| Re: Front Beam within a beam
[Re: waynemarlow]
#100454 03/11/07 11:01 PM 03/11/07 11:01 PM |
Joined: Oct 2005 Posts: 951 Brisbane, Queensland, Australi... ncik
old hand
|
old hand
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 951 Brisbane, Queensland, Australi... | first impressions are it would be too heavy...but it would be stronger...
inital thought on the idea is that the contact faces of the aluminium on the foam would need to have a good bond, shear forces between the foam and aluminium would be high I imagine.
I believe the stiffness of the beam would be only marginally increased. If striker-less, you need to consider the stiffness of the beam because any deflection will reduce your rig tension, which generally affects pointing ability adversely.
70*1.6 tube - I = 201000 mm^4 70*1.6 tube + 50*1.6 tube - I = 272000 mm^4
Assuming material is 6061-T6 with yield stress of 240MPa, E=70GPa.
with a load of 220kg on the first beam (length = 2.5m) the maximum stress will be about 235MPa, and deflection = 50mm. (With 2% deflection, buckling will probably be a concern!)
with the same load on the second beam the maximum stress will be about 174MPa, and deflection = 37mm (1.5%).
1% deflection is the limit allowed by Australian standards for aluminium boats (AS4132).
My "opinion" is that it is not suitable (I wouldn't do it). 220kg load on the beam is likely (crew weight on trapeze plus initial rig tension could amount to more than this then take into account increased accelerations when sailing in waves!).
Like all engineering, there are multiple solutions/opinions so please make comments.
well lunch is over, better get back to work.
Insert disclaimer here.
Having said all this, it is a racing machine and if you don't mind nursing it around the course in a blow! But it will be a heavy beam so the advantages in light conditions will be lost.
This is assuming the foam is rigid enough to force the internal beam to be parallel to the outer beam when flexing.
Last edited by ncik; 03/12/07 02:21 AM.
| | | Re: Front Beam within a beam
[Re: ncik]
#100455 03/12/07 02:45 AM 03/12/07 02:45 AM |
Joined: Jun 2001 Posts: 9,582 North-West Europe Wouter
Carpal Tunnel
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 9,582 North-West Europe | Short post with main points : with a load of 220kg on the first beam (length = 2.5m) the ...
Beamloading is about 1000 kg to 1500 kg in a static sense already, this means that these numbers are a minimum, real (static + dynamic) stresses are most probably higher ! I seriously doubt whether foam is enough to bend the inner beam into shape. I fully expect the foam to be compressed and the inner beam to work itself some slack in which to stay straight while the outer beam bends. If you have to do this then do it alu on alu like an 80x2 outer beam and a 75x2 inner beam. That is how unstayed masts are made on landyachts. I don't think your idea of tube with significantly different diameters and foam to fill the space between them has merit. I'm sorry. Wouter
Wouter Hijink Formula 16 NED 243 (one-off; homebuild) The Netherlands
| | | Re: Front Beam within a beam
[Re: waynemarlow]
#100457 03/12/07 09:28 AM 03/12/07 09:28 AM |
Joined: Oct 2001 Posts: 915 Dublin, Ireland Dermot
old hand
|
old hand
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 915 Dublin, Ireland | sort of figured that there must be a reason that the manufacturers are not doing it this way. Thanks guys for the response.
Any other odd ball solutions like using the tube as a mould for a number of layers of carbon fibre but leaving the ali tube insitu, would you get such uneven stresses between the carbon and ali tube that the epoxy bond between the two would shear ? <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" /> Maybe have a look at the Spitfire beam - it does not need a dolphin striker.
Dermot Catapult 265
| | | Re: Front Beam within a beam
[Re: Dermot]
#100458 03/12/07 10:10 AM 03/12/07 10:10 AM |
Joined: Jun 2001 Posts: 9,582 North-West Europe Wouter
Carpal Tunnel
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 9,582 North-West Europe |
It is not difficult to have a dophinstrikerless mainbeam. Just order an alu beam with a much ticker wallthickenss. Actually the first Stealths were build this way and so you can contact John Pierce and ask what he used.
Downsides are indeed added weight and the fact that the mainbeam will never be as stiff as the beam with a dolphinstriker. The latter will impact negatively on your pointing ability especially with a modern squaretop rig as these require quite some leech tension upwind. These are actually the reason, I believe, that the newer stealths were quickle all fitted with dolpinstrikers.
Wouter
Wouter Hijink Formula 16 NED 243 (one-off; homebuild) The Netherlands
| | | Re: Front Beam within a beam
[Re: Wouter]
#100461 03/12/07 01:38 PM 03/12/07 01:38 PM |
Joined: Mar 2003 Posts: 131 Scotland George_Malloch
member
|
member
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 131 Scotland | These are actually the reason, I believe, that the newer stealths were quickle all fitted with dolpinstrikers.
Wouter
I'd heard it was because the original section wasn't produced anymore. | | | Re: Front Beam within a beam
[Re: ratherbsailing]
#100468 03/13/07 05:11 AM 03/13/07 05:11 AM |
Joined: Jun 2001 Posts: 9,582 North-West Europe Wouter
Carpal Tunnel
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 9,582 North-West Europe |
You need at about 3 times as much material (=crosssection) when making stuff out of alu then you would out of stainless steel. That is because its max strength is roughly 3 times less.
We can go into details but I think this will suffice for now.
You can also get stainless steel wires and have them act as a dolphinstriker. As Hans for more info on that as he has used this setup frequently on his own boats.
Wouter
Wouter Hijink Formula 16 NED 243 (one-off; homebuild) The Netherlands
| | |
|
0 registered members (),
625
guests, and 32
spiders. | Key: Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod | | Forums26 Topics22,406 Posts267,061 Members8,150 | Most Online2,167 Dec 19th, 2022 | | |