Keels & ULDB

Peppermint

New member
Joined
11 Oct 2002
Messages
2,919
Location
Home in Chilterns, Boat in Southampton, Another bo
Visit site
Below is a precise of a case from Australia.

Resistance to shear forces in composite structures is a bit of a nightmare to calculate and if your searching for lightness it’s pretty critical.

Also interesting to note that. If a yacht is constructed for sail training the inspection cycle during construction and the standards of that construction are rigorous. Whereas, if a yacht is brought into sail training post-build i.e. secondhand a visual survey is all that is required.

“The NSW Coroner has recently completed his Inquest into the deaths of two (of the six) members of the crew of the yacht “Rising Farrster”, a Farr 38 owned by "Flying Fish Leisure Management International (LMI)", a UK based organisation, and built by Binks Yachts of South Australia in 1993.

The Coroner found that both deaths occurred as a result of drowning when the keel of the yacht separated from the hull causing the vessel to capsize.

“Rising Farrster” was on a sail training passage from Southport, Queensland, to Sydney, NSW after having previously made the passage from Sydney to Southport, when she capsized off Evans Head. The wind was about 20 knots with a 1.5 metre swell.

The cause of the capsize was established to be that the fin keel separated from the hull unexpectedly; within 15 to 20 seconds the yacht had capsized.

The primary cause of the failure was inadequate hull shell thickness in way of the keel washer plates.

The 1986 revision of the ABS guide does not properly account for the shear loads at the edge of the washer plates in the case of “Rising Farrster”. In fact the 1986 ABS required minimum hull shell thickness of 6.8 mm is only 37% of the 18.5 mm of thickness required to produce a safety factor of 2 on shear stress in way of the washer plates.

The 1996 (sic 1994?) version of the ABS guide does not properly account for the shear loads of the washer plates in the case of “Rising Farrster”. To comply with the later revision, the hull shell laminate in way of the washer plates would have been required to be a minimum thickness of 27 mm.

His Worship's relevant recommendation is "The Australian Yachting Federation (now known as Yachting Australia), in conjunction with the Yachting Association of NSW, and yacht clubs endeavour to contact owners of light displacement yachts fitted with fin keels subject to pre 1994 ABS approval, to provide them with a précis of my summing up, findings and recommendations at inquest in order that appropriate decisions can be made by owners as to checking and/or modification of yachts."“

<hr width=100% size=1>
 

penfold

Well-known member
Joined
25 Aug 2003
Messages
7,729
Location
On the Clyde
Visit site
It seems to be saying, 'if your boat is built like a bath toy, expect it to come apart when the wind blows a bit'. What next for the department for stating the bleeding obvious? The shocking expose, 'Bears and their toilet habits; tread carefully in the woods'? Words fail me....

cheers,
david

<hr width=100% size=1>I employed you people to get a little railroad laid, not to dance around like Kansas City faggots!
 

MainlySteam

New member
Joined
24 Jul 2003
Messages
2,001
Visit site
<<<Sort of gives a reason why the EU came up with its RCD! >>>

I think you are kidding yourself on that. The RCD is a just a pathetic statement of the obvious and has little merit when applied to boats from capable designers. The closest you will come in the RCD to the requirements for the keel is "The choice and combination of materials and its construction shall ensure that the craft is strong enough in all respects" and that is a statement applying to the whole boat, it is not aimed specifically at the keel. I would consider that is kind of stating the obvious and I have no idea of what merit it brings to capable yacht design.

I am sure that Farr and ABS know far (sic) more about what is required in that direction than any of the gnomes involved with the writing of the Directive.

John

<hr width=100% size=1>
 

30boat

N/A
Joined
26 Oct 2001
Messages
8,558
Location
Portugal
Visit site
It's not just hull thickness that can go wrong.A friend's Bashford Howison(Australian design but built in Spain) lost it's keel in very moderate conditions.He later told me that it looked like the bolts had been ground flush with the bottom.This raises a number of questions about modern boats with very high aspect ratio keels that impose huge loads on the structure.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 

charles_reed

Active member
Joined
29 Jun 2001
Messages
10,413
Location
Home Shropshire 6/12; boat Greece 6/12
Visit site
A Good idea, incompetently applied

The RCD, which isn't worth the paper on which it is written (except to hordes of eurocrats who make their living out of obfuscation).

Whilst the theory - to protect an ignorant public and ensure they get "good-for-purpose" boats - is fine in practice it's up to the manufacturer to self-certify and there are no measurables in the RCD.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 

Cornishman

New member
Joined
29 Jul 2002
Messages
6,402
Location
Cornwall
Visit site
I think you have missed my point. Whenever incidents of any sort occur it is a golden opportunity for the 'crats to write a new law/directive/code of practice etc. I agree that the RCD is a load of c**p but it was probably the result of somebody reading a newspaper report (more than likely inaccurate) of some incident or other which involved the construction of a yacht somewhere.
I could quote at least two regulations which have been the result of accidents at sea, but not here. A good example of a bad regulation resulting from an incident was the Dangerous Dogs Act.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 

MainlySteam

New member
Joined
24 Jul 2003
Messages
2,001
Visit site
Think your point was easy to miss if you re-read your post. I understand now that it was tongue in cheek.

Regards and best wishes for the festive season

John

<hr width=100% size=1>
 

MainlySteam

New member
Joined
24 Jul 2003
Messages
2,001
Visit site
One of the problems is that, as far as I know, there is no classification society or other relevant organisation rule or guide applicable to sizing scantlings for small yachts. ABS's "Building and Classing Offshore Racing Yachts" is often used, however it is aimed at larger vessels than most of us have, and certainly much larger than the Australian Farr boat that had the accident (the ABS states "This guide is applicable to offshore racing yachts over 24m and up to 30.5 m in length" so the coroner's apparant claim that ABS was not sufficient cannot be taken as a criticism of the guide in the Australian case). Also, as far as I know, the ABS guide, whilst still available, is not supported anymore by ABS, at least they claimed that some time ago but may have since changed their minds.

Similarly Lloyds Rules and Regulations for the Classification of Special Service Craft (their rule most applicable to yachts) is also aimed at much larger vessels than most of us can hope to own, also 24 m upwards if I recollect correctly, but again (at least out here) it is often used for design of smaller vessels. In one case that I was involved in it (and the DNV equivalent)resulted in some inappropriate scantlings (heavier than experience indicated was necessary) for a 24 m aluminium yacht and I am currently involved in some 24 m power boats being classed with Lloyds where the scantlings are unecessarily heavy compared to the experience with other vessels of the same design but with lighter scantlings.

The relatively new ISO standards just say nice things about the boat being strong enough and do not size scantlings (as best I remember as they are not much used here on account of their uselessness)

As I think we all know, small vessels are normally inherently much stronger structurally for their service than larger ones (eg bulkers break their backs but 30 foot launches never do) so use of these larger boat guides has merit but maybe in cases where laminates would be sufficient on a larger vessel to resist shear at washer edges on a larger vessel that may not be so on a smaller one. I find the statement claimed of the coroner unclear (it exists the same as quoted elsewhere on the internet too) in that it sounds as if it is the bottom panels of the boat which are too thin (and no one would build a boat of that size with the stated thickness) but I assume he is referring to the glass thickness on the top of the floors through which the keelbolts are normally bolted. Maybe someone knows.

John

<hr width=100% size=1>
 

Twister_Ken

Well-known member
Joined
31 May 2001
Messages
27,584
Location
'ang on a mo, I'll just take some bearings
Visit site
Space frames.

There was at least one race boat – can't remember if she started life as Imp and became Whirlwind, or vice-versa - where all the rig and keel loads were triangulated using an internal space frame, so that the hull shell was doing not much more than looking pretty and keeping the water out. It must have played havoc with living room, but would seem to be an entirely sensible way to go in a ULDB.

<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.writeforweb.com/twister1>Let's Twist Again</A>
 

MainlySteam

New member
Joined
24 Jul 2003
Messages
2,001
Visit site
Re: Space frames.

Hi Ken

The accident can happen the other way around too, that is the bolts stay with the boat when the keel is lost. One case I know was Digby Taylor's (of Whitbread skipper experience) "Castaway Fiji" in the 1987 2 handed Melbourne to Osaka race. It lost its keel and unfortunately one of the crew (not Taylor) was lost. While the boat was not recovered it was clear that what happened was that the keel bolts were cast into the lead in the keel, but were cast in too shallowly. The result was that they pulled out of the lead and the boat fell over leaving the bolts still with the boat.

As best I remember that was not a designers fault but a builder's and Taylors own as I recall.

Fortunately they don't seem to fall off cruising boats, especially Twisters! By the way, I have just discovered that there is a 40 foot Holman parked just on the pier opposite us, as I know the owner I will have to get myself a tour of it.

John

<hr width=100% size=1>
 

Other threads that may be of interest

Top