Crossbeam calculations

Well, a big thank you to everyone - great discussion. Several points raised I want to address:-

Daiquiri - Agree with Ad Hoc, your summary clarifies things. Euler and buckling, thanks for that.
I've gone through that now and due to the slenderness ratio of my possible tubes (31.8) calculated
by Johnson formula and the results look fine, though, not finding the maths particularly easy I am
wondering about the combined effect of deflection caused by bending moment and the buckling
force on the tubes. Designing the beams to be within fatique stress levels is where I started from
and have been taking the fatique stress of 6061 T6 as 96 Mpa. I have seen figures to suggest that
6082 T6 has slightly higher fatigue stress around 120 Mpa, but I'm not sure if 6082 is really viable
in the marine environment. You mention "inertial relief" how do you calculate for that? How do
you calculate for an impact into seawater?
langdon2Junior Member
Hi, Catsketcher Phil,

I've read, with great interest, your posts elsewhere about your tri/cat deliberations. I imagine your
tri plans would be very interesting to see...

Thanks for the FT reference. I even have the book..just been so long since I read it I'd clean
forgotten all that stuff about the beams, so have now read and re-read it again. And for general
historical perspective here are two pages from the book.

Reverse engineering - precedent. Yep, been doing lots of that, looking everywhere for data. Going
out with tape and camera has got to be worthwhile and pleasant, too. Just hope the marina
security people don't get too agitated....

I do admire the Buccaneers and Lock Crowther's tris in general and have some info on the Bucc 24
and 33:

Buccaneer 24: LOA 24' 3" LWL 23' BOA 19' Displ 2000 lbs
Crossbeams specified as 4 3/4" by 0.104" wall extruded 6061 T6
aluminium tube.
Unsupported beam length approx 3'6" between edge of wing
and float inner gunn'l.

Buccaneer 33 LOA 33' LWL 31' 6" BOA 23' 6" displ. 6000 lbs

Crossbeams elliptical 8" x 5 3/4" x 3/16" wall

203.2 x 146.1 x 4.8 mm 6061 T6
aluminium tube.
Unsupported beam length between wing edge and inner float gunn'l
= approx 4' 10"

I really like the Bucc 33, wish I'd built one back then...however, she is also the most interesting
example for me because she's so close to my design as far as basic measurements go - 24' BOA /
6000 lbs displacement and similar measurements on beam unsupported length, main hull beam at
crossbeams etc. Lock Crowther's specified beams are smaller than what I've come up with for my
boat - 12" / 1/4" wall tube 304.8/ 6.35mm BUT the Buccaneers have waterstays and shrouds out to
the floats. I read one description of a Bucc 24's floats pretty much being held up by the mast... As
of right now I don't know how to calculate the difference that triangulation of beam, waterstay and
shroud affects the beam scantlings. And my boat won't have rigging out to the floats anyway.

You mention Chris White's Explorer 34 - another good example, big ally tubes, no waterstays, but
I've no info on her exact dimensions. Nice boat, though.

Oh, and lastly, I am fixed on this being a tri not a cat. I just have to accept that an amateur
designed and built trimaran will be worth firewood money at the end of it all. But I'm in it for the
designing and the making and the sailing and the going and that's that. Cheers!
(And no, that doesn't mean I have bucketsfull of banker-bonus scale money .)
 Daiquiri
langdon2 said: ↑
Euler and buckling, thanks for that. I've gone through that now and due to the slenderness ratio of my possible tubes
(31.8) calculated by Johnson formula and the results look fine, though, not finding the maths particularly easy I am
wondering about the combined effect of deflection caused by bending moment and the buckling force on the tubes.

The Euler formula is propedeutic to the beam buckling, and what you have in this case requires a step
further into a slender-beam buckling theory.

The combined effect of the axial force and bending moment is accounted for by the so-called "eccentricity"
(of the applied axial force). In other words, you have to consider the axial force applied not at the centerline
of the beam (like Euler formula does), but at some distance y from the centreline. When you know the
eccentricity you can calculate the maximum allowed stress with, for example, the secant formula.

You can find the explanation of the method here, for

example: http://www.mitcalc.com/doc/buckling/help/en/buckling.htm , with the clarification of the
variables involved.

Another website where column buckling is very well explained, and which I really reccomend reading, is
this one: http://www.efunda.com/formulae/solid_mechanics/columns/eccentric.cfm

langdon2 said: ↑
You mention "inertial relief" how do you calculate for that? How do you calculate for an impact into seawater?

The inertial relief accounts for local acceleration of the rigid or elastic body. For example, I've prepared this
drawing which shows how the inertia force affects the calculation of the bending moment along the cross
beam (supposed rigid):
The case n.1 shows the calculation of the bending moment (Mb,1) if there were just static forces, like
buoyancy Fh and ama's weight.
The case n.2 shows the same calulation, but with inclusion of the inertia force acting on the ama's mass. As
you can see, the bending moment (Mb,2) equals Mb,a minus a moment due to inertial force. In other words,
there is a relieving effect on the bending moment due to body inertia.
The inertia force points downwards because, in the boat's reference frame, the ama will tend to accelerate
upwards pushed by the hydrodynamic force - and hence the inertia will act downwards.

So it clearly plays in favour of safety to ignore the inertial relief and do just the static-case bending moment
calculations.

Otherwise, a proper calculation of the accelerations requires the inclusion of crossbeam's elasticity - and is
not trivial. It is usually done with combined structural FEM and CFD - where CFD gives the hydrodynamic
loads due to ama's impact with water, which is then fed to a FEM software for the calculation of the
structure's response. And that's done for incremental time steps form the moment of impact with water
surface.

It can also be done manually, but is an incredibly tedious task - not worth doing for a small boat. It is done
by considering a quasi-static case where the water acts on the ama through the hydrostatic buoyancy only.
At every time step the vertical force due to the buoyancy, and it's effect on the boat's dynamics, is calculated
through time-wise numerical integration. A titanic job indeed, if done manually.

You can find attached here a pdf file with guidelines for FEM calculations for container ships, made
available by DNV classification society. Just for the sake of our general culture.

Cheers!