Untitled - CNR

Fishery and Sea Resourcesj a C D C L Eff C' z C z HDS HNO W B δ q R zFC Door HF[deg.] [deg.] [-] [-] [-] [-] [-] [m] [m] [kg] [kg] [deg.] [deg.] [kg]3.5 22.0 0.82 2.01 2.45 -0.39 - 81.7 21.38 2028 1713 5.0 8.9 -22.1ST3.8[1] AR 13.1 1 24.2 0.84 1.73 2.06 -0.32 - 77.4 20.61 1892 1565 6.1 9.7 5.42.8 2 24.6 0.99 1.96 1.98 -0.36 - 78.5 20.65 1973 1618 5.7 9.2 -8.63.3 2 24.5 0.86 1.68 1.96 -0.31 - 77.3 20.61 1851 1518 6.3 9.7 9.1CY 3.8 2 27.8 0.28 1.02 3.60 -0.39 - 51.3 15.18 1630 1507 5.1 10.4 3.07.3 2 31.3 0.32 0.91 2.83 -0.39 - 50.8 14.99 1475 1340 5.7 13.3 17.58.4 3 32.5 0.32 0.93 2.96 -0.44 - 53.3 16.18 1446 1315 5.0 14.0 2.54.4 3 33.6 0.36 1.08 2.98 -0.35 - 53.5 15.49 1653 1501 5.6 12.2 38.85.6 4 36.3 0.33 1.06 3.26 -0.46 - 54.6 16.51 1542 1410 4.7 14.1 9.96.6 4 35.2 0.40 0.99 2.44 -0.42 - 54.4 16.55 1476 1316 5.3 13.9 17.87.8 4 33.6 0.33 0.97 2.94 -0.44 - 51.1 15.91 1558 1422 4.8 13.8 6.85.9 3 24.3 0.36 0.98 2.76 -0.38 - 53.9 17.52 1529 1381 5.5 9.4 -5.8ST3.2[2] AR 9.5 3 37.2 1.32 2.05 1.55 -0.84 - 98.5 28.76 1499 1194 4.0 13.6 -112.15.4 3 36.3 1.29 2.13 1.65 -0.69 - 92.8 28.73 1713 1400 4.6 11.8 -77.910.0 4 39.1 1.34 1.92 1.43 -0.78 - 97.4 28.65 1450 1134 4.7 14.5 -94.64.0 4 37.7 1.51 2.22 1.47 -0.60 - 97.2 28.19 1715 1349 5.4 11.4 -52.87.0 5 42.9 1.63 2.01 1.23 -0.74 - 98.1 28.63 1549 1160 4.8 13.9 -80.59.3 4 33.8 0.48 1.41 2.93 -0.92 - 55.1 16.33 1628 1509 2.2 13.3 -107.9CY13.0 4 34.9 0.52 1.27 2.45 -0.93 - 61.4 18.83 1327 1203 2.6 15.1 -107.113.6 3 33.5 0.47 1.19 2.51 -0.80 - 65.8 21.04 1251 1130 3.6 14.9 -84.613.2 3 27.9 0.58 1.31 2.25 -0.89 - 62.2 19.12 1357 1218 2.9 11.2 -114.8ST3.8[3] AR 0.6 2 26.9 0.80 2.07 2.59 -0.36 - 90.2 22.28 1825 1524 6.0 9.2 -3.5-1.2 2 27.3 0.77 2.32 3.01 -0.38 - 86.0 21.30 1982 1708 5.6 8.2 -10.73.8 2 30.5 0.90 1.94 2.15 -0.50 - 92.3 22.81 1685 1355 4.9 11.0 -45.54.7 2 30.1 0.83 2.32 2.81 -0.36 - 94.3 23.65 1939 1629 5.7 12.1 0.92.6 2 31.4 1.01 1.90 1.88 -0.45 - 92.4 23.12 1718 1341 5.3 10.8 -28.0CY 13.8 2 33.8 0.56 1.08 1.91 -0.47 - 78.2 19.41 1147 930 5.7 17.1 -1.812.7 3 40.1 0.80 1.27 1.58 -0.47 - 76.7 18.59 1321 1035 5.4 18.7 19.514.4 4 43.5 0.59 1.33 2.24 -0.45 - 75.8 18.83 1364 1145 5.4 21.6 36.2FT AR 0.0 - 44.2 1.33 1.04 0.78 -1.86 -0.40 - - - - - - -167.5- 42.7 1.34 1.12 0.83 -2.00 -0.44 - - - - - - -178.5- 37.2 1.07 1.14 1.06 -1.53 -0.40 - - - - - - -128.5- 35.0 1.01 1.15 1.14 -1.60 -0.39 - - - - - - -139.0- 30.4 0.93 1.10 1.19 -1.55 -0.35 - - - - - - -137.3CY 0.0 - 44.6 1.03 0.82 0.79 -1.57 -0.58 - - - - - - -110.2- 41.0 0.95 0.87 0.92 -1.51 -0.54 - - - - - - -107.7- 34.0 0.90 1.02 1.13 -1.41 -0.48 - - - - - - -103.0- 38.3 1.05 0.97 0.92 -1.46 -0.47 - - - - - - -108.9Table 2: Results obtained in the sea cruises: ST3.8[1], ST3.2[2], ST3.8[3] and flume-tanktests (FT). Traditional- (AR) and experimental doors (CY) were daily alternated. Heelangle of otterboard (φ) warp attachment position to the otterboard (HF) angle of attack ofotterboard (α), drag force coefficient (CD), spreading force coefficient (CL), efficiencyof otterboard (Eff), down-force coefficient (C’Z), and hydrodynamic down-force coefficient(CZ), horizontal door spread (HDS), horizontal net opening (HNO), warp tension(W), bridle tension (B), warp pitch angle (δ) pitch angle of the otterboard (θ), reactionforce (Rz).are not constant and, in fact, these differencesare smaller as towing point movesaft (or as hole number increases). Comparingboth doors, we noticed the Clarck-Yworked with bigger heel- and pitch-anglesthan AR door. Of special interest for thisstudy is the performance of the full-scaledoor spread due to its importance to doormanufacturers and fishermen (see in Table3 the estimated values of door spread calculatedas a function of CL). It can be seenthat, for all the tested conditions, the horizontaldoor spread of the full-scale traditionalAR door was higher than that of theexperimental Clarck-Y door, even thoughnot more than 26%. In order to comparedoor results from flume-tank and sea trialswe have plotted in Figure 5 the statisticalmodels of drag- and lift-force coefficients,efficiency and reaction force Rz, for thefull-scale curves the confidence region isdue to the sea cruise variability. The regressioncurves shown in Figure 5 have beenobtained by General Linear Models (GLM)procedures. The angle-of-attack and theheel of the door have been included in themodels as a covariate and the door-type andtype-of-experiment (sea cruises ST3.8[1],1882