal sailing position is assumed: the sailor sitting on the side frame.
First, the mass moments of the different body parts will be calculated with respect to their
centre of gravity (xi, yi, zi) along the main axis of the body. The formulas are given in
table Table C-5.
Table C-5: Mass moment of inertias of basic bodies
Tube
(in rotation axis)
J
z
=
mR
2
2
(18)
Tube
(perpenticular to
rotation axis)
J
Z
= m
(
R
2
4
+
h
2
12
)
(19)
Box
(along height with a
x b base area)
J
Q
=
m
12
( a
2
+b
2
) (20)
Bowl J
K
=
2
3
mR
2
(21)
78
Figure C-7: Geometrical bodies for estimation of mass moment of
inertia
Appendices
With this formulas principal moment of inertia tensor in the main axis of the body can be
calculated:
I =
(
I
XX
0 0
0 I
YY
0
0 0 I
ZZ
)
(22)
The rotation of the inertia tensor by two angle as shown in figure is done with a
transformation matrix and the transposed rotation matrix.
I ' =R
T
IR
(23)
with
R=
(
cos cos sin cossin
sin cos cos sinsin
sin 0 cos
)
(24)
and
R
T
=
(
coscos sin cos sin
sin cos 0
cossin sin sin cos
)
(25)
Now the inertia tensor has to be moved into the centre of gravity of the sailor. This is done
with the Huygens-Steiner theorem. The theorem describes the translation of a tensor along
a vector (a1, a2, a3)
T
:
I =I +m
(
a
2
2
+a
3
2
a
1
a
2
a
1
a
3
a
1
a
2
a
1
2
+a
3
2
a
2
a
3
a
1
a
3
a
2
a
3
a
1
2
+a
2
2 )
(26)
The calculated moment of inertia tensor can now be transformed in the necessary gyradii
and the cross product (10).
The proportion of weight will be estimated with the values given in Table C-6:
Table C-6: Proportion of weight of a human body [8]
Body part Weight percantage Absolut weight
Head 7,30% 5.84 Kg
Torso 48,90%
Upper arm ( x 2 ) 2 x 2.70%
Forearm + hands ( x 2 ) 2 x 2.50%
Thigh ( x 2 ) 2 x 9.70%
Calves + feet ( x 2 ) 2 x 7.00%
Sum 100,00% 80 Kg
79
Appendices
Now for every body part, the moment tensor with respect of centre of gravity and rotation
axis is calculated and summarized to the over all moment tensor. Recalculated the gyradii
and the cross product are:
(
i
XX
i
XY
i
XZ
i
YY
i
YZ
i
ZZ
)
=
(
0.36 0.0 0.0
0.3 0.24
0.35
)

C.3.3 Windage data
As already mentioned, the aerodynamic drag of a fully foiled moth is an important component
within the overall resistance. For the prediction of the forces of the a moth, Bill Beaver and
John Zseleczky did a full scale measurement of a moth and its components. In this test
series, also a full scale moth was tested on its aerodynamic resistance. Therefore a platform
holding the moth with a dummy sailor was mounted to the towing carriage at the U.S. Naval
Academy Hydrodynamics Lab in Annapolis, Maryland. The full paper can be downloaded at
www.moth-sailing.org/download/CSYSPaperFeb09.pdf.
The test configuration was set up for an apparent wind angle of 24, with a leeway angle of
4, a true wind speed of 12 kn and a boat speed of 12 kn as well. This leads to an apparent
wind speed of 11.88 kn or 6.11 m/s. Three different heel angles where tested (0, 15, 30).
As the force axis are aligned with the course made good coordinates shown in Figure C-
8,forces and velocity has been recalculated due to apparent wind speed AWA, the leeway
angle and the heel angle .
80
Figure C-8: Aerodynamic force gage axes [BeZc09]
Appendices
As the forces in FS-Equi are aligned to the body fixed coordinate system, the forces and
velocity ratios have to be recalculated with the leeway angle , the apparent wind angle
(AWA) and the heel angle .
The velocity components are calculated as shown in Figure C-9 by the AWA and the leeway
angle, whereas the force first have to be split up into the aerodynamic drag and -lift. Hereby
the drag coefficient is a constant value for all wind angles, whereas the aerodynamic lift will
change by AWA. The drag coefficient can be predicted by using the aerodynamic efficiency
A
, defined in Marchaj [15] by:
tan
1
(c
A
) =
L
A
D
A
(27)
Where L
A
is the aerodynamic lift and D
A
the desired aerodynamic drag. The measured lift and
drag can be coupled by the hydrodynamic efficiency
B
:
tan
1
(c
B
) =
side force
drag
(28)
Those two terms are related by the apparent wind speed AWA or , as used in literature by:
= c
A
+ c
B
(29)
Now the aerodynamic drag can be expressed by the square-root of the lift and drag force,
and the aerodynamic efficiency.
For the calculation of the drag coefficients the projected areas in the three body-fixed axis
had been estimated by basic dimensions of a moth and a sailor:
A
x
[m
2
] A
y
[m
2
] A
z
[m
2
]
0,89 2,44 4,49
81
Figure C-9: Wind velocity ratios
Appendices
Using the first set of values from [7] with a heel angle of 0, the drag coefficients cDx and cDy
can directly be calculated, giving the result of cDx=1.343 and cDy=1.099. For the calculation of
the drag component in Z-direction is not enough data available, as here also the lift
components in all three dimensions have to be considered. Therefore the value is estimated
by 1.0. Due to the lack of data at this stage, the aerodynamic lift will not be considered at this
stage.
C.3.4 Foil and strut geometry and data
The geometrical data of the rudder and the centreboard have been obtained from Figure C-5.
Both, the rudder and the centreboard chord length were set to 125 mm. Input Data can be
summarized by the data in Table C-7:
Table C-7: Centreboard and rudder data
Centreboard Rudder
Profile NACA 63-012 NACA 0012
Length 1.09 m 0.96 m
Width 0.125 m 0.125 m
Angle 6.34 fwd 2
Thickness t 12% of chord 12% of chord
Chord length c 0.125 m 0.125 m
To reduce the potential number of variation, the profile geometry was set to standard NACA
profiles, as used in the first generation of hydro-foil. Centreboard and rudder are NACA 63-
012 and NACA 0012 foils, the centre board foil is a NACA 63-412. The rudder foil is a
symmetrical NACA 0012 profile, which will be rotated for control purpose.
The necessary data was calculated with XFLR5 from Andre Deperrois, a gui supported and
in C++ rewritten Version of the fortran written panel code XFOIL from Marc Drela. This
program is published under the open source licence and can be downloaded at
http://xflr5.sourceforge.net/xflr5.htm.
Additionally XFLR5 can calculate wings and since version 4.0 also planes with a 3D panel
method. Wings can be calculated with the lifting line theory, the vortice lattice method or the
3D panel method.
The centreboard and rudder data will be calculated using the 2D foil module. The
recalculation for a 3D wing will be within the FS-Equi force module. For the centreboard
and rudder foil the 3D wing module had been used.
For determination of the lift and drag curves of the profile, the Reynolds number has to be
calculated:
R
e
=
V
s
l
+
(30)
82
Appendices
The formula shows the influence of the boat speed. Therefore lift and drag coefficients
should be given for all desired speed. A 3-dimensional response surface could be
theoretically implemented in the module, but at this stage averaged values has been used.
With the length l = 0.125 m, the kinematic viscosity of water at 20C = 1.0038E-6 and a
speed range from 2 m/s to 10 m/s the Reynolds numbers can be calculated to:
Table C-8: Reynolds numbers for centreboard an rudder
Speed [m/s] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
R
e
[E-06] 0,25 0,37 0,5 0,62 0,75 0,87 1,00 1,12 1,25
C.3.4.1 Centreboard and rudder
The Foil data used for rudder and centreboard are pure 2 dimensional data, calculated with
the direct foil analysis module in XFLR5. Hence the lift and drag forces and moments has to
be recalculated using the formulas in Appendix B.
For calculation of the moments, the centre of effort is given as a the distance from the
geometric centre of area normalized by the immersion of the foil vs. the immersion
normalized by the length. Hence the CoE can be recalculated for the different states of the
moth low rider and foiled. The data implemented into the FS modules results from pure
theoretical thoughts and should be verified in the future.
The approach for the prediction of the CoE is the lift distribution of a daggerboard. Using a
standard daggerboard configuration, the lift distribution will drop to zero at the tip of the foil,
whereas on the root a significant lift remains. Using a non-foiled T-foil daggerbaord, will also
result in a significant lift at the tip, whereas in foiled state, the lift will drop to zero at the root.
This gives us the theoretical change of centre of effort as implemented in FS-Equilibrium.
83
Figure C-10: Centre of effort rudder / centreboard
Appendices
The same thoughts are the basis for calculation of the effective aspect ratio AReff. For a non-
foiled standard profile, AReff can be assumed to be twice the geometric aspect ratio, using the
DWL of the hull as mirroring plane. The T-foil also works like a mirroring plane, which would
theoretically lead to an infinite aspect ratio. Using a factor of 1.5 for the T-foil and a factor of 2
for the hull, leads to a factor of approx. 2.5 to 3 for the non-foiling T-foil daggerboard. In
foiling state, the factor of 1.5 remains as the surface has a much lower effect on AR, as the
lift drops to zero at the surface.
The polar data for the centreboard and rudder are calculated for Reynolds numbers from
0.20E-06 to 1.00E-06, which is a speed range of approx. 2 to 10 m/s. The corresponding
curves are given in Figure C-13 for a NACA 0012 profile used for the rudder and a NACA 63-
012 used for the daggerboard in Figure C-14.
84
Figure C-11: Vertical centre of effort distribution
Appendices
Within the range of 4 to 6 m/s the difference of the cL. vs. cD abd the cL vs. angle of attack is
very small for the NACA 0012, especially within a range of +/- 5.
The NACA 63-012 shows the same characteristic. The cL/cD
vs. angle of attack curves are
spread up wider than at the NACA 0012 profile, but in the range of 4 m/s to 6 m/s the
difference is small.
For both profiles the Re = 0.50E06 data was used, as here the cL/cD ratio is small, hence
more conservative. For the use in FS-Equilibrium, the curve were converted into cL, cD vs.
angle of attack (AoA).
85
Figure C-13: Polars - NACA 63-012
Figure C-12: Polars - NACA 0012
Appendices
The following cL and cD curves has been used as standard curves for all analyses. The red
line represents the response function. In this case Cspline data interpolation was used.
C.3.4.2 Centreboard - / Rudder Foil
The lift / drag characteristic of the main foil is calculated using the wing module of XFLR5. In
a first step, lift and drag data for the different sections are calculated with the Foil Direct
Design module, also used for the daggerboard and the rudder.
At this point, it has to be decided if the rudder foil is flap controlled, or the whole foil will be
rotated, hence no foil analysis with different flap angles has to be performed.
The centreboard foil is a flap controlled foil, where lift and drag are functions of pitch- and
flap angle. The pitch-angle (angle of attack) varies from -3 to +5 , the flap angle was set to
15, 5, 2.5, 0, -2.5 and -5. The hinge line of the flap is at the 30% line from the tailing
edge, the centre of rotation set to 80% of the thickness from the bottom surface.
86
Figure C-15: NACA 63-012 cL vs. AoA cD vs. AoA
Figure C-14: NACA 0012 cL vs. AoA cD vs. AoA
Appendices
As the chord length varies over the span of the foil, the section lift and drag coefficients have
to be calculated for different Reynolds numbers. This is done using the batch analysis ability
of XFLR5. The data for not calculated Reynolds numbers will be interpolated. Thus polars for
the maximum and the minimum Reynolds-number must be provided for the calculation of the
wing. Otherwise a failure message occurs.
The definition of the wing was done section wise, with a straight tailing edge. Figure C-17
shows the input mask with the data from the 0.11 m
2
hydro-foil. The speed for performing the
wing analysis has been set to 5 m/s, as the calculated lift and drag data for the rudder and
87
Figure C-16: NACA 62-012 foil section with flap
Figure C-17: Daggerbord foil (wing) definition in XFLR5
Appendices
centreboard. Pitch angle range has been set to -3 to 5 with a step size of 0.5 and the
analysis code set to 3D panel method. The result is exported to a text file and sorted for data
import within FS-Equi. As the optimization of the plan-form area and the foil shape is not part
of this work, it should be mentioned, that also a graphical post-processing is possible within
XFLR5. Lift, drag distribution can be shown graphically, as well as down-wash, c
P
, surface-
velocity and streamlines.
Subsequently the polar data was exported to a text file and organized by flap angle and
angle of attack. The daggerboard foil shows the following response surface for lift and drag.
Data-points are shown in red, the blue mesh represents the response surface.
The rudder foil is also a NACA 63-412 without a flap. The span has been set to 0.8 m with a
root chord of 0.125m. The result is a foil with a plan-form area with 0.08 m
2
and an aspect
ratio of ~8.
88
Figure C-18: Graphical output of XFLR5
Figure C-20: Daggerboard foil cD vs. flap angle
and AoA
Figure C-19: Daggerboard foil cL vs. flap
angle and AoA
Appendices
The resulting lift and drag data is also implemented as 3D data. The corresponding response
surfaces are shown in Figure C-22 and Figure C-23.
C.3.4.3 Additional drag components
Even thought section and induced drag are the major drag components, additional
components should be considered as well, even if those are small. Drag components
mentioned by [7] are strut spray/wave drag, foil wave drag and interference drag. Also
mentioned is the surface finish and the gap at the flap for the main foil.
89
Figure C-21: Rudder foil definition in XFLR5
Figure C-22: Rudder foil cL vs. flap angle and
AoA
Figure C-23: Rudder foil cD vs. flap angle and
AoA
Appendices
Strut spray drag and intersection drag can be calculated by
F = c
D
roh
2
v
2
t
Strut
2
(31)
Hoerner gives a cDSpray value of 0.3, but the measurement of [7] shows a better
correspondence at a value of 0.35. The intersection drag coefficient is given by Hoerner as
0.1.
The foil wave drag is a function of the lift and the immersion. The drag coefficient is given by:
c
DWave
= c
L
2
c
h

C
DH
C
LH
2
(32)
The value of CDH/CL
2
H was determined as mentioned in [7] by plotting cD over different
immersion and interpolating the curve to zero immersion, hence no wave drag. Now the
wave drag component could be back calculated for the given immersions. The values are in
a range of 0.22 and 0.26 and where set to 0.25 for the velocity prediction.
Another component which is mentioned by [7] is the surface roughness. Also the gap for the
flap will have influence on the drag. All those effects are summarized as parasitic drag within
the FS-Equi modules. As is mentioned in various news groups, the drag components
calculated by XFLR5 are quite optimistic. Therefore the drag components have been scaled
with the parasitic drag using the data from from [7].
All together the additional drag coefficients can be summarized to:
Table C-9: Additional drag coefficients
Centrebaord Rudder
Strut parasitic 0,001 0,001
Strut wave/spray 0,35 0,35
Strut / foil interference 0,1 0,1
Foil parasitic 0,0025 0,0025
Foil wave (C
DH
/C
L
2
H
) 0,25 0,25
C.3.4.4 Validation of Drag Components
By summation of the different foil and strut drags the drag components of the analytical
solution can be compared to the measured data in [7] as shown in Figure C-24 and Figure C-
25.
90
Appendices
The daggerboard drag, sacled by the parasitic drag, shows a good correlation to the
experimental data. The drag forces of the rudder T-foils showing a wider tolerance, but the
analytical solution is well situated in the middle.
C.3.5 Sail data
The Sail Data used is partly from the work of Heikki Hansen, especially for the downwind
course, and from Chris Williams from North Sails, who was so kind providing the data from
the internal CFD tool FLOW, for the upwind courses with an apparent wind angle of 15, 18,
21, 24 and 27, a true wind speed of 6,173 m/s and the actual sail geometry with the basic
dimensions. Afterwards the downwind data from Hansen is transformed to have a smooth
curve for lift and parasitic drag.
91
Figure C-24: Daggerboard T-Foil drag components
Hungry Beaver Vendor 1 Vendor 2 Analytical
0.0000
5.0000
10.0000
15.0000
20.0000
25.0000
30.0000
35.0000
40.0000
45.0000
50.0000
Daggerboard T-foil drag components
Strut spray drag
Strut section drag
Foil wave drag
Foil induced drag
Foil section drag etc.
Figure C-25: Rudder T-foil drag components
Hungry Beaver Vendor 1 Vendor 2 Analytical
0.0000
5.0000
10.0000
15.0000
20.0000
25.0000
30.0000
35.0000
Rudder T-foil drag components
Strut spray drag
Strut section drag
Foil wave drag
Foil induced drag
Foil section drag etc.
Appendices
As the centre of effort is calculated relative to the centre of area, the sail centre of area has to
be determined. Therefore the plan-form sail shape is divided into triangles (Figure C-26) from
which the local area and centre of area are calculated. Afterwards the over all CoE can be
obtained by
CoA
X
=
( x
i
A
i
)
( A
i
)
; CoA
y
=
( y
i
A
i
)
( A
i
)
(33)
For the calculation of the forces within the Frig force module, the effective coordinate system
is used. Therefore the data predicted with FLOW had been recalculated in the effective
coordinate system. The effective wind angle (AWAeff or eff) is related to the heel , the pitch
and the apparent wind angle (AWA or A) by:
eff
= tan
1
(
tan cos sin0sin
cos 0
)
(34)
The effective wind speed V
eff
can be obtained by:
V
eff
=V
A

.
((sin
A
coscos
A
sinsin 0)
2
+cos
2
A
cos
2
0) (35)
The details about the derivation of these formulas are well documented in the PhD thesis of
Heikki Hansen [9].
92
Figure C-26: Centre of area moth sail - North
Sails, Chris Williams
Appendices
The calculated data from Chris Williams is given basically in 2 different formats. The first one
is the raw data log file. The second one a summary file, which results can directly be
imported in a North Sails rig module within FS-Equilibrium. This module is developed with
North Sails and during an optimisation, the best sail-trim condition will be used from the input
data. As only one heel angel is given, this module can not be used at this stage.
The raw data will be used, as the results are given in different coordinate systems. Within
FLOW, the Y-coordinate system is the heeled coordinate system in leeway direction of the
yacht. As leeway angle is assumed to be 0, the data already represents the effective data.
In this case the flow direction and apparent wind speed have to be recalculated with the
formulas given above. The FLOW data for a heel angle of 30 degrees can be summarised as
follows:
Table C-10: Moth sail data FLOW Chris Williams, North Sails
AWAeff veff Lift [N] Drag [N] cL cD
13.06 10.46 421.56 45.47 0.769 0.083
15.72 10.30 462.96 53.17 0.870 0.100
18.39 10.12 499.41 63.17 0.973 0.123
21.09 9.91 529.97 75.28 1.076 0.153
23.81 9.69 554.37 89.15 1.179 0.190
For the determination of the lift curve, the data of Chris Williams was used up to an effective
wind angle of 24.8. From 50 to 180 the data of the wind-tunnel test of the DYNA yacht has
been used and scaled by a factor of 0.85. Below 13.1 two more data points has been added
and one at 50 to achieve a smooth curve progression.
93
Figure C-27: Sail lift curve cL vs. AWAeff
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
0
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
cL Hansen
cL scaled
cL FLOW
Effective wind angle EWA
L
i
f
t

c
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
Appendices
The result is the orange curve. In addition the curve determined by Hansen and the FLOW
data points are also included.
The implemented drag curve consist of the parasitic drag, where the section drag is included.
The additional drag components, induced drag and separation drag are calculated within the
module. For the derivation of the moth sail drag curve, the induced drag will be calculated by:
c
DI
=
c
L
2
nAR
eff
e
(36)
The effective aspect ratio AR
eff
is obtained using the wing-module of XFLR5. Here the aspect
ratio is determined as a symmetrical wing with its symmetry plane at the bottom, for a sail
at its tack. Regarding a real sail the aspect ratio is half the value of XFLR5 without having a
mirroring plane. Using the waterline level mirroring plane, the effective aspect ratio is
increase by a factor of 1.2. Same result is achieved by setting the efficiency e to 0.6 and
using the AR given from XFLR5.
The separation drag was calculated by cL
and the separation constant CS which is set to
0.016 by default. The separation drag-coefficient is then calculated by:
c
DS
= c
L
2
C
S
(37)
Now the drag components are added to the total drag. To get a good data fit to the FLOW
drag data, the parasitic drag curve from Hansen has been translated by value of -0.07
leading to a parasitic drag coefficient cP of 0.05 at 0 AWA
eff
,

which seems to be a reasonable
section drag for a full batten pocket sail.
94
Figure C-28: Sail aspect ratio
Appendices
The graph shows the parasitic drag from Hansen (blue), as well as the the drag components
resulting in the total drag. The data points from flow are shown as yellow dots, and are
showing a good correlation to the calculated total drag (orange). The continuous green curve
represents the input data for the FRig module.
In addition the change centre of effort as a function of the apparent wind angle is defined, for
calculation of the moments. The values are defined relative to the centre of area, normalized
by DWL / mast height.
The values from Flow show a large discrepancy to the wind tunnel data of DYNA.
Nevertheless these values have been used as an initial starting point and have been fitted to
a similar distribution correlating to the measured data.
95
Figure C-29: Sail drag curve cD vs. AWAeff
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
0
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
cD Hansen
cDI (induced)
cP (parasitic)
cDs (separation)
cD (total)
cD FLOW
Effective wind angle EWA
D
r
a
g

c
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
Figure C-30: Sail centre of effort vs. AWAeff
Appendices
C.3.6 BuoancyForce module (hull)
The hull has been implemented within FS-Equilibrium with a step file. The design is actually
made by Juryk Henrichs with little influence of the author.
The curve of the sectional area is given in . Thereby the origin is at the stern, pointing
forward, as for all data given in Table C-10.
The main parameters of the hull can be summarised by Table C-10:
96
Figure C-31: Offset definition of moth hull by Juryk Henrichs
Figure C-32: Curve of sectional area of hull
Appendices
Table C-11: Main parameters of hull
Draft Amidships m 0.166
Displacement t 0.105
WL Length m 3.353
Beam max extents on WL m 0.31
Wetted Area m^2 1.565
Waterpl. Area m^2 0.776
Prismatic coeff. (Cp) 0.69
Block coeff. (Cb) 0.607
Max Sect. area coeff. (Cm) 0.909
Waterpl. area coeff. (Cwp) 0.746
LCB from zero pt. (+ve fwd) m 1.5
LCF from zero pt. (+ve fwd) m 1.428
C.4 Force Module Validation
As programming is always a task where small errors might have a big effect but are hard to
find and to quantify, the self programmed routines must be checked and validated. Therefore
the data from Appendix C.3 is implemented into the different force modules and some quality
checks are performed.
The first check is the verification of the mathematical signs and the tendency of the different
forces. Using the coordinate system from Figure 2-1 the forces TWA from 40 to 180 and a
positive leeway angle must have the following mathematical signs:
Table C-12: Mathematical signs and tendencies of force modules
Module Change of variable Force
controlledMass CrewX < 0
CrewY < 0
My < 0
Mx > 0
Centreboard /
Ruddder
LEE > 0
Decrease SINK
Rudder Y > 0
Fy < 0, Mx < 0
Decraese Fy
Fy < 0, Mx < 0, Mz > 0
Centreboard-foil /
Rudder-foil
Increase Vs
Decrease SINK
DeltaFlap > 0
Increase Fz
Decrease Fz
Fz > 0, My > 0
For a more detailed verification of the modules, the resulting forces are plotted versus the
conditions influencing the specific module / force component. Main focus hereby are the
force modules for the struts and the foils centreboard and rudder.
97
Appendices
For the validation of the foils, the method, used in Appendix C.3 (Foil Data) can be used, but
also visualised by plotting the the lift and drag force versus the sinkage for a TWS of 4, 5, 6
an 8 m/s in .
While the effect of the heel angle is very important at upwind courses, the change of lift and
side force is plotted for a TWS of 4, 5 and 6 m/s versus the heel angle in .
98
Figure C-33: Lift and drag at main foil vs. sinkage
Figure C-34: Lift and side force vs. heel and speed
Appendices
Hereby the effect of creating a significant side force while minor lift reduction at sailing with
windward heel becomes clear when comparing the data of the side force to the lift.
The forces of the struts vs. speed, heel, sinkage and rudder are shown in for a TWS of 4, 5,
6 and 8 m/s, all showing a very harmonic run of the curves. The absolute values are also
reasonable and correspond to the given lift and drag coefficients.
99
Figure C-35: Lift at foils vs. pitch
Figure C-36: Rudder lift and drag vs. deltaFlap
Appendices
D Foil Set-Up for VPP
The data used for the different foil set-up's is generated with the preliminary foil design tool.
Basis for the set-up has been the take off behaviour. This can be visualised by the velocity
and the flight height within the tool. For an overview the complete set of input-data is
compared in Table D-1 and the corresponding curves are shown in the additional figures of
the sinkage and the fight height versus the time.
Table D-1: Geometrical parameter for feedback control systems
Foil 01 Foil 02 Foil 03 Foil 04*
Foil CoP (Z-comp.) [m] -1.04 -1.04 -1.04 -1.04
Planform [m2] 0.11 0.08 0.14 0.1
Thickness t [%] 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12
Chord l [mm] 110 110 110 110
AReff [-] 10.8 10.8 10.8 10.8
Sensor CoR [m] 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
Length [m] 0.9 0.9 0.9 1
Diam [m] 0.0075 0.0075 0.0075 0.005
DragCoeff [-] 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.5
Robe DistCoR [m] 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025
Tension [N] 10 10 10 25
Flap SensorDistCoR [m] 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05
DeltaSensor_0 [] 35 35 35 25
fDeltaFlap [-] 0.125 0.14 0.118 0.16
FlapDistCoR [m] 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
deltaFlap_0 [] -5 -5 -4 -10
*used in final analysis in Chapter 5
100
Figure D-1: Speed / sinkage vs. time set-up F01
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
-0,1
0
0,1
0,2
0,3
0,4
0,5
0,6
0,7
Speed Vs
[m/s]
Zoffset [m]
Time [s]
S
p
e
e
d

[
m
/
s
]
z
-
o
f
f
s
e
t

[
m
]
Appendices
101
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
-0,1
0
0,1
0,2
0,3
0,4
0,5
0,6
Speed Vs
[m/s]
Zoffset [m]
Time [s]
S
p
e
e
d

[
m
/
s
]
z
-
o
f
f
s
e
t

[
m
]
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
0
0,5
1
1,5
2
2,5
3
3,5
4
-0,1
-0,05
0
0,05
0,1
0,15
0,2
0,25
0,3
Speed Vs
[m/s]
Zoffset [m]
Time [s]
S
p
e
e
d

[
m
/
s
]
z
-
o
f
f
s
e
t

[
m
]
Appendices
102
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
-0,1
0
0,1
0,2
0,3
0,4
0,5
0,6
0,7
Speed Vs
[m/s]
Zoffset [m]
Time [s]
S
p
e
e
d

[
m
/
s
]
z
-
o
f
f
s
e
t

[
m
]
Appendices
E VPP Results
103
Figure E-1: Moth polar plan-form area 0.11 m
2
set-up F01
Appendices
104
2
set-up F02
Appendices
105
2
- set-up F03
Appendices
106
2
- set-up F01
Appendices
107
2
- set-up F02
Appendices
108
2
- set-up F01
Appendices
109
2
- set-up F03
Appendices
F Stability Results
The investigations of the dynamic stability with the small disturbance theory has been done
with constrained degrees of freedom. The first run with constrained heel shows the results in
Table F-1. By also constrained leeway angle, the results in Table F-2 can be achieved.
Table F-1: Linearisation results for one fixed DoF (heel)
NAME TWS TWA Real Imaginary Decay Time Damping Period
P008F01 10.0 120.0 -0.089 0.261 7.791 0.322 24.057
P008F02 10.0 120.0 -0.089 0.263 7.828 0.319 23.857
P011F01 10.0 120.0 -0.078 0.284 8.836 0.266 22.119
P011F02 10.0 120.0 -0.072 0.314 9.659 0.223 20.006
P011F03 10.0 120.0 -0.068 0.319 10.211 0.208 19.686
P014F01 10.0 120.0 -0.057 0.331 12.074 0.171 18.976
P014F02 10.0 120.0 -0.042 0.366 16.513 0.114 17.180
P008F01 10.0 60.0 0.008 0.000 -91.773 -1.000 0.000
P008F02 10.0 60.0 0.052 0.000 -13.253 -1.000 0.000
P011F01 10.0 60.0 -0.025 0.000 27.850 1.000 0.000
P011F02 10.0 60.0 0.006 0.000 -111.553 -1.000 0.000
P011F03 10.0 60.0 0.001 0.000 -506.545 -1.000 0.000
P014F01 10.0 60.0 -0.047 0.000 14.806 1.000 0.000
P014F02 10.0 60.0 0.013 0.000 -53.584 -1.000 0.000
P008F01 6.0 120.0 -0.092 0.251 7.495 0.346 25.045
P008F02 6.0 120.0 -0.089 0.252 7.806 0.333 24.980
P011F01 6.0 120.0 -0.088 0.272 7.914 0.307 23.120
P011F02 6.0 120.0 -0.080 0.297 8.715 0.259 21.159
P011F03 6.0 120.0 -0.079 0.212 8.805 0.349 29.685
P014F01 6.0 120.0 -0.081 0.243 8.568 0.316 25.833
P014F02 6.0 120.0 -0.069 0.260 10.040 0.257 24.185
P008F01 6.0 60.0 0.077 0.000 -8.978 -1.000 0.000
P008F02 6.0 60.0 0.259 0.000 -2.681 -1.000 0.000
P011F01 6.0 60.0 -0.010 0.000 71.297 1.000 0.000
P011F02 6.0 60.0 0.272 0.000 -2.550 -1.000 0.000
P011F03 6.0 60.0 0.061 0.000 -11.343 -1.000 0.000
P014F01 6.0 60.0 0.021 0.000 -33.202 -1.000 0.000
P014F02 6.0 60.0 0.067 0.000 -10.347 -1.000 0.000
P011F02 4.0 115.0 -0.093 0.253 7.422 0.346 24.818
P008F02 4.0 115.0 -0.095 0.205 7.259 0.422 30.618
P011F03 4.0 115.0 -0.097 0.269 7.119 0.340 23.319
P014F01 4.0 110.0 0.046 0.000 -15.184 -1.000 0.000
P008F01 4.0 15.0 -0.096 0.179 7.234 0.473 35.162
P011F01 3.5 105.0 -0.030 0.129 23.039 0.227 48.613
P014F02 3.5 85.0 0.111 0.000 -6.233 -1.000 0.000
110
Appendices
Table F-2: Linearisation results for one fixed DoF (heel, yaw)
NAME TWS TWA Real Imaginary Decay Time Damping Period
P008F01 10.0 120.0 -0.297 0.000 2.049 1.000 0.000
P008F02 10.0 120.0 -0.300 0.000 2.314 1.000 0.000
P011F01 10.0 120.0 -0.305 0.000 2.271 1.000 0.000
P011F02 10.0 120.0 -0.303 0.000 2.286 1.000 0.000
P011F03 10.0 120.0 -0.307 0.000 2.259 1.000 0.000
P014F01 10.0 120.0 -0.303 0.000 2.289 1.000 0.000
P014F02 10.0 120.0 -0.302 0.000 2.292 1.000 0.000
P008F01 10.0 60.0 -0.482 0.000 1.438 1.000 0.000
P008F02 10.0 60.0 -0.470 0.000 1.474 1.000 0.000
P011F01 10.0 60.0 -2.249 0.000 0.308 1.000 0.000
P011F02 10.0 60.0 -0.487 0.000 1.423 1.000 0.000
P011F03 10.0 60.0 -0.493 0.000 1.406 1.000 0.000
P014F01 10.0 60.0 -0.473 0.000 1.464 1.000 0.000
P014F02 10.0 60.0 -0.567 0.000 1.223 1.000 0.000
P008F01 6.0 120.0 -0.366 0.000 1.895 1.000 0.000
P008F02 6.0 120.0 -0.370 0.000 1.872 1.000 0.000
P011F01 6.0 120.0 -0.376 0.000 1.842 1.000 0.000
P011F02 6.0 120.0 -0.395 0.000 1.756 1.000 0.000
P011F03 6.0 120.0 -0.391 0.000 1.774 1.000 0.000
P014F01 6.0 120.0 -0.409 0.000 1.693 1.000 0.000
P014F02 6.0 120.0 -0.419 0.000 1.654 1.000 0.000
P008F01 6.0 60.0 -0.543 0.000 1.275 1.000 0.000
P008F02 6.0 60.0 0.213 0.000 -3.255 -1.000 0.000
P011F01 6.0 60.0 -0.910 0.000 0.762 1.000 0.000
P011F02 6.0 60.0 0.386 0.000 -1.794 -1.000 0.000
P011F03 6.0 60.0 -0.692 0.000 1.002 1.000 0.000
P014F01 6.0 60.0 -0.705 0.000 0.983 1.000 0.000
P014F02 6.0 60.0 -0.839 0.000 0.826 1.000 0.000
P011F02 4.0 115.0 -0.326 0.000 2.127 1.000 0.000
P008F01 4.0 115.0 -0.338 0.000 2.049 1.000 0.000
P008F02 4.0 115.0 -0.343 0.000 2.021 1.000 0.000
P011F03 4.0 115.0 -0.344 0.000 2.013 1.000 0.000
P014F01 4.0 110.0 0.012 0.000 -59.233 -1.000 0.000
P011F01 3.5 105.0 -0.267 0.000 2.592 1.000 0.000
P014F02 3.5 85.0 -0.230 0.000 3.013 1.000 0.000
111

Foils Moth Thesis

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Foils Moth Thesis

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Evaluation of the Performance of a Hydro-Foiled

Moth by Stability and Force Balance Criteria

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen