High Performance Yacht Design Conference

Auckland, 4-6 December,2002

THE EFFECT OF PITCH RADIUS OF GYRATION ON SAILING YACHT

PERFORMANCE
Peter Ottosson1, [email protected]
Mats Brown2, [email protected]
Lars Larsson3, [email protected]
Abstract. Traditionally a racing yacht is designed with as low radii of gyration as possible, especially regarding the pitch radius. A
small radius normally provides less relative velocities between hull and water and thus less added resistance. Recent model tests at
SSPA with a sailing yacht in head seas have indicated that a minimum of the added resistance can be found for a certain radius of
gyration. The relation between the radius of gyration and the added resistance is of course best investigated by extensive model tests.
However this is expensive and time consuming. A cost effective procedure is to combine model tests with computer based velocity
predictions.
There are a number of different Velocity Prediction Programs (VPPs) available around the world today. Most of them are based on
equations of equilibrium, one for each degree of freedom, that are explicitly solved. These programs work well as a basis for the
judgment of the calm water characteristics for a sailing yacht. Many of them also have algorithms for estimating the added resistance
in waves, which is normally based on regression formulas, derived from frequency based strip theory calculations.
At SSPA a time domain dynamic prediction program has been developed , a DVPP (Dynamic VPP), that provides possibilities to
study also the dynamic characteristics of a sailing yacht. The input data are the same as for a conventional VPP, however, also the
hull form is entered in the form of sectional coordinates. The principles for the program is that all the horizontal hydrodynamic forces
are expressed in the same way as in the conventional program, however the velocities in the different degrees of freedom are
corrected for the wave particle velocities. Additional wave induced forces are also obtained from wave particle accelerations and by
pressure integration over the whole momentary wetted surface.

NOMENCLATURE
Symbol

Description

Dimension

a44

Added mass moment of inertia

in roll
Effective aspect ration of keel
Beam
Double total span of keel,
including hull and bulb
Double span of rudder
Vertical sectional damping
coefficient
Wave propagation velocity
Mean chord of keel
Lift coefficient on keel
Mean chord of rudder
Local sectional area coefficient
Energy
Effective draught of section
Roll wave moment, pos to stbd
Wave number
Wave number for peak
frequency
Pitch wave moment, bow up
pos
Yaw wave moment, pos for
bow to stbd
Sectional vertical added mass
Sectional generated power

kg m2

ARk
B
bk
br
b33(x)
c
cK
CLk
cr
Cs
E
h
Kz
k
kpeak
Mz
Nz
m(x)
Pz(x)

m
m

p
p(s)
q
Raw
r
swlf
T
ts
V
Vz(x)

N/(m/s)/m
w
m/s
m
-

xsec
xkr

Nm
m
Nm
1/m
1/m

Yw
Zw
z
ik
cr

Nm
r
Nm
kg/m
W/m

1 M.Sc. (Naval Arch.), Project Manager, SSPA Sweden AB

2 M.Sc. (Naval Arch.), Project Manager, SSPA Sweden AB
3 Professor, Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering, Chalmers University of Technology

Roll rate
Dynamic pressure
Pitch velocity, pos when bow is
going upwards
Added resistance
Turning rate
Short wave length factor
Time
Local sectional draught
Boat velocity
Sectional vertical relative
velocity
Heave
velocity,
pos
downwards
Sectional x coordinates, rel
LCG
Axial distance between keel
CE and rudder CE
Lateral wave force, pos to stbd
Vertical wave force, pos down
Vertical coordinate, pos down
Downwash angle at keel due to
keel circulation
Downwash angle on rudder due
to keel circulation
Downwash angle at rudder due
to free vortex from keel
Wave elevation, pos upwards
Wave length
Wave direction, 0 when
coming from north

rad/s
N/m2
rad/s
N
rad/s
Sec
M
m/s
m/s
m/s
M
M
N
N
m
rad
rad

m
m
rad

coming from north

Pitch angle, pos for bow up
Density of water
Wave frequency
Encountering wave frequency
Heading angle
Wave profile
Wave amplitude

rad
kg(m3
rad/s
rad/s
rad
m
m

1. INTRODUCTION
During 2001 extensive model tests were carried out for
Victory Challenge for the Americas Cup. Parallel to the
different model test studies, work was also carried out in
order to develop a Dynamic Velocity Prediction Program
(DVPP). The purpose of the program is to be able to
study phenomena which are highly related to the
dynamic behaviour of the yacht, such as wind gusts,
waves, tacking procedures, etc.
Normally a VPP considers axial and lateral forces as well
as the heeling and restoring moments. The fully
developed DVPP comprise all six degrees of freedom, i.
e. surge, sway, heave, roll, pitch and yaw. When the
VPP explicitly solves the forces of equilibrium, the
DVPP solves the motions in a time stepping procedure.
The paper describes the model tests, on which parts of
the DVPP development relies, as well as the
mathematical model in more or less detail. A limited
systematic simulation study is carried out in order to
show the influence of different pitch radii of gyration on
the upwind performance. Another feature of the program
is also demonstrated, the possibility to study the tacking
performance of a yacht. The results from the simulations
are presented and discussed.
2. MODEL TESTS
The tests were performed in SSPAs towing tank with the
dimensions: length 260m, breath 10m and depth 5m.
The test program comprised both calm water tests and
head wave tests. The former covered tests with nine
different models and the latter, which this paper will
focus on, two different models.
The reason for
performing the wave tests was mainly to get an answer to
two questions:
1. Are the relative characteristics for individual
models identified in calm water tests the same
as those obtained from wave tests, i.e. is a
design that is effective in calm water also
effective in waves?
2. What is the influence of the pitch radius of
gyration?
Although the yacht will hardly ever experience head
seas, this can serve as a good basis for validation of a
mathematical model of the added resistance.

1:4 scale model tests were performed in irregular head

seas with two different mean periods:
Wave 1:
H1/3=70cm, T=3.5 s (full scale)
Wave 2:
H1/3=70cm, T=4.2 s (full scale)
Model A was tested with a radius of gyration of 21.8% of
Lbg (length between girths) at both wave spectra and at
speeds corresponding to 6, 8 and 10 knots at full-scale.
The test series was repeated with a heel angle of 25.
Model A was also tested with an increased radius of
gyration of 25.86% at wave 1, upright at 8 knots.
Model B was tested in two wave spectra, three speeds (6,
8 and 10 knots) upright and heeled conditions and with
three radii of gyration: 19.1%, 20.1% and 26.2% of Lbg.
A semi-captive, three-post system developed by the
Wolfson Unit was used for the model tests. In this
arrangement the measurement of side force is through
force blocks on the fore and aft posts, and resistance is
measured on the centre post. The model is free to heave,
by means of the towing posts running on roller bearings,
and free to pitch through a gimbal mechanism on the 3
posts. Through the arrangement of the gimbals restraint
is provided in surge, sway and yaw while isolating the
resistance force block from side force and vice-versa.
The roll and yaw angles are set fixed. During the wavetests no yaw angles were set. Accelerometers were
arranged fore and aft on the models.
During the tests measurement were taken of speed, trim,
resistance, vertical acceleration fore and aft, wave-height
and period.
2.2 Results from model tests
The tests results for model B are presented in Figure 1 to
Figure 4, where the added resistance is plotted versus the
radius of gyration for various speeds both for upright and
heeled conditions. As is seen in the plots the added
resistance was lower for wave 2 (with longer period)
both in upright and heeled conditions. The added
resistance was slightly lower in the heeled condition in
both waves though the figures are not consistent.
One unexpected phenomenon was that the curves for
added resistance seem to have a minimum regarding the
radius of gyration at the speed of 10 knots.
The differences between the two models tested were
rather small. Although the added resistance in 0.7 m
significant wave height was between 20 and 50% of the
calm water resistance, the test programme was not
extensive enough to make the results conclusive. More
tests have to be made, and may have to cover a larger
number of wave encounters, than was the case this time.
Due to the limited time available, only one run was made
for each condition. Often each condition may require
several runs to get a sufficient basis for a statistical
analysis.

Model B, heel 25, wave 2

Model B, upright, wave 1

6 knots
8 knots
10 knots

18.00

20.00

22.00

24.00

26.00

28.00

8 knots

Added resistance

Added resistance

6 knots
10 knots

18.00

20.00

Kyy (% of Lbg)

Added resistance

3. MATHEMATICAL MODEL

8 knots
10 knots

24.00

26.00

28.00

The mathematical model of the boat dynamics is based

on the rigid body dynamics and on the hydro- and
aerodynamic forces and moments that represent the boat
motions:
_

ma =F

Kyy (% of Lbg)

The model consists of six main equations of motions in

three sets of equations:
surge
sway, roll and yaw
heave and pitch

Figure 2 Model B, heel 25, wave 1

Model B, upright, wave 2

In each set of equations, the different degrees of freedom

are coupled. The left hand side of the equations
comprise accelerations and total masses, the latter
including added masses, while the right hand side
includes all the forces (moments) acting on the yacht.

6 knots

Added resistance

28.00

The diagrams clearly show that the pitch radius of

gyration has a great influence on the added resistance.
The range of the radius variation in the tests was rather
wide. At this stage it is difficult to fully evaluate the
importance of the magnitude of the radius of gyration,
since the authors are not updated with information of
how much the pitch radius of gyration may vary in real
life.
6 knots

22.00

26.00

Figure 4 Model B, heel 25, wave 2

Model B, heel 25, wave 1

20.00

24.00

Kyy (% of Lbg)

Figure 1 Model B, upright, wave 1

18.00

22.00

8 knots
10 knots

The total forces, on the right hand side of the main

equations, are principally expressed by:
F = FCB + FR + FK + FSAIL
18.00

20.00

22.00 24.00 26.00

Kyy (% of Lbg)

Figure 3 Model B, upright, waves 2

28.00

The indices represent forces (moments) from:

CB
= canoe body
R
= rudder
K
= keel, including bulb and winglets
SAIL
= sail
All contributions comprise both linear and non-linear
parts. The models for calculating lift and drag on the
canoe body and on the different appendages are well

documented in other presentations, and will not be

specifically commented upon here. The model used in
the SSPA DVPP is mainly based on principles described
in van Ossanen [3] and in Larsson & Eliasson [4].
However, those parts in the model that have been
modified in the DVPP are described in the following.
3.1 Total masses and mass moments of inertia
The left hand side of each equation is expressed as the
product of mass and acceleration, the former including
body mass as well as added mass. The roll inertia is, for
instance, written as

(mk

2
xx

+ a 44

Vz (x ) = w x q + V + e kt s Cs

The radiated energy over a certain time T is written as:

TL
TL

dm(x ) 2

E = dPz (x ) dx dt = b 33 (x ) V
Vz (x ) dx dt

dx
00
00

The energy can also be obtained by:

E = (V + c cos ( )) T R aw

) dp
dt

where a44 is divided into three different parts

W av e

crest

a 44 = a 44 hh + a 44 hk + a 44 s

c cos( )

where
a44hh = Hydrodynamic mass moment of inertia from
hull, taken from strip theory
a44hk = Hydrodynamic mass moment of inertia from keel
a44 = Aerodynamic mass moment of inertia from sails

W av e
propa
ga
directio tion
Veloci n ty c

3.2 Canoe body forces

The canoe body forces comprise both maneuvering
forces and wave forces, the former being damping forces
based on velocities in the different degrees of freedom.
The latter are based on strip theory.
The procedure of combining maneuvering and
seakeeping theory into one time domain simulation
program is based on a program for ship motions: the
SSPA general simulation program for manoeuvring and
seakeeping, called SEAMAN, which has been described
in Ottosson [6].
3.3 Resistance
The total resistance is divided into five parts: viscous,
wave, induced, heel and added resistance. All these
contributions are based on standard theory and have been
described in detail elsewhere, see for instance van
Ossanen [3] and Larsson & Eliasson [4].. Some
comments will, however, be given here.
3.4 Added resistance
The added resistance is here considered as a result of
radiated waves created by vertical relative motion of the
ship. The momentary vertical damping force can be
written as [2]:
dm(x )

dFz ( x ) = b 33 (x ) V
Vz (x )
dx

and the generated power as:

dPz (x ) = dFz (x ) Vz (x )
The relative velocity is obtained by:

Figure 5 Definition of wave direction

which provides:
R aw =

1
(V + ccos (? )) T
TL

b (x ) V dm(x ) V 2 (x ) dx dt
33
z

dx
00

When running a new boat in the DVPP, a matrix of

added resistance RAO is generated by simulating regular
waves in a number of combinations of speeds, directions
and wave frequencies. When running simulations in
irregular waves, the mean added resistance is then
obtained from:
_

R aw = 2 C aw S ( e ) d e

where Caw is the added resistance RAO (Response

Amplitude Operator)
The procedure outlined here requires, of course, a
sufficiently long simulation time for each regular wave
component, in order to obtain an appropriate mean value.
3.5 Lift forces
The lift force on the hull is, as is the case also with the
turning moment, based on regression formulas derived
from model tests with slender merchant vessels. These
forces or moments are based on the transverse velocity
and turning rate, both corrected for the local wave
particle velocities.

3.6 Wave forces

The sectional vertical wave induced forces are, for heave
and pitch respectively, written as:

dZ w

dm(x )
h
k
= N 'z V
+ m( x) e peak
dx
dx

dM W
dZ w
= x sec
dx
dx
_

e cr

Corresponding lateral forces are, for sway, roll and yaw

respectively, written as:

dYw

= (M s ( x )) v w + k peak M s v w
dx

dK w
dY

= M s v w swlf w OG
dx
dx

swlf

x kr

C Lk
AR k

r
= 2.0
ik

pB

sin ( )
?

ik =

bk

The second part is expressed as:

sin

pB

a ik

= 0.25

b
AR k = k
ck

dN W
dYw
= x sec
dx
dx

swlf =

The interaction between rudder and keel due to

downwash is also modified compared as described by
van Ossanen [3]. The effect of the keel on the rudder
consists of two parts, one due to the bound vortex on the
keel and the other due to the free vortex sheet trailing
behind the keel [7]. The first is written as:

The total downwash angle on the rudder is thus

expressed as:

sin ()

rtot = rk + r

Superimposed on these forces are the integrated pressure

forces. The local pressure is obtained by:

p(s ) = ?gz + ?g?e kz

The pressure is then integrated over the whole
momentary wetted part of the section, see Figure 6, with
components in the different degrees of freedom (sway,
heave, roll, pitch and yaw).

W av

Still water line

p(s)

e p ro
file

s ds
Figure 6 Pressure definition figure

3.7 Keel and rudder forces

Both keel and rudder forces are modelled as described by
van Ossanen [3], however with angles of attack corrected
for the wave induced particle velocities.

In the same way as the keel has an effect on the rudder,

the rudder has an effect on the keel, an upwash due to the
bound vortex on the rudder.

ck
b
= 0.25 r
x kr
ir
There is, however, no trailing vortex effect from the
rudder on the keel.
4. COMPARISONS WITH MODEL TESTS
In order to demonstrate the accuracy of the program,
some comparisons have been made with model tests
carried out for Victory Challenge during spring and
autumn 2001.
Due to confidentiality the yacht
particulars cannot be presented. The tests comprised
calm water tests as well as tests in an irregular head sea.
The predicted upright resistance agrees very well with
the measured one, see Figure 7. As for the total
resistance in a typical sailing condition, i.e. 9.5 knot
speed and 25 heel, the agreement is acceptable, see
Figure 8.

Model tests
VPP

1
Added resistance

Total resistance

25
20
15
10
5
0

The model test program comprised some tests in an

irregular head sea for different pitch radii of gyration.
The agreement between simulations and model tests are
shown in Figure 10 and Figure 11.

0.8

12

16

0.6
Model tests

0.4

Speed (knots)

Figure 7Upright resistance Comparison with model

tests

Theory 1

0.2

Theory 2

0
3

Total resistance

4
5
Pitch radius of gyration (m)

Figure 10 Added resistance in head sea. H1/3=0.7 m

and Tz=3.5 sec

4
3
2

Model
tests
VPP

1
2

Leeway angle (deg)

Lift

Theory 1

0.8

0
0

Model tests

Theory 2

0.6
0.4
0.2

Figure 8Total resistance for 9.5 knots speed, 25 heel

and different leeways

0
3

The lift forces for different leeway angles are shown in

Figure 9. In all the cases shown in the diagram, the
trimtab angle is 7.5 and the rudder angle is 3.0.

Figure 11 Added resistance in head sea. H1/3=0.7 m

and Tz=4.2 sec
Two different theories have been compared with the
model tests, Theory 1 and Theory 2. The first represent
the conventional strip theory where the restoring forces
in heave and pitch are based on an assumption of vertical
sides above the still water line.

30
25
Total lift

4
5
Pitch radius of gyration (m)

20
15

Model tests

10

VPP

In theory 2, which is the one which has been

implemented in the DVPP, the wave forces as well as the
restoring forces and moments are based on an integration
over the whole momentary wetted surface, see above.

5
0
0

1
2
3
Leeway angle (deg)

Figure 9Total lift for 9.5 knots speed, 25 heel and

different leeways
The predicted lift force differs somewhat from the
measured one, especially for smaller drift angles. The
reason for this is an underestimation of the additional lift
from the trimtab in the simulation model.

The diagrams indicate that Theory 2, with pressure

integration, provides better agreement with the model
tests. As a whole the agreement is very good.
5. TEST BOAT DATA
An Americas Cup yacht was designed in order to serve
as a basis for some comparative simulations. The
intention was primarily to give dimensions that fairly
well represent the boats as they are designed today. It
may not be optimal with regard to speed performance.

The yacht data were as provided in Table 1, Table 2,

Table 3, Table 4, and Table 5.

Table 5 Sail particulars

Lwl/2

Symbol
Loa
B
Bwl
Lbg
Lwld

Dimension
m
m
m
m
m

Magnitude
25.00
3.80
3.20
20.10
18.40

Lwl

19.10

sr

ckl

sk

clr

Alcb

clu

hb

cb
Tcb
Cp

25.0
0.90
0.58

Symbol
sk
cku
ckl
ttck
k
sak
Lb
hb
b
ctt

Dimension
m
m
m
m3
deg
m
m
m3
%

Magnitude
2.40
1.00
0.85
0.10
0.15
0.00
4.40
0.75
1.70
20

xk

-0.96

Symbol
sk
cku
ckl
ttck
k
sak
xr

Dimension
m
m
m
m3
deg
m

Magnitude
2.6
0.50
0.40
0.12
0.044
10
-9.6

sar

The program provides, based on the boat data given

above, a calm water resistance as shown in Figure 13.

5
4
3
2
1
0
0

Figure 13

4
6
8
Boat speed (knots)

10

Calm water resistance

6. SIMULATIONS

Symbol
mass
lcg

Dimension
kg
m

Magnitude
2 700
-1.5

KG
kxx
kzz
kyy

m
m
m
m

-0.78
4.30
2.20
4.80

Dimension
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

Magnitude
12.0
32.00
8.00
26.50
4.8
7.6
26.5
17.9
10.26
-0.10

Symbol
E
P
J
I
mgu
mgl
sl
smw
spl
xmast

sak

Figure 12 Definition figure

Table 4 Weight particulars

Sail data
Base of main
Height of main
Base of fore triangle
Height of fore triangle
Mainsail upper girth
Mainsail lower girth
Spinnaker leech
Spinnaker width
Spinnaker pole length
Long position of mast
relative Lwl/2

-xr
ctt

cku

m3
m
-

Table 3 Rudder particulars

Weight data
Total mass incl crew and rig
Long center of gravity,
relative lwl/2
Vertical distance BL to CG
Roll radius of gyration
Yaw radius of gyration
Pitch radius of gyration

xk

tcb

lbulb

Table 2 Keel particulars

Rudder particulars
Span of rudder
Upper chord of rudder
Lower chord of rudder
Thickness ratio of rudder
Volume of rudder
Sweep angle of rudder
Long position of fore end of
rudder, relative Lwl/2

cku

abulb

Table 1 Canoe body particulars

Keel particulars
Span of keel fin
Upper chord of keel
Lower chord of keel
Thickness ratio of keel
Volume of keel fin
Sweep angle of keel fin
Length of bulb
Height of bulb
Volume of bulb
Chord of trimtab, rel total
keel chord
Long position of fore end of
keel, Lwl/2

lwl

Resistance (kN)

Canoe body particular

Length over all
Max beam
Max water line beam
Length between girths
Design water line length
(without sails and crew)
Water line length (including
sails and crew)
Canoe body displacement
Draught of canoe body
Prismatic coefficient

Loa

A number of simulations have been carried out in upwind

conditions, with the pitch radius of gyration varied from
3.8 m up to 5.8 m, which corresponds to 18.9% of the
Lbg up to 28.9%.
6.1 Added resistance in regular waves
Figure 14 and Figure 15 show the added resistance in
regular waves, head seas for 8 and 10 knots respectively.
For the three different radii of gyrations tested the peak
varies from 3.3 sec up to 3.8 sec, i. e. wave lengths from
17 m up to 23 m.
The wave height was for all periods 1.0 m.

kyy=3.8
kyy=4.8
kyy=5.8

8
6

Added resistance (kN)

Added resistance (kN)

10

4
2
0
0

4
6
Period (sec)

10

1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4

10 kn wind
15 kn wind
20 kn wind

0.2
0
3

Figure 14 Added resistance in regular waves. 8

knots speed

4
5
Pitch radius of gyration (m)

Figure 16 Added resistance. H1/3=0.75 m Tz=3.5 sec

10
kyy=3.8
kyy=4.8
kyy=5.8

8
6

Velocity Made Good (kn)

Added resistance (kN)

In Figure 17 the corresponding VMG values are

provided.

4
2
0
0

4
6
Period (sec)

10

Figure 15 Added resistance in regular waves.

knots speed

8,5
8
7,5
7

10 kn wind
15 kn wind
20 kn wind

6,5
6
3

10

4
5
Pitch radius of gyration (m)

Figure 17 Velocity made good. H1/3=0.75 m Tz=3.5 sec

The phenomenon found in the model tests, see above,
that a minimum added resistance was obtained for a
radius of gyration, which was not the smallest one, was
not identified in the simulations.

6.2 Variation of radius of gyration

6.3 Variation of mean wave period

Figure 16 shows how the added resistance in a real

seaway varies with the pitch radius of gyration. The set
point course over ground was in each case optimized
with regards to the vmg. This meant 37 for 10 knots,
35 for 15 knots and 34 for 20 knots wind respectively.
In calm water the corresponding figures were 34, 32
and 31 respectively

Figure 18 and Figure 19 show how added resistance and

VMG vary with the mean zero crossing period.

Added resistance (kN)

As is shown in Figure 14 and Figure 15 above, there is

only a small difference added in resistance between the
two speeds tested, the higher speed proves a slightly
higher resistance. The model tests were not conclusive
in this respect.

1.2
1
0.8
0.6
10 kn wind

0.4

15 kn wind

0.2

20 kn wind

0
3

3.5
4
Mean period (sec)

4.5

Figure 18 Added resistance. H1/3=0.75 m kyy=4.8 m

8
7.5
7

10 kn wind
15 kn wind

6.5

20 kn wind

6
3

3.5
4
Mean period (sec)

4.5

Velocity Made Good (kn)

Velocity Made Good (kn)

8.5

8.5
8
7.5
kyy=3.8
kyy=4.3
kyy=4.8
kyy=5.3
kyy=5.8
No waves

7
6.5
6
0

Figure 19Velocity made good. H1/3=0.75 m kyy=4.8 m

10
15
20
Wind speed (m)

25

Figure 21 Velocity made good

6.4 Variation of wind speed and wave height

Figure 20 shows how the added resistance varies with
different weather conditions. The cases tested are as
follows:
Sign wave height
(m)
0.3
0.6
0.9
1.2

Mean period
(sec)
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0

Wind speed
(kn)
10
15
20
25

The diagram above clearly shows that the influence of

the magnitude of radius of gyration on the sailing
properties is significant. A realistic variation of radius of
gyration of say 0.5m may mean a difference in VMG of
0.1- 0.2 knots.
7. CONCLUSIONS
The purpose of the paper was partly to present a new
approach for making velocity predictions and partly to
study the effect of different pitch radii of gyration in
upwind conditions. The following comments can be
made.

Added resistance (kN)

Table 6 Wave spectra tested

Model tests results:

The indications from the model tests that there might be
an optimum for the pitch radius of gyration is interesting
but needs to be supported with more extensive model
tests to be reliable. Tests with larger variations of the
pitch radius and a larger variation in wave spectra can
give an answer if this is a significant effect. The effect
was not identified in the simulations.

2
kyy=3.8
kyy=4.3
kyy=4.8
kyy=5.3
kyy=5.8

1,5
1
0,5
0
0

10
15
20
Wind speed (m)

25

Figure 20 Added resistance

The VMG values for the different weather conditions are
given in Figure 21
For the wind speeds tested, the boat speed varies between
9.2 and 9.9 knots. According to Figure 13, the calm
water resistance is for 9.5 knots approximately 3.5 kN.
This means an increase of the total resistance, due to the
waves, of 20-50%.

DVPP simulation tool:

A time domain DVPP simulation program has been
developed. Comparisons with model tests have shown
that the program well represents the yacht speed in
different arbitrary weather conditions. In particular, the
added resistance in waves is represented in the DVPP in
a satisfactory way, especially using the pressure
integration method introduced here.
Effect of different radii of gyration:
The simulations show, as could be expected, a significant
influence of the pitch radius of gyration magnitude on the
boat performance for the higher waves tested. At 20
knots wind speed and 0.9 m significant wave height, the
VMG value varies from 7.45 to 7.70 knots when
changing the radius from 5.8 m down to 3.8 m; i.e. a
3.3% reduction. However at the lower wind speeds and
wave heights the difference is not so significant. For 15
knot wind and 0.6 m wave height, there is almost no
effect at all.

The mean added resistance obtained in some of the

model tests for a pitch radius of gyration which was not
the smallest one, has not been experienced in the
simulations.
The added resistance is according to both the model tests
and the simulations rather unaffected by the boat speed.

3.

van Ossanen P: Predicting the Speed of Sailing

Yachts, Paper No 12, SNAME 1993

4.

Larsson L & Eliasson R: Principles of Yacht

Design, Adlard Coles Nautical, London 1994

5.

Ottosson P: Mathematical models in

PORTSIM, 3rd International conference on
manoeuvring and control of marine craft
(MCMC 94), Southampton, UK 7-9 September
1994.
Papers,
pp
177-196.

6.

Ottosson P and Bystrm L: Simulation of the

dynamics of a ship manoeuvring in waves.
SNAME Transactions, Vol. 99, 1991, pp. 281298.

7.

Hoerner S: Fluid Dynamic Lift, 1965

References
1.

Lloyd A R J M: Seakeeping Ship Behaviour in

Rough Weather Ellis Horwood Ltd, 1989

2.

Gerritsma J & Beukelman W: Analysis of the

Resistance Increase in Waves of a Fast Cargo
Ship, Laboratorium voor Scheepsboukunde
Report
No
334,
1971