Greenheart Open Design Forum
Table of contents
Here the Greenheart Project shares the latest state of our designs, and solicits ideas from you.
The latest official designs can be found below. Use the menu on the left to see our design goals, earlier versions, original concept drawings, or to contribute an idea of your own. All pages may be commented on - and please do comment. The more comments, the better discussion, and the better ideas evolve. (click on any image to enlarge)
A word on the design criteria, which can be more clearly understood on the Greenheart webpage.
This is a multi-use, industrial ship for the poorest and least developed communities. For use in ice-free seas and rivers, capable of stranding for cargo handling and maintenance. The technology throughout the ship is to be appropriate for the conditions and lifestyles of operators who are at present unable to afford or maintain oceangoing vessels. All mechanical gear is to be manual, with electric back-up where possible. Safety and environmental standards are to be above present best practices.
Specifications
LOA: 32.5 m / 106 ft Beam: 7.8m / 25.5 ft Displacement: 220 t Sail area: 300 m2 / 3230 ft2
Photovoltaic (PV) fixed array:125 m2 / 1313 ft2 Electric drive motors: 200kW DC x 2 Batteries: Lead/Acid traction
Cargo capacity: 3 TEU (20ft standard containers) -volume / 50 t -weight Hull speed: 10~11 kn
Here are the newest drawings from Kaku-san
Here is the new transom design with the reverse angle. The after edge of the cargo deck extends past the RoRo port to provide a boat landing. The RoRo port (tailgate?) can be used in the horizontal position, as a work platform (fishing, diving, dredging, pile driving, etc.) in protected waters and light seas because of another watertight port that separates the after hold from the main hold. It can also be lowered past the horizontal, as a landing ramp for beaches, a gangway for low docks, and a ramp for launching the ship's boats, and shipping fishnets, salvage, etc..
The two hatch covers and the two house tops will be covered with PV modules. Some of the rooftop panels on the pilot house will be partially transparent so the helmsman can see the mainsail. One idea [not pictured] to increase the PV surface, is to fit the side and after windows of the deck houses with PV-covered steel 'storm shutters', hinged at the upper edges so they can fold up and out to catch more sun (and rainwater).
This view also affords a good idea of the location of the mast/crane pivots (tabernacles?). We have been discussing moving these outboard to the rails.
(Play and pause this video to see the present design rotate)
New rig and sail plan
We went back to a single mast. We gained a lighter, easier-to-use rig, and lost the ability to load a laden container over the bows. We can, however, use the mast/crane to load over both the bow and stern, 3 or 4 tons at a time. The Version 3 rig, with the twenty+ ton derrick on the bow has been relegated to a possible future option for specific applications. With this gaff rig, we are also superseding the more complicated 'split main' rig. (See left menu > Previous versions).
The stability study above shows how the RORO port on the transom clears the waterline at various angles of heel.
A slightly revised sailplan below, shows an adjustment to the foot of the staysail to allow more visibility to the helm. There are also larger centerboards (keelboards?) drawn in for improved upwind performance. The transom view shows the boom outboard to determine the danger of rolling while running downwind.
We are also considering the roller furling/reefing mechanics for the mainsail.
Loading and Unloading
Principally, using the mast/crane over the bow and stern is pictured here. Not pictured is loading through the RORO port in the transom. The arc shown in the plan view shows how the boom fixed on the pilot house could service both the main and stern hatches as a derrick.
The shift of load depicted at the crane's central position, illustrates the technique of using both throat and peak halyards as hoists to control the transition through the vertical.
The red lines are cables in a back-up safety brake to prevent the mast from accidental falling. I imagine a triangular loop of cable with round turns on a drum that has a hand brake and centrifugal brake.
The blue lines show the load-bearing stays and mast/crane hoists. The transom view of the split backstay shows the lateral support for the 'lifting arm'/mainsail boom, even at low angles. (See Jan Heise's comment #5 in Left menu >> Open Contributions.)
The "Ducking" View (i.e. mast down for low clearance)
Note: This drawing shows the version 4 hull, not the current version 5.
The vertical clearance has been reduced since Version 3 by about a half meter. We have gained lots of 'bowsprit' though, when the mast/crane is on deck.
General accommodations
This drawing has not yet been updated to show the version 5 transom, pilot house, and sheer, although other details are accurate.
The hull, decks, and holds remain unchanged from Version 3. Not pictured is a watertight port between the wider aft hold, and the narrower main hold (just aft of the stairwells). This will allow us to open the stern hatch at sea (to launch and retrieve boats, to fish, etc.) without flooding danger.
We are also thinking of some changes to the pilot house layout. The bridge forward, with a movable light and sound partition, then the saloon (not exactly as pictured) with a large table/counter joining it to the galley which runs along the after bulkhead. The cook will have the view over the transom through opening windows, and be able to reach over the work counter forward to the mess table (no need to carry trays of food or drinks around - just hand them directly out of, and into the galley section
Files9
| File | Size | Date | Attached by | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 | | GAv3 interior.JPG Version 3/4 general accommodations | 374.41 kB | 09:37, 9 Dec 2010 | Admin | Actions |
| Loading Gaff Cutter.JPG V5 gaff cutter loading | 190.71 kB | 09:19, 21 Jan 2011 | patutley | Actions | |
| | V4 ducking.JPG Version 4 ducking | 122.34 kB | 09:37, 9 Dec 2010 | Admin | Actions |
 | V5 gaff cutter 2c.JPG Gaff cutter from quarter above | 37.96 kB | 16:23, 17 Jan 2011 | patutley | Actions | |
| V5 gaff cutter 3c.JPG No description | 40.11 kB | 19:42, 17 Jan 2011 | patutley | Actions | |
| V5 gaff cutter 4c.JPG Gaff cutter from overhead | 39.95 kB | 16:23, 17 Jan 2011 | patutley | Actions | |
| V5 gaff cutter 5c.JPG No description | 36.49 kB | 19:42, 17 Jan 2011 | patutley | Actions | |
| V5 gaff cutter sailplan 110206.JPG V5 gaff cutter sailplan II | 178.29 kB | 17:25, 6 Feb 2011 | patutley | Actions | |
| V5 gaff cutter sailplan.JPG V5 gaff cutter sail plan | 177.48 kB | 09:19, 21 Jan 2011 | patutley | Actions | |
Some comment from a sailmaker and captain on big sailing ships.
It should be well when you change your rig for a better performange. Points are:
1. The forestay of the jib is too flat, upright vertical sails has the best results.
2. When you make the " gaff"of the main somewhat longer, will be better, because;
a. The (after) leech is more vertical. Better for sailsperformance.
b. The surface is somewhat bigger. The ship can easely have some more surface.
3. I think the mast gives too much resistance and also give too much fals current to the main.
In general you can say how more vertical lufs and leeches, how better the sail performance, especially closehawled, the course, you sail the biggest part of time.
Personally I will never construct a centreboard, because:
1. In the history all the big freight ships has problems. You can learn from our grandfathers.
2. It is always risky and a weak point for damage.
3. It is expensive, take much place in the ship.
4 The axe and the box, you cannot do anything for maintenace.
5. When the centreboard with waves hid the ground, it warped, you can do nothing. you can't go to a slip. The only way is to remove the axe.
6. A better choice is a keel in the middle of the ship over the total lenght from about 30-40 cm. It sails comfortable. I had a ship of 50 meters and it was surprising how good she sailed closehauled. On all the courses she sailed very well and stabel on course. All the seaships from about 1900 and a tonnage from 200-600 tons have the same keel. This is a expirience from years and years. The little ones have also a v- bottom.
A solution will be to take two square sails with three yards. It sails on every course very quiet.
Also a expirience: you can have for bad weather a bigger number of sails than reefing big sails.
As you said , furling is a good solution and a easy way of refing. But keep it simple and strong. No Furlex in every case. Profurl is much better.
A own construction is also possible and you can make it for sailing every day of the year. All yachtfurls are not constructed for 250 days a year.
Beste regards
Jan Dijkstra edited 07:01, 6 Dec 2011
I would call your swing keels by the phrase 'keel housed off-centerboards'.
Leeboards increase lateral resistance without increasing draft. They address many (not all) of Mr. Dijkstra's objections. I've had considerable experience with them (admittedly in very small boats) and love 'em.
(See Phil Bolger's SIR JOSEPH BANKS, a similar project featuring leeboards, in Boats With an Open Mind.)
Alternatively, consider keel (a.k.a vortex) plates fixed horizontally along the bottoms of the keels. These prevent water from 'spilling' off the keel, keeping it running along the keel, increasing the keel's effectiveness. Additionally, they create turbulent vortexes when dragging laterally, resisting leeway.
I feel that avoidance of deep, fixed draft is a vital feature in servicing LDCs, many of whose lack or scarcity of deep water ports has contributed to their developmental deficit (for better and worse). Additionally, it allows relatively easy shoreside maintenance in areas absent haul-out facilities. edited 12:31, 12 Dec 2011
Thanks for all the thoughtful comments on the rig and (off-) centreboards. Opinions and suggestions from someone with your experience are especially valuable to us.
All of your ideas seem reasonable and correct. I have only to mention that we have considered all of them (even the squaresails) and would like to use many of them still. One problem is that we are not designing for sail performance alone. The rig must also be able to fold flat on deck for low clearance and upwind motoring. For these features, we are forced to accept extra windage and poor airflow. The ability to pick cargos from the bow and stern, very valuable in many expected applications, also reduces our options for the sail plan. We would very much like to fly more sail (especially since we will be sometimes using the dragging props to drive the motors as generators and charge the battery banks.) so the idea of a longer gaff is one we will be investigating.
Of course, you are right that we must focus on upwind performance. We expect to be able to motorsail most of the time, which will help some. Also, there are the off-centerboards. We will certainly discuss it again among the designers.
Please consider one design target - the capability of beach landing for loading and unloading. As Dave Zeiger says, ' ..a vital feature in servicing LDC's". To do this without losing much upwind ability has been a challenge us. The bilge keels will act much like the long shallow central keels you mention (perhaps more efficiently) when the ship is heeled. We could perhaps add a long shallow central keel as well. Maybe just in the forward sections.
You are right to say that we must avoid jamming the axes in their boxes. We are designing removable lids and overhead hoists to handle axe removal from within the hull. There must also be a robust release mechanism to allow the axes to fall back into the hull on contact. The windward axe will mostly remain unused, leaving the leeward, deployed one in a good position for quick retraction.
I know this is not ideal, but compromise is a constant companion in this kind of project.
I am quite interested in your ideas for a self-build furling gear, since we are aiming for durability and reliability under constant use. As a sailmaker, you might have some good ideas on how to design a flexible (it must be removed and stowed during cargo handling) yet robust furler. Something good for changing sails, as you wrote. Perhaps an oblong profile on the luff cable, so the sail will be twisted onto the cable when turned. A foil seems too rigid an option.
Very pleased to meet you, and many thanks for your expertise. I hope we can have you aboard when we get to, is it Nederlands?
Goede winden,
Pat
Thanks for your contributions. We briefly considered leeboards for their efficiencies, but it is precisely alongside that most cargo ships take their heaviest beating. We expect to be tying up on piers and walls of every size, as well as cargo operations over the sides.
The vortex keels are excellent for shallow draft work, but not so good for beach landings. Admittedly, that is also the weakness of the swing keel solution. We will have to have a design that leaves the keel bottoms well fortified when the axes are up and stowed. I will bring all these ideas into the next design meeting and post any new ideas here.
I sailed South and Southeast Alaska and look forward to dropping by again on the Greenheart.
I have also posted on your Open Contributions page here. Thanks for that too.
Pat edited 08:42, 19 Dec 2011
Flettner rotors ( magnus effect ) will supply 10 times the drive of the equivolent canvas sail area They can be retractable and low power demand. Main motors can produce enough electrical power to generate browns gas and feed tuned standard Gas ( petrol) motors with zero emmisions and no stored hydrogen. The cargo deck can be the bridge deck between the hulls and can be built Ro-ro. drop keels are best as they will be variable through water depths and maintain a good lift profile throughout the range. I would suggest end plates to protect the keel and hull (when grounded) and reduce pressure loss around the tip. The rugdders could be kick up from a protectd skeg with feathering or folding props.
A combination of shallow draft and low resistance would be a difficult combination to design but Cousteau's Mono-maran , is as close as you will get to covering these demands while producing good seakeeping and passaging making capabilities. I like the Mast frame to derek idea , and it has worked very well in many guises all over the world. for power Gaff works well but will not compare with the drive atainable with the Magnuss rotors. It is not a single answer that is required but a set of tools to give a skipper a drive and powering solution over all weather conditions and shipping constraints while still producing Zero GHG or particulates.
Solar alone is not YET efficient enough and the wind does not blow all the time , so you need a third spoke to the drive and that should be hydrolized water burned in an internal combustion motor ( relieable , safe ,commercial , and all thechnology is available right now )
I concur with Jan Dystra in re: the centerboards, lose them and simplify your life alot. When the boat is fully loaded and working in a sea and the centerboards are down the side loads will be enormous and the engineering will have to compensate for that. And, you windward ability when loaded will basically suck anyway, centerboards won't be the thing that makes the difference for you. Auxiliary power will.
Similar comments as to the rig. Keep it simple and strong. In some of the Pacific islands you will be loading and unloading in an open roadstead, in rolly seas. Having a pallet of goods at the end of an 80 foot boom is going to be difficult to handle and put down, try to keep an option for a shorter boom for loading in less than ideal conditions. The engineering for your mast/crane is is going to be hard, and it will probably wiegh alot. At sea in deteriorating weather this will be a concern as you won't to able to lay it down at sea, and that's alot of weight aloft.
Your stern ramp idea is ok but I'm curious what insurers and the IMO are going to think about it, they would prefer it leave the vessel from the level of the weather deck.
Generally I think a bow ramp 10 feet wide would be better for routine cargo movement, a simpler gaff rig like Kwai, and the ability to beach the boat bow-on. Forget the centerboards and flex rig and focus on the business. Install a auxiliary that can run biodiesel, like coconut oil and used cooking oil, and you'll have more time to work the business. Don't get caught up worrying about the sailing ability of this boat, the key is to ge it out there and carrying cargo. When fully loaded, it will be slow slow slow and not go to weather worth a damn. But your heart will be singing.
Electric drives are a great idea, so long as they are backed up by an auxiliary that can provide power for the drives, and power up reefer units in the containers. Also, for the Pacific Islands, if you have a high capacity Ro for freshwater that would be a real blessing in the right moment.
You're going to get alot of demand for break-bulk cargo and you'll need space for it, the crew ammodations will need to be relocated, and you don't need three heads in a working boat. One will do.
When you have containers will they be covered? Any chance you can stow them across the boat, you have the beam for it, and carry more. With your fat hull form - thats a compliment - your carrying capacity should be more than 50 tons, more like 80.
Don't listen to the catamaran crowd, I have a cargo cat and it can't carry much at all, for cargo you want something as close to a barge as you can get.
Think about services, things you can do for these communities while you are there - stick welding run by your big generator, making water with an r.o. , selling and installing solar power, wind generators, have someone on board who has background in IT and cell phone repair, stuff like that. Even a biodiesel converter, they have an 18 hour turnaround, i think...people bring you used oil, and you convert on board.
For the business, identify the three biggest hardware stores in your intended area of operation, and put it to them...catalog shopping to the out islands. Same with food wholesalers. And, more likely than not, churches...alot of churches send stuff to other churches and it's great marketing.
Last, you're going to need more than a half million euros. Rigs and sails are probably going to be a half million euros. But remember, simplify simplify simplify. Engineering is one thing, and getting a construction team that can perform the engineering is another. Simplify.
A parachute could be arranged for launching to increase sail area height.
Also, rather than relying on skegs/keels to protect the screw(s), has anyone considered a liftable screw arrangement? (see http://www.fao.org/docrep/FIELD/006/AD531E/AD531E00.HTM). Combined with folding propeller, this would require little hull space to stow for landing ops and could ease difficulties in the case fouling with lines and nets.
I like the idea of leeboards. They can be protected in pseudo-pods for docking or could simply be de-mounted and repurposed as boarding ramps at dock. edited 05:07, 1 Nov 2012
Don´t forget to consider the weight of the batteries. Deep cycle batteries weigh more than the normal ones. Also avoid warm/freeze environment, and vibration
A greeting.
Thanks for the thought on this. In some technical ways, you are right, of course. We are working on the general formula that we can get about 1kw out of 8m2 of regular PV modules. That gives us over 15 kw from our 125m2 array in optimal conditions. Of course, only about half of that is available, usually. Those data differ from yours, but really only affect the rate of charge. We are approaching it from the battery capacity point of view. We started with the fact that we will need about 20 ton of ballast anyway. By making that 20 tons from lead/acid batteries, we can store about 600kWhours. Next, we considered the power needed to drive the ship at 5 knots in protected conditions, like bays, rivers, and other approaches to harbors. Even though we are considering up to 200 kW motors (two of them), we really only need less than 100kWs total to move the ship at 5 knots, and we can conserve energy by motoring more slowly, of course, when possible. That gives us plenty of range/time of motoring to access almost all the major harbors around the world.
The recharging time is not completely unimportant, but can be easily worked around, especially in poor economy, by adjusting the operating schedule. There may be applications for future Greenheart ships that demand a plug-in facility , for example when docking regularly in a port with cheap electricity. And of course, there is a plug-out feature. That means providing electricity to the home port when the ship is docked in a poor village, or even not-so-poor grids.
Your points of effort, weight, cost, reliability , fragile surfaces, and etc, are also interesting.
Effort is an important aspect in appropriate technology (appropriate for the poorer half of the world population, in this case). , so the components will mostly be those available around the world. (e.g. regular forklift batteries, standard rooftop solar). Weight is OK on this type of sail ship, as long as we keep it as low as possible. (Below the waterline, it is necessary to compensate for the tipping effort of the sail sometimes.). Cost is a big positive compared to combustion engines, parts, maintenance and fuel over the lifetime of the system. Reliability is also a big plus for us, especially when considering that the electric system is our back-up propulsion. Sail is incredibly reliable, and the auxiliary electrical has very few moving parts and proven, durable components. 'Fragile surfaces' IS an important consideration, especially since we will be lifting cargo on and off. When we do the cargo handling, the hatch cover arrays will have to be folded out of the way, and the rooftop arrays will be covered by netting to reduce breakage. The other points here are that a little rewiring will bypass a broken module and repair the system. We are also planning on wiring the PV into four separate arrays, and carrying spares.
Thanks again for your input, and feel free to add more here on the ODF, or e-mail me at patutley@greenheartproject.org