2006 International Sandwich Symposium

APRIL 20TH - SEATTLE - WASHINGTON - USA

Building Fully-Cored Rescue Boats

by Rolf Eliasson - B. Sc., M.A.

sponsored by:

E Z

2006 Sandwich Conference

The Author - Rolf Eliasson - B. Sc., M.A.
After winning the Yachting World International Design Contest in 1976 Rolf founded R.E.Yacht Design. Since this time he has produced well over 100 designs ranging from an 8 ft. dinghy to a 73 ft. cruising yacht. His design work for Swedish-based, Nimbus Boats covers some 22 power boat models. Rolf estimates that the total number of boats built from his designs now amounts to over 6,000. In 1991 he became a member of the ISO working group responsible for writing standards for the EU Pleasure Boat Directive. Together with Prof. Lars Larsson, head of the naval architecture department of Chalmers Technical University in Gothenburg, he wrote the standard reference work Principles of Yacht Design.

The Main Reasons for Fast Light Rescue Boats

Studies made by the SSRS (Swedish Sea Rescue Society) in the early 1990s showed that the majority of all accidents involving pleasure boats in Swedish waters occur within 10 nautical miles from shore. When this was taken into consideration, together with the fact that people die mostly from hypothermia and not by drowning (the water temperature in the Gulf of Bothnia and the north of the Baltic Sea is only 39-41F [4-5C] well into June) it was clear that the speed capability and as short as possible readiness was the targets to aim for. As a result of this the SSRS decided to concentrate its new builds and replacement programme on light, fast lifeboats. Clearly, the ASTRA-type was too slow for the majority of assignments. Something new was needed. Discussions within the SSRS led to the following;

Introduction

Requirements:
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Colin Archers rescue boat, the epitome of seaworthiness and performance, in her time. A good tradition to build on... Maximum speed in excess of 30 knots. All weather capacity. Self-righting. Limited ice-going capabilities. Shallow draught. Stretcher places for emergency transports. Easy recovery of PIW (Person in Water). Easy on-station repairability. Redundancy.

Consequences:
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Suitable hull design and light weight. High speed maneuverability in rough seas. Low centre of gravity and large deckhouse volumes. Rugged bottom construction. No room for propellers and rudders means waterjet. Interior arrangement to be laid out consequently. Low freeboard aft. No exotic materials or methods. Built in redundancy of key parts/equipment.

Resulting Design
1. The shape of the still waterline gives a hint of the forebody design. Not too sharp but neither too full. A delicate balance. 2

Fig. 1 - Pre-1995, ASTRA, heavy, slow and reliable. Building Fully Cored Rescue Boats

2006 Sandwich Conference

appear. Not too sharp and deep forefoot to avoid broaching in following seas, moderate deep-vee deadrise (a balance between an easily driven and a softly riding hull), simple prismatic shape of the hull that is good for the waterjets, the performance and ease of construction. The boats were to be built without using any female molds. This led to a design with only developed surfaces in order to use whole sheets of foam thereby minimizing the number of joints.

Fig. 2 - Main features of the new SSRS rescue vessel. 2. Negative deadrise of chine strake to increase lift. 3. Negative deadrise of planing strakes for the same reason as 2. Strakes taper towards the bow, and deadrise gradually becomes positive, not to slam too hard in heavy seas. 4. Boundary of wetted surface at 40 knots. Rails go into this area, but no further. 5. Spray deection area of the rails. 6. Wetted surface at 40 knots, about half of static wetted area. 7. Waterjet intake. No rails, keels or other devices in front of them, to give a clean ow of the water to the jets. 8. Raised part of bottom beside the jets to enable proper operation in reverse. 9. Modied RIB-type collar. It is not lled with air, but with an elastic polyurethane foam, covered with a skin of tough polyurethane and Kevlar. Tapering of the collar forward is important, since otherwise too much buoyancy might develop when running into a head wave, capsizing the boat backwards. 10. For stability reasons the deckhouse is relatively large. Due to its larger size, the 65 footer (20 meter) boat is more slender than the 40 footer (12 meter), but the same features Building Fully Cored Rescue Boats
Fig. 4 - The dory schooner Saharah, 1974.

Fig. 3 - The hull lines of the SSRS-2000 RESCUE. For a planing boat, the limitation of just using developed surfaces is not necessarily a bad thing, and with good computer software it is not even difcult. As can be seen in Figure 3, the sides are almost slab sided with no are, but on the nished craft the topside-covering collar is designed to provide the are. More of that later.

Some Personal Sandwich History - Why Not a Schooner?

This is an early (1974) fully-cored sandwich construction, with PVC-foam and glass/polyester laminates. All parts are built this way - hull, deck, superstructure, bulkheads and 3

2006 Sandwich Conference

stiffening system. In those days it was considered unwise to build an offshore going sailboat in full sandwich. The experts sentenced it to an early grave, broken up by the sea. They were wrong.

Why Not a High Speed Powerboat?

Fig. 6 - The SSRS-1200 RESCUE, 1995. (Photo: Dan Ljungsvik)

Fig. 5 - 70 knot sportsboat Thundercan, 1985.

shifted one inch (2.45 cm) to the side. This resulted in the only high-tech items onboard, the jack-shafts between the engines and jets, made of epoxy/carbon bre (to save weight) exploding in a cloud of black dust. It was interesting to inspect the boat afterwards. No cracks in the laminates anywhere, the engine beds/bottom stringers were intact as were the attachment of the elastic vibration dampers of the engines. But the feet of the engines themselves were not. They were bent, and that was the reason for the engines moving one inch across the boat. Later discussions with the engine manufacturer, who did some reverse engineering, showed that the impact had resulted in forces in the engine room of 10 g. The boat withstood the test though, but the engine people gave us some good advise, dont run boats at that speed (30 knots) in those sea conditions.

Ten years later (1985) this high speed design was made, also using fully-cored construction in line with the schooner. One big difference was that the laminates were vinylester/ kevlar/carbon/glass. Also, of course, much higher density cores were used. The second big difference was that the fuel tank (gasoline) was integral with the hull, for weight saving and capacity reasons. The tank was stuffed with a kind of metal mesh that is used in F-1 racing cars, to make them less likely to explode on impact. With all this; a fully cored 70 knot boat designed for offshore use and an integral gas tank, the verdict from the experts was even stronger- If it did not blown as a result of a huge gas explosion, the bottom core would be pulverized at the rst high speed slamming impact. Well thats what the experts said. Again they were wrong. Incidentally, this boat was designed on the forepeak of the schooner Saharah during a cruise along the south coat of Norway. Together they became a rescue boat! Ten years later in 1995 this (Figure 6) rescue boat was designed. The picture shows the vessel landing after a jump from a 13 ft. (4 meter) wave. As can be seen the spray rails and negative deadrise of the chine strakes are doing their job as the topsides virtually run dry. One mishap happened during this photo session though (yes, this shot was taken from a helicopter). One landing from a wave ended with the craft on its side. Result: a big bang and loss of propulsion. Reason: the engines had Building Fully Cored Rescue Boats

Basic Construction

Fig. 7 - Basic construction of SSRS-1200 RESCUE.

2006 Sandwich Conference

room stiffeners/engine beds to give an unbroken continuity of the longitudinal stiffening system. Also seen in the picture are the tank bafes of GRP with limber holes in them, adding to the stiffening of the bottom panel. The trench between the tanks is used for piping. There is a diverter valveblock so you can run either or both engines from both tanks or select just one tank. The 65 footer (20 meter) is built in basically the same way. With one big difference. The fuel tanks are not integral with the hull. They are, however, integral with the structure.

Fig. 8 - SSRS-1200 - combination engine beds/bottom stringers.

All surfaces are of developed type to simplify building over male molds with full sheets - easy! This minimizes the number of joints in the core and the risk of voids. By always laminating onto the core, it is possible to obtain a good ber ratio (+50%) without resorting to vacuum bagging. Not using vacuum bagging was a request from the SSRS who wanted the capability to carry out repairs on location. The stiffening system consists of a few heavy stringers, reinforced keel and chine supported by structural sandwich bulkheads - simple! The fuel tanks are integral with the hull to save weight and obtain enough volume for the required range - 350 NM at full speed 10 hours. The cross sections in Figure 7 show the shape of the polyurethane collar giving are to the topsides, and also adding to the stability at moderate heeling angles.

Fig. 10 - The basic structure of the SSRS-2000.

Figure 10 shows the transverse stiffening system, together with the structural soles. The longitudinal stiffeners and skins are omitted. The fuel tanks, shown as cylinders, are tied into bottom oors with their internal bafes (the tanks) continuing the oors. Being situated closer to the neutral axis of the hull compared to being integrated with the hull, the tanks are not as heavily stressed. The reason for not going the 1200 route is simply that I didnt dare. On a larger, leaner boat the hull girder is more susceptible to bending and twisting in a seaway compared to a shorter, more beamy vessel. Anyhow, both ways work for these two designs. The 1200 boat has been in service now for ten years, and to date no structural deciencies have been reported.

Fig. 9 SSRS-1200, integral fuel tank.

The longitudinal inside tank wall and longitudinal bafe are designed as tall top-hat stiffeners connected to the engine Building Fully Cored Rescue Boats

Fig. 11 - The hull reinforcements for the SSRS-2000.

2006 Sandwich Conference

Figure 11 shows the hull reinforcements of the 2000 boat. The greenish bands are where additional bi-directional (double bias) reinforcements are laminated to the inner skin. This is where the stiffeners (stringers, bulkheads and frames) are laminated to the hull. The 1200 boat is built in a similar way. The reason is clearly seen in Figure 12. The problem here are the little red dots shown. This is where it should have been radiused putty for the tabbing, but it is often missing creating a line-void along the stiffeners edge. This is not good and even more so if a regular polyester is used, with its inferior gluing properties. There is a real risk that the tabbing will start to peel off under load. The second method (B) also uses a pre-formed stiffener, but here the anges are glued to the hull. Two important requirements must be satised. The glue/putty must cover the entire ange area and it must possess enough elongation before breaking, otherwise there is a risk that it will crack as a result of a slamming impact. One interesting technique, used by a Finnish yard, is to create the gluing pressure to the stiffening system by sucking air out from the inside of the stiffeners. It is not vacuum bagging rather vacuum gluing. Tests made as early as 1980s by the Swedish State Test Laboratories (Statens Provningsanstalt) showed that on the average, the (B) method was six times stronger than the (A) method - mainly because of (As) weaker peel strength. Method (C) is built in-situ over a core. The form core is puttied down to the hull with good radiuses between the stiffener sides and hull before being laminated over. Providing the stiffener anges are well tapered and the secondary bonding surfaces are clean and roughened, this makes an excellent stiffener to hull joint - especially when vinylester or epoxy is used. This is how the rescue boats are built. The (C) method also lends itself to vacuum bagging techniques.

Fig. 12 - The moment of distribution of a strip of a hull panel.

The bending moment in a hull panel over a support (frame, stringer or bulkhead) is double of that in the mid-panel position, when the panel is xed at the ends. This is exactly what classication societies assume. Also the coming ISO standard 12215 assumes this when calculating the scantlings. So, consequently the critical skin will be the inner one, in compression. Although the scantling rules recognize this, (the 1200 is dimensioned according to DNV High Speed Craft and the 2000 is dimensioned to the ABS High Speed Craft rule) the boats in question are rescue boats and it is unthinkable that they should break up due to heavy weather. That is the reason for the reinforced bands, shown in Figure 11. In addition there is a difference in how the stiffeners are attached to the hull. Three typical examples are shown below.
A
Pre-formed Stiffener

Stringer Details of the SSRS-2000

B
Pre-formed Stiffener

C
In-Situ Stiffener

Tabbing

Tabbing

Flange

Flange

Sandwich Panel

Sandwich Panel

Sandwich Panel

Fig. 13 - Stiffener attachments.

Starting from the left (A), the most common method in production boat building (at least in Scandinavia) to x a stiffening system to the hull, is to pre-form it in a separate female mold, trim the edges to the hull contour (more or less) and then laminate it with tabbings (marked in blue in Figure 13). Building Fully Cored Rescue Boats

Fig. 14 - Bottom Stringer.

The lay-up is simple. Seven plies of 800 g/m2 double bias glass, each of 27.5 in (700 mm) width staggered 1 in. (12 6

2006 Sandwich Conference

mm). The lay-up is started and nished with a layer of 300 g/m2 CSM. The crown of the stringer is additionally reinforced by ve layers of unidirectional glass of 900 g/m2 per ply, sandwiched between the DB-layers. When using a resin with good gluing properties (e.g. epoxy or vinylester) it really doesnt matter in what sequence the plies goes in. Thats the reason for the asymmetric appearance of the anges to the hull. It does simplies the lay-up though as you can use the same width glass for the entire lamination. load assumptions made in the standard. If using a more accurate computation method, FEA, beware of the big risk: DO NOT use load assumptions coming from scantling rules based on classical structural theory with materials working within their elastic limits. NEVER use a calculation model that does not correspond to the load assumptions. May I remind you of the two AC-boats that broke and sank a couple of years ago? It was surely not due to lack of computational power...

16 mm stainless steel

Same laminate as hull bottom 8 x 800 double bias 4 x 30 mm - H100 core

Fig. 16 - The SSRS-2000 stiffening system.

Fig. 15 - Engine Bed.

The engine beds sit on top of the bottom stringers, formed over a core of 100 kg/m3 PVC, with eight layers of 800 g/m2 DB-glass. On top of that is a 16 mm (5/8) stainless steel at-bar for the engine-feet bolts. The entire thing is then laminated over with exactly the same lay-up as the bottom stringers. The method is the same for the 1200 that really stood up to a full scale test during the photo session previously mentioned. Figure 16 shows the relatively simple stiffening system that is needed, when using a fully cored hull and stiffeners, with mechanical properties similar to each other so they cooperate fully. If you go into advanced composite lay-ups, with bers that have big differences in strain properties, then things get a bit complicated. When the laminate schedule is complex and cannot be regarded as quasi-isotropic, a laminate stack analysis should be made, to determine the rst ply failure. A guide for this is presented in an annex (H) of the coming ISO standard 12215-5, which works with the Building Fully Cored Rescue Boats

An important consideration when designing a fully cored fast powerboat is the cores ability to absorb shock loads, coming from slamming in a seaway. To do that, the core should not be too rigid, but be able to ex a little to reduce the blow and absorb the impact energy. The ISO 12215 standard recognizes this and allow cores with an elongation to break of more than 35% to use 65% of their ultimate shear strength, while more brittle foam materials can only use 55%. Balsa and honeycomb cores are allowed just 50%. To hammer the above reasoning down a little bit deeper when it comes to the use exotic bres and strain, look at the Figure 17. As we can see the Kevlar is the strongest one while Boron is the stiffest closely followed by carbon ber. Usually when the exotic bers are used together with glass reinforcement there are some specic consequences. If, for instance we have a laminate consisting of Kevlar 49, Carbon HT and ordinary E-glass, the carbon ber is full loaded when strained to 1.2% (the vertical line in Figure 17). Here the carbon develops its highest strength value of almost 2 GPa, and if strained any more it will break. The other bers in the laminate have their maximum strength at much higher strain values: Kevlar at 2.7% and E-glass at 3.8%. To make all the bers in the composite co-operate, the total 7

2006 Sandwich Conference

strain must not exceed 1.2%, which means that the Kevlar can only be used to 1.2 GPa and the E-glass to 0.5 GPa , roughly half their maximum values.
3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5
E Glass Boron Kevlar 49 Kevlar 29

Carbon HT

Tensile Stress (%)

2.0

the other bers are not allowed to develop their assumed strength. Another thing to keep in mind is to use a resin with a higher strain level than the bers, to discourage the start of micro-cracking. Due to the high strength of these exotic bers much higher demands on the resins adhesive characteristics must be made. Polyester is not a particularly good glue, whereas vinylester or an epoxy formulated for laminating are respectively good and excellent glues with high strain values thereby making it possible to utilize the full properties of the high performance bers. To sum up. If you are using exotic bers, skip the glass when in a sandwich construction. In single skin it can be useful with glass as a bulking material to build thickness. With cored structures, a proper sandwich core is so much lighter and builds thickness so much faster, so why bother with glass at all. Alternatively stick to glass entirely if you are not too weight sensitive. The mention of Kevlar leads us to impact strength. As we all know Kevlar is used in bullet proof vests so the assumption could be that it must be really good in this respect. This is not always the case. To start with the material used in vests is not the same kind that is used in boat building. Secondly the bers are locked into a resin matrix in boats which is

1.4

1.0 0.5

Polyester T-68

0.4 0 1 2 3 4 Tensile Strain (%) 5 6

Fig. 17 - Strain vs Strength of different bers.

If we are using all the materials at their maximum strength and disregarding the strain, the stiffest ber will break before the structure is loaded to its maximum, since this ber will then take on too big a load. To put it another way:

FRP-1 glass mat FRP-2 glass/aramid (93/7%) FRP-3 glass FRP-4 glass spray-up FRP-5 glass FRP-6 glass/aramid (90/10%) FRP-7 glass 0 1 2 3 4 (J/kgm2)
Fig. 18 - Specic absorbed energy of FRP laminates.

0 54 88 0 52 62 43 Amount of continuous fibers (%)

22 28 Fiber content (vol. %) 41 20 32 23 24

Building Fully Cored Rescue Boats

2006 Sandwich Conference

not the case for the vests, where the bers can move so that they basically catch the bullet. In 1997 the Technical Research Centre of Finland (VTT) made a study of Local impact strength of various boat-building materials (publication 317), by Martin Hildebrand. Figure 18 shows the specic absorbed energy for seven different FRP laminates. All the laminates in Figure 18 are made with polyester resin. As can be seen, both a high ber content and a high amount of continuous bers produce higher specic impact strength values. A perhaps more surprising result is the 7% and 10% values respectively for FRP.2 and FRP.6, both of which contain aramid bers (Kevlar). Against all popular belief the laminate (FRP.6) with more aramid in it performs worse than the laminate (FRP.2) with less aramid. The reason is that FRP.2 is thinner 0.14 in. (3.5 mm) than FRP.6 0.3 in. (7.7 mm) and it is the specic energy absorption that is measured. In absolute terms the FRP.6 absorbs 56 Joules compared to FRP.2s 33 Joules. Still, the specic values tell a lot about a laminates effectiveness to absorb an impact. The winner in this test series is FRP.3 because of its high continuous ber content (88%), relatively thin laminate 0.15 in. (3.8 mm) as well as a high ber content (41%). It is interesting to compare FRP.5 and FRP.7 that contain the same reinforcements, with the exception that FRP.7 has more CSM in the middle and thus a quasi-sandwich layup is created. Due to this conguration, the specic impact strength is increased by 16%. So to make thin laminates with a thickness building core, really makes sense. In the spring of 2001, I performed an accidental full scale test of the impact strength of a sandwich laminate. This happened two days before my wife and I were planning to set sail. The result of this mishap was a six week delay. It is interesting to note that the inner laminate was virtually undamaged. The planking structure that is visible is not the foam planks but the imprint of them onto the inner laminate. It really shows a very good adhesion between the inner laminate and the foam core. Thanks to the excellent energy absorbing properties of the core, the damage was Building Fully Cored Rescue Boats limited. Had this been a single skin hull, the damage would have been much worse, and more difcult to repair.

Fig. 19 - The fall.

Fig. 20 - The damage

Fig. 21 - The repair.

As previously stated all boats shown here have structural bulkheads of foam sandwich construction for strength and weight reasons. This route is seldom taken by production 9

2006 Sandwich Conference

a plywood thickness of 0.7 in. (18 mm) with a hull depth of 8.36 ft. (2.55 meters). A good quality plywood of that thickness would weigh up to 2.8 lbs/ft2 (13 kg/m2). By switching to sandwich with skins of stitched glass rovings (assuming a hand lay-up) we can easily reach a ber content (by weight) of 50%. This gives us an ultimate compression strength of 148 N/mm2, of which we use 74 N/mm2 and an in-plane modulus for the skins of 14,000 N/mm2. A proper core thickness for this span is 1.2 in. (30 mm) with a density of 5 lb/ft3 (80 kg/m3). The result is staggering; for strength reasons the skins have to be 0.02 in. (0.6 mm) thick and for stiffness reasons only 0.02 in. (0.3 mm) thick! This gives a skin requirement of [imperial to be input] (500 g/m2) of reinforcement on each side. Using a commonly available stitched roving of [imperial to be input] 600 g/m2 we end up with a weight of [imperial to be input] 2.4 kg/m2. Added to this is the weight of the core, also [imperial to be input] (2.4 kg/m2), which brings the total panel weight to [imperial to be input] (4.8 kg/m2). It is just a shade more than a third of the plywood panel! The actual scantlings of the rescue boats bulkheads are heavier though, since they are designed to be watertight collision bulkheads. So, to use plywood just because it looks good (at least some plywoods do) you have to pay a heavy weight penalty. If you really need the wood-look, it is always possible to surface the bulkhead with veneer. Personally I really do not think that painted bulkheads need to look ugly. Two examples are given is Figures 24 and 25.

Fig. 22 - The result, four years later in Curacau.

boat builders in the leisure sector. The reason is said to be economic, and although this partly true I have a suspicion that it goes deeper than that. It is called ignorance of how much better a sandwich bulkhead co-operates with the hull compared to the ubiquitous plywood, how much weight can be saved, how much lighter the non-structural interior elements (even made of wood) can be built and how much this will enhance the performance of the boat, be it power or sail. In the ISO 12215-5 standard there is simple method of obtaining scantlings for sandwich bulkheads by transforming a known plywood thickness to sandwich. Taking a bulkhead in the SSRS-2000 as an example we get

Fig. 23 - The ISO 12215-5 scanting standard

Building Fully Cored Rescue Boats

10

2006 Sandwich Conference

To sum up, here some pictures of the SSRS-2000. Simple developed surfaces everywhere, suitable for sheet materials. Clean mono-hedron hull form and not too deep a forefoot. Just two planing strakes each side, but they are big and at the correct position. Computer simulations take the guesswork out, and are good companions to experience.

Computer Stability Simulations

Fig. 24 - Interior of the SSRS 1200.

Perhaps the most important computer simulations are the ones concerning a vessels stability characteristics. Not only can you check that the stability is positive all around the clock, but you can select different VCG positions, varying displacements and alternative deck house designs. Doing all this manually is impossible, in my world.

Fig. 25 - Interior of Saharah.

Fig. 28a - 60 degrees heeling.

Fig. 26 - The SSRS-2000 (#2) under construction.

Fig. 27 - The launching of the rst SSRS-2000.

Fig. 28b - 90 degrees heeling.

Building Fully Cored Rescue Boats

11

2006 Sandwich Conference

REFERENCES
The following is a list of the references used to compile this paper. ABS: 1997. Guide for Building and Classing High Speed Craft. American Bureau of Shipping, New York. Blount, D, Codega, L: 1991. Dynamic Stability of Planing Boats. Fourth Biennial Power Boat Symposium, Miami.
Fig. 28c - 135 degrees heeling.

Caprino,G, Teti, R: 1989. Sandwich Structures Handbook. Il Prato Pelf SpA, Padua. DIAB: 1991. Divinycell Technical Manual H-Grade. Divinycell International AB, Laholm. DNV: 1985. Rules for Classication of High Speed Light Craft. Det Norske Veritas, Oslo. Hildebrand, M: 1997. Local Impact Strength of Various Boatbuilding Materials. Technical Research Centre of Finland, Espoo.

Fig. 28d - 180 degrees heeling.

ISO/TC 188/WG18, ISO/FDIS 12215-5: 2006, Hull construction-Scantlings - Part 5: Design pressures for monohulls, design stresses, scantling determination. International Standards Organization, Geneva. Larsson, L, Eliasson, R: 1999. Principles of Yacht Design. Adlard Coles, London. Savitsky & Brown: 1976. Procedure for Hydrodnamic Evaluation of Planing Hulls. Marine Technology. VTT: 1997, VTT-NBS Extended Rule, Technical Research Centre of Finland, Espoo.

Fig. 29 - The SSRS-2000 at full speed.

Building Fully Cored Rescue Boats

12