[Public-List] Dynamic Loads while sailing

Thu Jan 14 13:07:33 PST 2010

I saw the bea flex as much as 12 inches - or a foot. 

        There is no door to the forward cabin on Infinity - there is a
        door to
        the locker. On Daybreak this door servers both purposes but
        Infinity has
        none.

        As for the "Literary" Liscense - there may be some but very
        little - The
        mast had forced the beam flat - straight across. The door jambs
        were
        bowed. When I did the sistering project I jacked the deck up the
        full
        extent of the arc of the beam  or 6". I still have a break that
        is
        transverse to the beam on the bottom in the center(bow to
        stern). So to
        me this flex was full extent with the mast coming down on that
        beam and
        12" or a foot was not an unreasonable measurement.

        Scary...

        C.B Currier
        Infinity #57
        Daybreak #458

        P.S. On the Melges 24s we have a deck stepped mast with a
        reinforcing
        pole that intersects with a 4 pointed step just in front of the
        Keel. A
        much better way of engineering the step.

On Tue, 2010-01-12 at 13:43 -0500, Roger L. Kingsland wrote:
> J,
> 
> Referencing 1 foot mast beam deflection.  My feeling is, that in moments of
> literary creation, the fine line between exaggeration and poetic license can
> be stretched, even deflected to any degree determined necessary by the
> author to achieve the higher purpose of making the point to those not having
> had the privilege of sharing the experience necessarily and beneficially
> embellished by subject exaggeration.
> 
> Best, Roger 148 
> 
> 
> Roger Kingsland, Managing Partner
> Kingsland Scott Bauer Associates
> 
>  
> 
> KSBA 
> ________________________________
> 
> Architects/Planners/InteriorDesigners/ProjectManagers
>  
> 3441 Butler Street
> Pittsburgh, PA 15201
> N 40° 27.8344'  W79° 57.9831'
>  
> 412-252-1500 ext.101 
> 412-779-5101 cell 
> 412-252-1510 fax
> r.kingsland at ksba.com
> www.ksba.com
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-list-bounces at lists.alberg30.org
> [mailto:public-list-bounces at lists.alberg30.org] On Behalf Of J Bergquist
> Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 11:56 AM
> To: Alberg 30 Public List -- open to all
> Subject: Re: [Public-List] Dynamic Loads while sailing
> 
> What I want to know is if you were seeing beam deflections of 1 foot, what
> happened to the door between the main cabin and the forepeak? Not to mention
> the bulkhead that is attached to the beam? I can't imagine how those parts
> survived beam and deck deflections of a foot.
> 
> A comment about beam deflections...all materials deflect. The amount of
> deflection is a function of the size of the load, the dimensions of the
> structural member, and the materials of which it is made, but all materials
> (aluminum, wood, steel, carbon, kevlar, hemp, dacron, mylar,
> spectra) deflect under load. You may not be able to measure the deflection,
> but every structural material which is placed under a load will deflect some
> non-zero amount.
> 
> So the idea that the aluminum beam sistering fix completely eliminates
> deflection in the mast beam of our boats is erroneous. It may reduce the
> deflection to levels which we cannot measure with the tools available to us
> (tape measure, dial indicator, or what have you), but there is still
> deflection. The amount of deflection will depend on many things...static and
> dynamic loads are a whole 'nother topic.
> 
> J
> 
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 11:42 AM, Lawrence Morris <morris.lc at verizon.net>
> wrote:
> > Michael,
> >
> > There are a number of components that flex in the system: sails, 
> > halyards, sheets, standing rigging.  I think you want to minimize 
> > flexing in structural elements of the hull and deck.  if the beam 
> > flexs the deck flexs and the bulkhead flexs.  I want something above 
> > the deck to fail in case of extreme dynamic loading.  rigging, sails 
> > halyard or even mast.  What I don't want is that the beam is flexing 
> > and then fails during complete knockdown and punch the mast through 
> > the deck.  I want that beam to be the strongest element on the boat 
> > and as stiff as possible.  This has 2 benefits one is it makes the 
> > boat safer and it improves performance.  The less flex in the rig and
> structure the more thrust is delvered to the water the faster you go.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Larry Morris
> > Solstice, #501
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Jan 12, 2010, at 10:40 AM, crufone at comcast.net wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Michael,
> >>
> >> Just remember the beam will continue to flex under load.  The reason 
> >> the original adhesive failed is that it brittle brittle and failed 
> >> under the repeated flexing of the beam.  The AL plates will not flex 
> >> making the entire structure very stiff.  Static load flexing 
> >> (flattening you described) is not as much of a concern as the shock 
> >> load flexing.  This dynamic loading of the structure is what causes 
> >> the beam to fail over time.  and unless you have strain gages I don't 
> >> believe you can measure it accurately.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Larry Morris has got me to thinking with his response above.  Is 
> >> there any support for the argument to design in some flex in the mast 
> >> beam as it transfers the load from the mast butt to the hull? I know 
> >> that structural engineers design in flexible components for tall 
> >> buildings so that they can resist various wind load conditions.  If 
> >> the buildings were rigid the wind load would exceed the strength of the
> materials and the buildings collapse?
> >>
> >> So is there some merit in allowing the mast beam some flex?  I wonder 
> >> if the mast beam were too rigid  might something else fail?
> >>
> >> I assume while in a strong gust that the rig loads up in some sort of 
> >> sequence, i.e., sails, running rigging, mast, shrouds, chain plates, 
> >> couch roof, mast beam , bulkheads, hull, keel.  This might only take 
> >> part of a second, but it does happen in sequence.  My thought is if 
> >> each component has some flex or elasticity then the opportunity for 
> >> the whole to absorb more load is greater. Is this true or am I just out
> to lunch?
> >>
> >> Michael #133
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> These businesses support your Association:
> >> http://www.alberg30.org/store/A30supporters.html
> >> Please support them.
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Public-List mailing list
> >> Public-List at lists.alberg30.org
> >> http://lists.alberg30.org/listinfo.cgi/public-list-alberg30.org
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > These businesses support your Association:
> > http://www.alberg30.org/store/A30supporters.html
> > Please support them.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Public-List mailing list
> > Public-List at lists.alberg30.org
> > http://lists.alberg30.org/listinfo.cgi/public-list-alberg30.org
> >
> _______________________________________________
> These businesses support your Association:
> http://www.alberg30.org/store/A30supporters.html
> Please support them.
> _______________________________________________
> Public-List mailing list
> Public-List at lists.alberg30.org
> http://lists.alberg30.org/listinfo.cgi/public-list-alberg30.org
> 
> _______________________________________________
> These businesses support your Association:
> http://www.alberg30.org/store/A30supporters.html
> Please support them.
> _______________________________________________
> Public-List mailing list
> Public-List at lists.alberg30.org
> http://lists.alberg30.org/listinfo.cgi/public-list-alberg30.org

 1263503253.0