Subject: [harryproa] Hard Chine & Attached Flow
From: "Rick Willoughby rickwill@bigpond.net.au [harryproa]" <harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au>
Date: 3/27/2015, 12:35 AM
To: harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au
Reply-to:
harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au

 


On 27/03/2015, at 1:45 PM, "taladorwood@yahoo.com.au [harryproa]" <harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au> wrote:

As far as I can see the bow is forcing the water up the sides not the chine.

Correct the pressure at the bow forces the water up the side because it stays attached.  A spray rail detaches the flow and assists in producing lift by deflecting the flow out or even down in some cases.  The power consumed in lifting the water then helps lift the boat:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dORyeg4JIV4

But what you are saying about attached flow is the complete opposite to my understanding of drag and fluid flow.
Why do you think high speed planing hulls have a sharp transom?  It is to detach the flow.  Hulls that have rocker in the aft section aim to maintain attached flow to get pressure recovery but there comes a point where the extra wetted surface to get the pressure recovery causes more drag than the loss of pressure recovery as the transom runs dry.  

Your understanding of attached flow is wrong.     Read this paper for better understanding:
http://oa.upm.es/14340/2/Documentacion/3_Formas/Savitskyreport_conSemidesplazamiento.pdf

The characteristic behavior of semi-displacement hull form with increasing speed-length

ratio is as follows:

0< SLR < 0.9: With increasing speed the flow separates from the transom so that is completely ventilated to the atmosphere. The hull squats slightly and trims up slightly.

0.9< SLR < 2.0: The hull attains its maximum squat (substantially less that for a displacement hull) and maximum trim (approximately 2 degrees). There is some evidence that the transverse flow from the bottom is clinging to the round bilges due to the negative pressures in this area. In this speed range however there is only a small effect on hull resistance.

2.0 < SLR <3.0: The hull rises to essentially its original static draft and the trim angle decreases with increasing speed. The round bilges develop a spray formation that rises rapidly with increasing speed. This spray climbs up on the sides of the hull and can reach to the deck level at SLR approaching 3.0. For further increases in speed, the trim is further reduced, the spray is intensified and the total wetted area becomes significantly larger that the static wetted area. For SLR > 3, the resistance of the hull usually increases very rapidly. Although properly designed spray rails can attenuate the bow spray there is insufficient dynamic lift for the craft to plane."


Then further on: 

"A typical lines drawing for a planing hull is shown on Figure 2(c). The following geometric features are evident:
page5image24568 page5image24728 page5image24888 page5image25048
  • 􏰜  Complete avoidance of convex surfaces (except for the bow area which is out of the water at planing speeds) to avoid the development of bottom suction pressures.

  • 􏰜  Sharp edge chines at the intersection of the bottom and sides to insure complete separation of the transverse flow component from the bottom.

  • 􏰜  A deeply submerged wide transom with a sharp trailing edge to insure complete separation of the longitudinal flow from the bottom- thus insuring that the entire transom is ventilated to the atmosphere."

     




Attached flow has much less drag than separated flow as an example look at the Americas Cup hulls.   
These hulls are intended to fly in normal operation as they are foil borne.  The chine is in air so has little relevance to the boat performance.  If you look at fast boats that are not foil borne they have hard chines:
http://www.apba.org/sites/all/files/images/classes/Inboard_NationalMod_NM10,%20NM1.jpg
So slow boats soft chines and attached flow.  Fast boats hard chine and detached flow.  

There is a good deal of custom and practice in boat design and building.  The general belief is that sailing boats need soft chines and power boats intended to plane need hard chines.  These days there are quite a few sailing hulls intended to plane or at least semi-plane.  With fast sailing boats I see a gradual progression toward harder chines.  My own data shows the hard chine to be beneficial to performance in the slender hulls I design and build.   

If you have good researched data to the contrary then happy to review it and identify where it is wrong or why it does not apply.


My data is with regard to pedal boats and I asses the difference over long periods under race conditions.  For fast slender sailing hulls I do not have concrete data that shows a hard chine is better than a soft chine with regard to hydrodynamics.  For one-off production a hard chine is simpler to build and usually reduces weight.   My experience is that the weight saving is more beneficial than any other factor that could be attributed to a soft chine.
  

__._,_.___

Posted by: Rick Willoughby <rickwill@bigpond.net.au>
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a new topic Messages in this topic (78)

.

__,_._,___