DESIGN AND MANUFACTURE OF AN ENGINEERED SURF FOIL

by
Todd Backus
Jackson Bryla
Anthony Taylor

Report Presented to the

British Columbia Institute of Technology (BCIT)
In partial fulfilment of the requirement for the degree of
Bachelor of Engineering (Mechanical)

Faculty Advisors: Johan Fourie

Greg King

Program Head: Mehrzad Tabatabain

Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada, 2019

© Todd Backus, Jackson Bryla, Anthony Taylor, 2019
Author’s Declaration
We hereby declare that we are the sole authors of this report.

Todd Backus Jackson Bryla Anthony Taylor

We further authorize the British Columbia Institute of Technology to distribute digitally, or

printed paper, copies of this report, in total or in part, at the request of other institutions or
individuals for the purpose of scholarly activity.

Todd Backus Jackson Bryla Anthony Taylor

iii
Abstract
The surf foil system detailed herein was designed at the request of Poseidon Adventures Ltd.
Included in this publication are links to the part models and STL files for all of the components
that were designed for the surf foil system.

The component parts that were designed for prototyping are both wings, the mast, and the
fuselage of the surf foil. The front wing has a span of 32", the rear wing has a span of 16" and
they are roughly 1" thick. The fuselage is 30" long and is made from 1" dia. aluminum rod. The
manufacture of the fuselage and both wings were completed. A mast was purchased for the
assembly of the product for final presentation due to time restrictions. The design of the mast
is complete, its manufacture is ongoing at the date of this report's publication. The overall
weight of the surf foil system including the purchased mast, mast pedestal, and board mount is
8 lbs.

An emphasis was placed on using standard dimensions whenever possible so that commercially
available parts could be used as a replacement for an individual component in the event of a
catastrophic failure.

Reproduction of the surf foil is possible but be mindful of careless operation of this device. This
sport is dangerous, so use it at your own peril. Head protection and life vests are always
recommended, as well as protection of the eyes.

v
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank their project advisors, Johan Fourie and Greg King, for helping
to ensure this project was educational, fun, and rewarding. Their excitement about this project
was apparent from the start and that has made the project all the more worthwhile.

They would also like to thank:

Casey Keulen, whose expertise with composite materials guided them through the tricky work
of manufacturing with carbon fibre and epoxy;

Chris Chambers, for his support, enthusiasm, and advice on foils and manufacturing. Chris is a
kite-foiling enthusiast from BCIT’s TTED program, whom saw the potential of the project and
was so happy with the results that he has built and will be testing his own copy of the surf foil
described herein;

Chris Townsend, for his help and guidance in manufacturing the fuselage, for teaching them
how to use the milling machine, and for providing access to the shop.

Adam Marciniak for his help with Python coding.

The faculty at BCIT for sharing their knowledge and providing support throughout the project.

vii
Contents
Author’s Declaration .......................................................................................................................iii
Abstract ............................................................................................................................................v
Acknowledgements........................................................................................................................ vii
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................... xi
Table of Figures ............................................................................................................................. xiii
1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Projected Product Capabilities ......................................................................................... 4
2 Background & Research........................................................................................................... 5
2.1 Independent Surf Foil Design and Manufacture .............................................................. 5
2.2 Professional Surf Foil Design and Manufacture ............................................................... 6
2.3 Design and Performance Parameters Overview .............................................................. 7
2.4 Design Parameters vs Performance Parameters ............................................................. 8
2.4.1 Wing Shape ............................................................................................................... 9
2.4.2 Wing Sweep ............................................................................................................ 12
2.4.3 Mean Chord Length: Wings .................................................................................... 13
2.4.4 Chord Variation along Wingspan ............................................................................ 13
2.4.5 Aspect Ratio - Side View ......................................................................................... 14
2.4.6 Total Surface Area: Drag and Lift ............................................................................ 16
2.4.7 Fuselage Length & Size ........................................................................................... 19
2.4.8 Mast Chord Length.................................................................................................. 20
2.4.9 Mast Length ............................................................................................................ 20
2.4.10 Angle of Attack ........................................................................................................ 21
3 Description of the Project Activity and Equipment ............................................................... 23
3.1 Component Design ......................................................................................................... 23
3.1.1 Wing Design ............................................................................................................ 23
3.1.2 Fuselage Design ...................................................................................................... 33
3.1.3 Mast Design ............................................................................................................ 37
3.2 Manufacturing Process .................................................................................................. 39
3.2.1 Front and Rear Wing Manufacturing ...................................................................... 39
3.2.2 Fuselage .................................................................................................................. 47

ix
 3.2.3 Mast ........................................................................................................................ 53
4 Discussion of Results ............................................................................................................. 55
4.1 Prototype Manufacturing Results .................................................................................. 55
4.2 Project Management Results ......................................................................................... 56
5 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................. 57
5.1 Lessons Learned and Potential Improvements .............................................................. 57
5.2 Fulfillment of Project Objectives .................................................................................... 61
6 Bibliography ........................................................................................................................... 62
Appendix A: Original Request for Proposal (RFP) ......................................................................... 65
Appendix B: Lift Calculations ........................................................................................................ 67
Appendix C: Design Review Package ............................................................................................ 69
Appendix D: Code for Processing NACA Profiles into SolidWorks Readable Filele File ................ 78
Appendix E: Crush Protection Calculation for M8 ........................................................................ 81
Appendix F: Fuselage Length Calculations .................................................................................... 82
Appendix G: Fuselage As-Built Shop Drawing............................................................................... 83
Appendix H: Fuselage Stress Calculations .................................................................................... 84
Appendix I: Project Gantt Chart .................................................................................................... 86
Appendix J: Front Wing Drawings & Dimensions ......................................................................... 87
Appendix K: Front Wing Drawings & Dimensions......................................................................... 88
Appendix L: Responsibility Assignment Matrix............................................................................. 89
Appendix M: Project Work Breakdown Structure ........................................................................ 90
Appendix N: Milestone Schedule: Key Dates of Projected Milestone Schedule .......................... 91
List of Tables
Table 2.1: Relationship between performance and design parameters. ....................................... 8
Table 3.1: Parameters for XFOIL Simulation ................................................................................. 25
Table 3.2: Reynold's Number Calculations for Lift, Low Range, Mid-Range, and Maximum
Velocities. ...................................................................................................................................... 27
Table N.1: Project Milestone Schedule Key Dates. ....................................................................... 91

xi
Table of Figures
Figure 1.1: Surf Foil Assembly Model with Labels .......................................................................... 2
Figure 1.2: Fully Manufacture Surf Foil System .............................................................................. 3
Figure 2.1: Seabreeze Surf Foil [4] .................................................................................................. 5
Figure 2.2: Effect of Dihedral and Anhedral Angles [8]. ................................................................. 9
Figure 2.3: Orientation of Roll, Pitch, and Yaw [9] ......................................................................... 9
Figure 2.4: An example of a dihedral front wing. [12] .................................................................. 11
Figure 2.5: Wing Sweep Configuration Examples [10] ................................................................. 12
Figure 2.6: Chord Variation along Wingspan [15]......................................................................... 13
Figure 2.7: Cross Section of NACA 0018 Wing Profile - Side View................................................ 14
Figure 2.8: Wing Aspect Ratios [15] .............................................................................................. 15
Figure 2.9: Bernoulli's Principle Applied to Wing Lift ................................................................... 16
Figure 2.10: Lift Forces on a Plane [15]......................................................................................... 17
Figure 2.11: Force Directions Acting on the Fuselage .................................................................. 19
Figure 2.12: Masts of different length [23]................................................................................... 20
Figure 2.13: Pressure Distribution of an Inclined and Non-Inclined Airfoil [8] ............................ 21
Figure 2.14: Lift Coefficient vs. Angle of Attack [8] ...................................................................... 22
Figure 3.1: Profile of the NACA 23015 Airfoil [25] ........................................................................ 23
Figure 3.2: (L): Lift/Drag Ratio vs. Attack Angle, (R): Internal Moment Coefficient vs. Attack
Angle ............................................................................................................................................. 24
Figure 3.3: Pressure Distribution on NACA 23015 – XFOIL ........................................................... 25
Figure 3.4: Average Sea Temperatures for Vancouver, Canada [27] ........................................... 26
Figure 3.5: NACA 23015 SolidWorks® Block ................................................................................. 28
Figure 3.6: Arrangement of Work Planes for Dynamic Changes .................................................. 29
Figure 3.7: Modeled Front Wing in Sections ................................................................................ 30
Figure 3.8: Fuselage Attachment Cross-Section ........................................................................... 30
Figure 3.9: Mid-Section of Front Wing for 3D Printing ................................................................. 31
Figure 3.10: Final models Left: Rear wing, Right: Front wing ....................................................... 31
Figure 3.11: Fuselage design in SolidWorks®................................................................................ 33
Figure 3.12: Initial Fuselage Design - Side View............................................................................ 34
Figure 3.13: Fuselage As-Built - Side View .................................................................................... 35
Figure 3.14:9 (L): Cross-Section - As-Built Fuselage, (R): Cross-Section - Initial Fuselage Design 35
Figure 3.15: SolidWorks® Finite Element Analysis Output for Fuselage ...................................... 36
Figure 3.16: Midsection & End Section of Mast Profiles .............................................................. 37
Figure 3.17: Fully Assembled Mast Profile with Carbon Fibre Skin .............................................. 38
Figure 3.18: Hole & Dowel System used for Joining Wing Sections ............................................. 39
Figure 3.19: 3D Printing Front Wing Section ................................................................................ 40
Figure 3.20: Prototype Wing Epoxied Together, Drywall Putty Applied, & Sanded ..................... 41
Figure 3.21: Application of Epoxy to the Front Wing Prototype .................................................. 42
Figure 3.22: Application of the First Carbon Fiber Layer to the Epoxied Wing Core .................... 42

xiii
Figure 3.23: Application of the Second Carbon Fibre Layer. ........................................................ 44
Figure 3.24: (L) Wing Wrapped in Breather Cloth (R): Wing sealed in the vacuum bag. ............. 44
Figure 3.25: Front wing with clear coat and top coat applied. ..................................................... 46
Figure 3.26: Aluminum Fuselage Fixed in Vices on Milling Machine............................................ 47
Figure 3.27: Edge Finder Used on Fuselage .................................................................................. 48
Figure 3.28: End Mill Removing Material from Fuselage ............................................................. 49
Figure 3.29: Fuselage Prior to Machining Front Wing Interface .................................................. 50
Figure 3.30: Tapping Operation for Wing Attachment Holes ....................................................... 51
Figure 3.31: Fuselage with Rounded Profile & Sandblasted Finish .............................................. 51
Figure 3.32: Fuselage with Powder Coating ................................................................................. 52
Figure 3.33: 3D printed mast core with aluminum connecting rods. ........................................... 53
Figure 5.1: Fuselage Interface on Front Wing............................................................................... 58
Figure 5.2: Plot of the relationship of epoxy cure time and temperature [31]. ........................... 59
Figure 5.3: Picture showing the circular region on the test wing. ................................................ 59
Figure 5.4: Fully Assembled Surf Foil ............................................................................................ 61
Figure A.1: Original RFP from Poseidon Adventures Ltd (p1/2). .................................................. 66
Figure A.2:Original RFP from Poseidon Adventures (p2/2). ......................................................... 66
Figure B.1: Minimum lift velocity calculations (p1/2)................................................................... 67
Figure B.2: Minimum lift velocity calculations (p2/2)................................................................... 68
Figure C.1: Design review package (p1/9). ................................................................................... 69
Figure C.2: Design review package (p2/9). ................................................................................... 70
Figure C.3: Design review package (p3/9). ................................................................................... 71
Figure C.4: Design review package (p4/9). ................................................................................... 72
Figure C.5: Design review package (p5/6). ................................................................................... 73
Figure C.6: Design review package (p6/9). ................................................................................... 74
Figure C.7: Design review package (p7/9). ................................................................................... 75
Figure C.8: Design review package (p8/9). ................................................................................... 76
Figure C.9: Design review package (p9/9). ................................................................................... 77
Figure E.1: Wing compressive stress calculations. Based on M8 - Flat Head Screw .................... 81
Figure F.1: Fuselage length calculations ....................................................................................... 82
Figure G.1:Fuselage as-built shop drawing. .................................................................................. 83
Figure H.1: Fuselage stress calculations (p1/2). ........................................................................... 84
Figure H.2: Fuselage stress calculations (p2/2). ........................................................................... 85
Figure I.1: Project Gantt chart. ..................................................................................................... 86
Figure J.1: Front wing CAD drawing .............................................................................................. 87
Figure K.1: Rear wing CAD drawing. ............................................................................................. 88
Figure L.1: Project responsibility assignment matrix. ................................................................... 89
Figure M.1: Work breakdown structure chart for the project. .................................................... 90
1 Introduction
The Request for Proposal (RFP) issued by Poseidon Adventures, included in Appendix A
“Original Request for Proposal (RFP)”, detailed the need for a surf foil that could compete with
the current commercially available products, be manufactured on a scale of 30 units per month
and not be cost prohibitive.

There is a wide range in the sophistication of design in the surf foil market. While there are
high-end manufacturers who employ engineering techniques to design their products, the
prevailing trend employed by many smaller companies in the industry is a trial and error
process. The objective of this project was to design a surf foil system that would satisfy the
requirements set out in the RFP and employ engineering knowledge to explain the behaviour of
the designed product.

Given the popularity of water sports in North America, there are 11 million water skiers in the
United States alone [1], the product was designed with the average North American user in
mind. Given that the average weight of an American male over 20 years of age is 197 lbs [2],
this was considered as the design weight for a rider.

Final product weight is an important consideration in the design to ensure the hydrofoil can be
easily carried by users as well as prevent the introduction of a significant amount of weight to
the board-rider system. To help achieve a low weight for the final product, light-weight
aluminum extrusions and woven carbon fibre composite materials were selected for use in the
design.

To create a light-weight core for the composite front and rear wings, additive manufacturing
was employed. A 3D-printed Polylactic acid (PLA) plastic core was used as a base to layup a

1
 2

carbon-fibre epoxy composite. The fuselage is made of a 1” dia. 6061-T6 aluminum round stock
that has been machined, hand filed, and powder-coated. The fuselage was designed to
interface with several standard masts and wing dimensions for the purpose of modularity and
ease of component replacement. A mast was designed using a similar approach to the front and
rear wings (e.g. PLA core with carbon-fibre epoxy composite layup), except for the addition of
aluminum cores for strength and to allow the mast to be securely fastened to the board and
fuselage. The aluminum cores were added into the design because the mast in a surf foil needs
to withstand a large amount of bending stress which the non-structural PLA core is not able to
reliably withstand alone. Due to time constraints the designed mast was not manufactured, but
a commercially available set of 18”, 24”, and 30” masts were purchased from SlingShot® in
order to ensure project completion. The modeled wings, mast, and fuselage are shown in Figure
1.1. Figure 1.2, on the next page, shows the as-built prototype attached to a Slingshot mast.

Figure 1.1: Surf Foil Assembly Model with Labels

3

Figure 1.2: Fully Manufacture Surf Foil System

The finalized SolidWorks® part files, as well as the STL files, used by 3D printing software, are
linked to this document. It is the hope of the authors that others will use these files to create
their own surf foils projects, they are provided in good faith that they will not be used for
commercial purposes and are used responsibly. The authors and BCIT assume no responsibility
for any injuries or damage suffered through the use of, or attempt at reproducing, this product.

Alterations to the files are permitted, at the user’s risk, so long as the results are not used for
commercial purposes.

Surf Foiling is a dangerous sport, safety equipment such as helmets, personal flotation devices
and goggles should always be worn by riders.
 4

1.1 Projected Product Capabilities

Based on lift calculations [See Appendix B], the following design should be able to lift a 198lb
person at a velocity of approximately 10mph, which were the requirements identified during
the design review [Appendix C]. A low foiling velocity is desired to maximize the acceptable
outdoor conditions for the surf foil to be used. It is possible that an experienced rider could
start foiling from the velocity generated by surfing a medium wave. However; this is dependent
on the board that the foil is attached to and outdoor conditions. Other methods of propulsion
may include towing by boat or by kite. The product was designed to accommodate the surfer
with a wide range of operational velocities with good overall stability so that they can enjoy its
use in as many different situations as possible.
2 Background & Research
The surf foil industry is relatively new but major competitors have emerged and hold significant
stakes of the market. Inspiration for BTB's design came from independent makers, hobbyists, as
well as industry leaders such as SlingShot, Cabrinha, Naish and Takuma foil manufacturers.

2.1 Independent Surf Foil Design and Manufacture

Independent surf foil makers are an excellent resource for designs that are robust and easy to
manufacture [3]. The deficiency in the design of many of these recreational foils is due to the
lack of knowledge in fundamental fluid dynamics as well as access to sophisticated and precise
machining equipment. The surf foil design featured for Seabreeze [Figure 2.1] has a fixed mast
and fuselage, this is due to the core material being manufactured from plywood. This approach
was avoided by the team due to the lack of modularity that is inherent in a mast and fuselage
system that are not detachable. Any failure in the section results in the destruction of both
mast and fuselage. The shaping of the wooden members is time consuming and requires a
considerable level of machining experience to achieve a professional finished product. Concerns
about water ingress into a wooden core was another issue identified with this design.

Figure 2.1: Seabreeze Surf Foil [4]

5
 6

2.2 Professional Surf Foil Design and Manufacture

Most commercial surf foil manufacturers do not disclose the composition of their cores. There
are several possible candidates for core material, such as plastic or foam, which are likely the
most commonly used in industry. A foam core was considered due to the ease of shaping and
the additional buoyancy that it would provide but was ruled out due to the difficulty in
mounting the wings to the fuselage while providing adequate crush protection around the
fasteners. The use of a foam core for the wings is feasible as professional manufacturers such as
Naish are already using this method [5].

The use of plastic PLA formed by additive manufacturing is an excellent application of this
technology. The structure of the core should be light to reduce overall weight, which can be
achieved by using a low percentage infill. The printing of the wing also allowed for a more
complex design without requiring extensive machining experience and skill.

Carbon fibre and epoxy composites are common for high-quality custom-built surf foil wings.
Masts are typically either carbon fibre and epoxy composite or aluminum [6]. The cost savings
of the aluminum mast are significant but the carbon fibre mast yielder higher performance,
primarily due to the weight reduction. Carbon fibre masts are typically not recommended for
learning because of the high cost. The pendulum effect caused by the length of the mast is a
significant challenge in terms of muscle control of the rider, resulting in a lack of control and
stability. Purchasing an aluminum mast set is advised, as the rider becomes more experienced,
they move on to taller masts. A typical starting mast length is 18", expert riders will ride masts
up to 48" in length [7].
7

2.3 Design and Performance Parameters Overview

There are many styles and designs of foils due to the different requirements of foil-sport
customers. For example, stand-up paddle boards (SUP) would typically have large wings
capable of providing lift at low velocities, whereas kite boards would employ a smaller more
maneuverable wing suited to their high velocities.

The surf foil was designed to be mounted to a wake surf board and then towed by a boat. Other
methods are propulsion are available, such as having the surf foil attached to a kite board and
propelled by wind energy through a sail or a large kite.

The operational velocity range for different foil applications varies significantly. For a given wing
area, higher velocities provide lift more readily than lower velocities, it follows that the
intended use of the surf foil was therefore a key factor in designing the shape and size of the
wings. The wing size and shape dramatically affect the performance of the system, particularly
in the case of ride stability, operational foiling velocities, and maneuverability. For this
application, maneuverability and agility was favoured over stability. In order to be more user-
friendly; sufficient lift for foiling needed to occur at approximately 11 mph. Maneuverability
was favored over stability with the aim of having a more thrilling rider experience.

The following sub-sections details the corresponding design and performance parameters.
These parameters describe the relationships between design inputs, foil performance outputs,
and any trade-offs that must be made when balancing the user requirements with design
constraints. For example, an increased wing surface area achieves greater lift but also increases
drag forces. A quick overview of the relationship between the performance parameters and the
design parameters are provided below in Table 2.1.
 8

2.4 Design Parameters vs Performance Parameters

Table 2.1: Relationship between performance and design parameters.
Design Parameters Performance Parameters Correlation
Positive Correlation (+): Increase in
Pitch Stability + design parameter results in increase of
Fuselage Length the performance parameter
Yaw Stability +

Yaw Stability -
Negative Correlation (-): Increase in
Mast Length Roll Stability - design parameter results in decrease
of the performance parameter
Max Operational Velocity +

Max Operational Velocity +

Front Wing Aspect Lift / Speed -

Ratio: Top Lift : Drag Ratio -

Max Weight of User -

Front Wing Aspect Lift : Drag Ratio +

Ratio: Side Max Weight of User +

Rear Wing Aspect Pitch Stability -

Ratio: Top
Roll Stability +

Rear Wing Aspect

Pitch Stability +
Ratio: Side

Yaw Stability +
Vertical Fins
Roll Stability +

Anhedral Wing Roll Stability -

Dihedral Wing Roll Stability -

Max Operational Velocity +

Max Operational Velocity -

Total Wing Surface
Lift / Speed +
Area
Lift : Drag Ratio +

Roll Stability +

Lift : Drag Ratio +

Angle of Attack
Max Weight of User +
9

2.4.1 Wing Shape

An anhedral wing is shaped with a downwards slope from the fuselage, as shown in the lower
right image (b) of Figure 2.2. Conversely, a dihedral wing is one that slopes upwards from the
fuselage, as seen in the lower left image (a) of Figure 2.2.

Figure 2.2: Effect of Dihedral and Anhedral Angles [8].

The wing is mounted below the board in the water, which causes the system to act similarly to
a pendulum due to the length of the mass. This is critical to the performance parameter of roll
stability, (see

Figure 2.3 for explanation of roll, pitch, and yaw).

Pitch Axis

}>) U-J
.
Roll Axis Yaw Axis

Figure 2.3: Orientation of Roll, Pitch, and Yaw [9]

 10

For the intended performance of the designed surf foil, an anhedral front wing was desirable
for increased maneuverability. This allows turns to be performed more easily, making
movement along the wake easier. In addition, the anhedral shape assists with foiling at lower
speeds, which is particularly helpful for novice riders [10].

The anhedral wing adds yaw stability due to the fact that when viewed from the side, it has a
vertical wing area which helps direct fluid flow over the system [11]. An anhedral front wing is
less prone to breaching the surface when banking the board over its rolling axis. This is
desirable as breaching the water with a wing will often result in a crash.

A drawback of the anhedral wing is the reduction of overall roll stability. Because the anhedral
shape amplifies the turning input, the board is more likely to flip over, particularly when used in
conjunction with a long mast. This shape does reduce the maximum operating speed [10] but
that is not a significant drawback as the maximum velocity is well outside the range of comfort
for most riders.

An anhedral rear wing decreases the pitch stability of the system. This effect is not as dramatic
as increasing the anhedral angle of the front wing due to the rear wing having a significantly
smaller surface area compared to the front wing. [10]
11

Figure 2.4: An example of a dihedral front wing. [12]

In contrast, a dihedral wing is one that is upswept over the pitch axis, shown above in Figure
2.4.

Dihedral front wings are common in stand-up paddle (SUP) foil design as they are inherently
more stable than anhedral wings with respect to rolling [11]. This is due to the dihedral angle
introducing a restoring moment which will oppose a rolling motion generated by the rider
which is required to turn the board. Dihedral wings will not be considered further as the
reduction in maneuverability is contrary to the desired performance of this projects design.
 12

2.4.2 Wing Sweep

Straight Swept Forward swept

Figure 2.5: Wing Sweep Configuration Examples [10]

Wing sweep refers to the direction that the wing is projected from the fuselage when viewed
from above. This is displayed in Figure 2.5. A wing can be backswept, delta, forward swept, or
straight each with their own advantages and drawbacks. Performance of the forward and
backwards swept wings will be compared to straight wings as a baseline.

Forward swept wings are known to have higher maneuverability. They also create more lift
than comparable sized backswept wings by directing wingtip vortices from the wingtips to the
fuselage [13]. Forward swept wings create drag when experiencing yaw (one wingtip is farther
forward than the other) and this drag amplifies the yaw movement [13]. This feedback is
undesirable for this surf foil design because there is no purpose-built vertical wing to resist yaw
motion, the design relies upon the mast and vertical projections of the anhedral front wing to
resist and stabilize yaw.

Delta wings can be made stiffer than swept wings as their root (inboard) chord length is
typically longer. A common problem with delta wing aircraft is that they are prone to stalling at
steep attack angles [14]. This is undesirable as stalling the surf foil will result in a crash.

Backwards swept wings are easier to recover from a stall than forward swept wings [13] but are
more prone to stalls than forward swept wings [15].
13

Stalling with a foil will be a non-issue because the wing will not be able to reach stall angles
without breaching the water. A backwards swept wing was chosen for aesthetics, ease of
manufacturing, and the reduction of drag forces.

2.4.3 Mean Chord Length: Wings

The mean chord length is the centerline length of the wing, measured from the leading edge to
the trailing edge of the wing. For symmetrical profiles [Figure 2.7Error! Reference source not
found.] the chord length is the length of the horizontal line drawn from front to back on the
wing. For wings that have asymmetrical profile, the camber line is a curve.

2.4.4 Chord Variation along Wingspan

Constant chord,
Constant chord Tapered (Trapezoidal) Reverse tapered Compound tapered
tapered outer

Elliptical Semi-elliptical

Figure 2.6: Chord Variation along Wingspan [15]

As seen in Figure 2.6, a wings chord can vary along its wingspan. Chord variation along the
wingspan directly relates to the wing surface area and thus to lift. For example, an elliptical
wing is able to generate more lift than a constant chord wing and it saves weight at the wing tip
[15].
 14

For this project the front wing has a leading edge that resembles a tapered wing generated
from a Bezier curve to create an elliptical leading edge. The rear wing is semi-elliptical using a
Bezier curve to provide a high surface area to weight ratio.

2.4.5 Aspect Ratio - Side View

The side view aspect ratio is the ratio of cross-sectional area to mean chord length. The lift
force is affected by changes to this parameter through the equation:

[Eqn. 1]

Where β represents the angle of the slope of the wing surface at some position along the chord
for the upper and lower surface [16].

If area is fixed and the length is changed, then the slopes (β) change which alters the resulting
lift force.

Figure 2.7: Cross Section of NACA 0018 Wing Profile - Side View.

Increasing the aspect ratio of the front wing (viewed from the side) will result in an increase in
the maximum allowable operational weight because it produces greater lift. [17].
15

The plan view aspect ratio is the ratio of wing span to mean chord length.

In addition to the formula shown above, the lift force can be calculated by:

[16]

As the surface area of the wing increases the lift force also increases.

Low aspect ratio Moderate aspect ratio High aspect ratio

Figure 2.8: Wing Aspect Ratios [15]

Low aspect ratio wings are more structurally efficient whereas, high aspect ratio wings are
more aerodynamically efficient [15].
 16

2.4.6 Total Surface Area: Drag and Lift

In traditional aircraft design, the main function of the front wing is to provide lift for flight,
while the main function of the rear wings, is to provide flight stability, namely pitch stability.
[18] For this reason, their size, and therefore surface areas differ significantly.

Lift is the result of air travelling over the top and bottom surfaces of a wing at different speeds.
According to Bernoulli’s principle, velocity and pressure are inversely proportional. On a wing,
when air travels faster over the top surface than the bottom surface, a pressure differential is
established, and the wing experience a force exerted in the direction of high to low pressure.
This is shown in Figure 2.9.

LOW ?i\:".sSuRE

Figure 2.9: Bernoulli's Principle Applied to Wing Lift

17

Lift surface area and is defined by the following equation:

𝐿 = ½ 𝐶𝑙 𝜌𝑣 2 𝐴𝑠 [Eqn. 2]

Where 𝐶𝑙 is the lift coefficient, 𝜌 is the fluid density, 𝑣 is the fluid velocity, and 𝐴𝑠 is the surface
area over which the fluid flows [19]. Lift is directly proportional to wing surface area. The front
wing should have a large surface area because their main function is to produce lift.

The rear wing also produces lift but in a downwards direction (i.e. a tail down force) which
balances the moment about the centre of gravity produced by front wing. The foil will comprise
less than 10% of the board-rider mass, so it was assumed that the center of gravity of the
system would be forward of the mast. The case shown in Figure 2.10 is representative of the
force directions desired for a surf foil.

2250 lbs lift

t
2000 lbs weight
tail down force
Figure 2.10: Lift Forces on a Plane [15].
 18

Drag is a resistive force exerted on an object travelling through a medium, it is directly

correlated to surface area. Drag between a body in a moving fluid is defined by the following
equation:

𝐷 = ½ 𝐶𝑑 𝜌𝑣 2 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑓 [20] [Eqn. 3]

Where 𝐶𝑑 is the drag coefficient, 𝜌 is the fluid density, 𝑣 is the fluid velocity, and 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑓 is the
reference area. [21] The reference area changes depending on whether drag caused by
resistance to flow (i.e. form drag) or friction between the fluid and wing surface (i.e. skin
friction). Drag due to skin friction depends on the total surface area, where form drag depends
on the projected area perpendicular to the direction of flow [20]. This section pertains to skin
friction; for more information on form drag see the below section on angle of attack.

As seen in the above equation, the drag force generated is directly proportional to the area of
the body for a given set of fluid properties and conditions. If the surface area is doubled, so is
the drag due to skin friction.

To achieve an efficient wing design in terms operational velocity range, the selection of a NACA
profile with a high lift to drag ratio was required.
19

2.4.7 Fuselage Length & Size

The fuselage is a central member that joins both wings and the mast together. The length of the
fuselage determines the location of the front and rear wing with respect to each other as well
as where the wings ultimately rest under the board.

In an aircraft, the forces exerted on the wings induce a pitching moment about the center of
gravity. Given that a surf foil is attached to a mast, the mast connection point can be thought of
as the center of gravity for the wing-fuselage-mast system. An example of forces exerted on a
fuselage by wings is shown in Figure 2.11.

M~ ~~ - -- - - L- - - -- ~~R~
WING.
t)OW N - R>RCE

FRo~T

r-x-..,
WIN6i
LI FT

Figure 2.11: Force Directions Acting on the Fuselage

For a surf foil that employs a front wing with upwards lift and a rear wing with downwards lift, a
clockwise moment is induced about the mast connection point. This moment is counteracted
by the rider shifting their weight distribution forward or backward as needed.

A thick fuselage will introduce more drag to the hydrofoil, decreasing the maximum operation
velocity and increasing the amount of applied force required for motion. The thickness of the
fuselage is determined by the maximum allowable yield strength of the material that is
required to prevent critical failure.
 20

2.4.8 Mast Chord Length

Typically, the chord length of the mast is around 4in.The thickness of the mass is dependent on
the required strength and stiffness of the design. A lack of stiffness in this member will
significantly decrease the yaw, pitch, and roll stability, which decreases the overall
maneuverability of the surf foil. Decreasingly the chord length requires an increase in mast
thickness to preserve the member's strength. Decreasing this aspect ratio will alter the shape
factor which results in generating more drag force and decreasing maneuverability [10].

2.4.9 Mast Length

A long mast allows the surfer to rise higher out of the water, lifting the board above the chop
but it also decreases roll stability by creating a greater pendulum effect due to the mass of the
foil at the end of the mast. Short masts are recommended for novice riders as they are easier to
control. Long masts are used in racing as they provide a smoother ride across large waves,
cruising above the chop and, in the case of a kiteboard, a better upwind angle can be used [22].
A typical progression of mast lengths are shown in Figure 2.12.

Figure 2.12: Masts of different length [23].

21

2.4.10 Angle of Attack

As the foil moves through water, the centerline of the wings are often not perpendicular to the
velocity, but rather at some inclined angle. This angle is referred to as the angle of attack. The
effect of the angle of attack is a change in fluid speed over the wing surface. This results in a
change in pressure and lift as depicted in Figure 2.13.

(a) (b)

Figure 5.6 Flow around an airfoil: (a) Small angle of attack; (b) Large angle of attack

(a) (b )

Figure 2.13: Pressure Distribution of an Inclined and Non-Inclined Airfoil [8]

 22

Depending on the projected area and shape of the wing, a considerable increase in the amount
of lift is generated as the angle of attack is increased, as is shown in Figure 2.14. As a result of
the increased lift, the effects of drag resistance to fluid motion (not frictional drag) is
generated. At too great an angle, the flow becomes separated and stalls, which would almost
certainly cause the rider to crash. Predicting the stall point is difficult to determine by
calculation due to the complexity of the wing geometry and is therefore typically determined
through experimentation [24]. Although the increase in the angle of attack will create more lift,
increasing the angle beyond 15° typically leads to diminishing returns.

----------------
~-,---..

\ 0 a, a (deg)

Figure 5.11 The variations of li ft coeffi cient versus angle of attack

Figure 2.14: Lift Coefficient vs. Angle of Attack [8]

3 Description of the Project Activity and Equipment
3.1 Component Design
3.1.1 Wing Design
The overall size and shape of the wings are heavily influenced by the design specifications
mentioned in the request for proposal [Appendix A], primarily the minimum and maximum
foiling velocity of approximately 18.8 km/h and 32.3 km/h, respectively, as well as the
prescribed load of 90kg.

The NACA 23015 airfoil shape, shown in Figure 3.1, was selected for both front and rear wings
due to the asymmetrical cross section, the excellent lift to drag ratio, and the relative stability
during small changes to attack angle. The profile of the rear wing is opposite to the front wings
as the front wing provides positive lift and the rear wing provides negative lift. The high lift to
drag ratio of the wings are complemented by a high aspect ratio with respect to the plan view
of the wing. This decreases structural efficiency but significantly increases the aerodynamic
efficiency [15].

... j_

Figure 3.1: Profile of the NACA 23015 Airfoil [25]

23
 24

100
Cl/Cd v Alpha 0.03
Cm v Alpha
80 + 0.02 + + +

60 + 0.01 + + t

40 + 0.00

20 t ·0.01 +

0 + .. ·0.02 t t

-20 + ·O.D3 + t

·40 + -0.04 + + t

·60 t -0.05 + + +

·80 ·0.06
·20.0 ·15.0 ·10.0 -5.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 ·20.0 ·15.0 ·10.0 -5.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0

Figure 3.2: (L): Lift/Drag Ratio vs. Attack Angle, (R): Internal Moment Coefficient vs.
Attack Angle

The website outputs the curves shown above in Figure 3.2 for each foil shape that was
considered.

After selecting the NACA wing profile, analysis using the program XFOIL (version 6.99 [26]) was
done to achieve a better understanding of the pressure distribution on the wing profile. Below
in Figure 3.3, is the output from XFOIL showing the pressure distribution over the cross-section
of the airfoil on the right, and a graphical representation of the pressure coefficient on the left.
25

Figure 3.3: Pressure Distribution on NACA 23015 – XFOIL

This particular simulation was performed using the parameters shown below in Table 3.1.

Table 3.1: Parameters for XFOIL Simulation

Parameter
Reynold's Number Angle of attack Flow Type
Value 8.00E+05 0 Viscous

In order to estimate an appropriate Reynold’s number for the simulation, an estimate of 10°C
for the water temperature for Vancouver, Canada was calculated by using the sea temperature
readings collected from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) satellite,
shown below in Figure 3.4.
 26

18'C

15' C

12' C

9' C

6' C

3' C
J• n Fe b Mar Ap, Ltay Jun Jul A ug Sep Oct Nov Oec

+ Max °C - "" r + Min °C r Ill

Figure 3.4: Average Sea Temperatures for Vancouver, Canada [27]

Then, using the relationship for Reynold’s number,

𝑣𝑙
𝑅𝑒 = [Eqn. 4]
𝜈

where, Re is the Reynold’s number, 𝑙 is the chord length of the wing cross-section, and 𝑣 is the
kinematic viscosity of the water, and 𝜈 is the fluid velocity, the Reynold’s number was found to
approximately 7.99E+05. This was calculated by averaging four values of Reynold’s numbers
across the expected operational velocity range identified during the design review of the surf
foil (5, 6, 7, and 9 m/s).
27

The results are tabulated in Table 3.2.

Table 3.2: Reynold's Number Calculations for Lift, Low Range, Mid-Range, and
Maximum Velocities.

Re lift Re low Re Mid. Re max. T [ °C] Kin. Viscosity [m2/s]

4.62E+05 5.55E+05 6.47E+05 8.32E+05 2 1.6736E-06

4.93E+05 5.92E+05 6.91E+05 8.88E+05 4 1.5674E-06
5.26E+05 6.31E+05 7.36E+05 9.46E+05 6 1.4716E-06
5.58E+05 6.70E+05 7.82E+05 1.01E+06 8 1.3849E-06
5.92E+05 7.11E+05 8.29E+05 1.07E+06 10 1.3063E-06
6.26E+05 7.52E+05 8.77E+05 1.13E+06 12 1.2347E-06
6.62E+05 7.94E+05 9.26E+05 1.19E+06 14 1.1692E-06
6.97E+05 8.37E+05 9.76E+05 1.26E+06 16 1.1092E-06
NOTE: The values are calculated for a range of water temperatures.

After running the XFOIL simulation several iterations using varying angles of attack, the team
was able to gain valuable insight into the expected behaviour of the chosen NACA 23015
profile. The graphical and vector representations of the pressure distribution gave the team
insight into the location of the centre of pressure, which was a consideration during the design
process, particularly in determining the ideal mounting hole locations on the wings. The team
opted to place the mounting holes in the region where the centre of pressure would primarily
act (note that the centre of pressure location changes with varying conditions) in order to
minimize the bending moment induced on the wing.

An anhedral shape was selected to increase the maneuverability of the front wing. The curve of
the anhedral shape is based on a Bezier curve, which is a practical and visually pleasing arc [28].
The rear wing provides stability to the system, as a result the wing is flat to assist with pitch
stability. The chord length selected is a result of the required surface area to generate lift at the
lower operational foiling velocity while maintaining a structurally sound core that assists with
the ease of manufacturing.
 28

Both front and rear wings are quasi-elliptical in shape, which increases the overall surface area.

The chord length varies throughout the span of the front wing. The rear wing chord length
remains constant for most of the wingspan and only tapers close to the tips.

3.1.1.1 Parametric SolidWorks® Wing Models

The Airfoil Tools website was an excellent resource that provided detailed information on the
shape and properties of a wide variety of NACA profiles. The NACA 23015 profile was selected
for the surf foil [25]. The website generates a 2D cloud in a text file. Using the "Code for
Processing NACA Profiles into SolidWorks® Readable File" [Appendix D], the data file was
converted into a 3D point cloud that can be imported to SolidWorks®.

Once the 3D point cloud was imported, the offset function with zero offset selected was used
to connect the points together. Construction geometry was added to the sketch to assist with
constraining the profile. It is recommended to add a straight line from tip to tail and points at
one quarter marks along its length for reference later. The offset sketch was converted into a
block. The wing profile block was easier to manipulate and scale than the offset sketch and the
block can be easily placed where needed in the model. The block referred to here is shown in
Figure 3.5.

Figure 3.5: NACA 23015 SolidWorks® Block

29

The wing profile block was constrained to the center of the part file so that only one half of the
model needed to be drawn, the remaining half was mirrored. Planes offset from the origin by
know distances were used to allow for easy modifications to the span and provided a
convenient element to constrain the blocks to, they are shown in Figure 3.6. Planes were
created in the front and top orientation at the desired distances. Blocks were imported and
constrained to these points, the front wing model was sectioned into three parts

~ --·-" ~1
I
- ~-

.
, ...
----- --t---- -

Figure 3.6: Arrangement of Work Planes for Dynamic Changes

The loft feature was used to generate much of the wing. To generate the elliptical shape along
the wing, a 3D sketch with the Style Spline/Bezier tool was selected. The loft feature was used
to connect the two blocks at both ends of the 3D guide sketch. The "To Next Sharp" option was
used to provide a solid trailing edge. The mirror feature was used to create the other side of the
wing.
 30

Figure 3.7: Modeled Front Wing in Sections

The fuselage interface is tangent to the highest point on the NACA profile, which is located at
the first quadrant of the image in Figure 3.7. The interface is parallel to the initial top plane of
the model, which places the wing at a neutral attack angle. A sketch was created at the origin
and extruded in both directions to create the interface and the ramp. A 45° chamfer was then
created on the side of the interface to create the lateral ramps.

The holes for the M8 fasteners, shown in Figure 3.8, were located towards the center of the
wing, and 2" apart from center to center. The standard hole-wizard tool could not be employed
as the resulting shape did not allow for the fastener heads to sit flush to the wing. The through
holes were created at 0.354in in diameter to allow a tight tolerance without interference. The
M8 fasteners have a 90° countersink, which was achieved by sketching a 45° triangle aligned
with the highest tangent point of contact with the wing and modeled using the revolve tool.

Figure 3.8: Fuselage Attachment Cross-Section

31

To create the STL files required for 3D printing, planes are created at each interface. The wing
must be cut into several pieces for 3D printing due to the limited bed space. To assist with
assembly, ¼" holes were modeled mid plane where the segments interface so that dowels
could join the parts. These holes are shown in Figure 3.9. The Configuration Manager in
SolidWorks® is used to generate a configuration for each segment. Each configuration can be
saved as an individual STL file using the "Save As" tool and selecting the correct extension.

Figure 3.9: Mid-Section of Front Wing for 3D Printing

The carbon fibre texture used in the assembly, is shown in Figure 3.10, and can be found under
the carbon fibre aramid fabric. The resulting models closely resembled the finished product.

Figure 3.10: Final models Left: Rear wing, Right: Front wing
 32

3.1.1.2 Crush Protection on Wing Attachment Points

A major concern for the design team, which was also mentioned during the critical design
review is the ability of the PLA core of the wings to withstand the applied forced through the
mechanical fasteners. To provide greater strength in the area, the wall thickness of the center
core of the wings were printed with 3.2mm in order to create a more solid block of PLA. The
yield strength of the PLA in the core cannot be taken as if it were created from an injection
molding machine as the additive manufacturing process does not generate isentropic material
structure.

The full calculations for the maximum allowable force can be found in Appendix E.

The assumptions and results of these calculations are: The estimated core yield strength of the
3D printed PLA is 3.77ksi [29]. Measurements for the bolts were taken from the supplier [30].
The contact surface area is 0.465in2 and the max allowable force is 1760lb. This results in a
safety factor of nearly six when comparing to the lifting force at 11mph.
33

3.1.2 Fuselage Design

A Cabrinha fuselage made available for examination and reverse engineering. The Cabrinha
fuselage was 24 inches in length with a rounded top, flat base, machined grooves along each
side, and a blue anodized finish. The front and rear wings both mounted to the flat underside of
the fuselage, while the mast was mounted to the top by way of a milled cut-out of the mast
profile. All fasteners for this fuselage were M8x1.25mm stainless steel countersunk screws.

Figure 3.11: Fuselage design in SolidWorks®

The fuselage for this project was designed to be machined from one-inch round-stock
aluminum, as shown in Figure 3.11. The loading expected for the fuselage is detailed in
Appendix F “Fuselage Length Calculations”.

In order to control the pitch angle while surfing, the rider shifts their weight or footing either
forwards or backwards. This increases or decreases the distance between their center of gravity
and the mast. This value is shown as the distance d in Appendix F. At lift velocity, the lift forces
of the front and rear wings were calculated to be 294lb and -78lb, respectively.

To solve for the distance between the mast and the front end of the fuselage it is assumed that
the length of fuselage between where the two wing forces acted is 26.5 inches and that the
 34

rider balances the board by shifting their center of gravity forward by 15.25 inches. From these
assumptions, it was calculated that the fuselage should be centered on a point 4.604 inches
from the leading edge of the fuselage.

Figure 3.12: Initial Fuselage Design - Side View.

The initial design, shown in Figure 3.12, had two opposing faces milled into the round-stock
along the entire length of the fuselage. The cuts were 0.125 inches deep, leaving 0.75 inches of
material in the fuselage.

The second iteration of the fuselage design had three milled cuts in the extruded round-stock,
two on top and one on the bottom, these serve as an even interface for the attachment points
of the front and rear wings as well as the mast. The mast attachment holes were designed to be
through holes with a diameter of 0.345 inches, which ensures a tight tolerance with the M8
fasteners. The four holes for front and rear wing attachment were modeled to be the tap drill
diameter for an M8x1.25mm fastener, 17/64 in. The resulting shop drawing for the fuselage is
shown in Appendix G “Fuselage As-Built Shop Drawing”.

The front wing was designed to generate lift upwards, so the fuselage was designed to have the
front wing mount from the bottom with two M8x1.25mm fasteners threaded through the wing
and into the fuselage. This will load the front wing in compression, which is desirable due to the
PLA wing core. The rear wing mounts to the top side of the wing because it was designed to
generate a downforce, which again puts the wing loading in compression. Fillets were applied
to the milled-out cuts to smooth out the transition between the milled face and the original
35

profile and reduce stress concentration points. The side view of the fuselage, shown in Figure
3.13, displays these features and notes the location of the other components.

Rear Mast Front

Figure 3.13: Fuselage As-Built - Side View

Figure 3.14:9 (L): Cross-Section - As-Built Fuselage, (R): Cross-Section - Initial

Fuselage Design

The loading from the wings on the fuselage described above was used to perform bending
stress calculations. These calculations are shown in Appendix H “Fuselage Stress Calculations”.
Figure 3.14 shows the original fuselage design as well as the as-built fuselage. The moment of
inertia for the original fuselage design was found to be 0.019133 in4 and 0.023085 in4 for the
as-built design. These values were used in calculating the expected bending stress using the
formula:

𝑀𝑐
𝜎𝑚𝑎𝑥 = [Eqn. 5]
𝐼
 36

As was the assumed maximum bending moment of 208 Nm (135 ft.lb) which is shown in the
related appendix.

The maximum bending stress in the original design was calculated as 249 MPa (36 ksi) and 206
MPa (30 ksi) for the as-built design. Given that the yield strength of 6061 aluminum is 276 MPa
(40 ksi) both fuselage designs would be safe.

von Mises (N/m" 2)

2.026e+08

1.857e+08

1.688e+08

1.519e+08

1.350e+08

1.182e+08

1.013e+08

8.440e+07

6.752e+07

5.064e+07

3.376e+07

1.688e+07

9.351 e+01

Yield strength: 2.750e+08

ORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only.

Figure 3.15: SolidWorks® Finite Element Analysis Output for Fuselage

The hand calculations were verified with SolidWorks® finite element analysis (FEA), shown
above in Figure 3.15. One possible reason for the difference in stresses between the hand
calculations and the SolidWorks® FEA is that the fuselage was fixtured by the bolt holes for the
mast connection to the fuselage in SolidWorks®, whereas the hand calculations assumed a
point fixture located 4.604 inches from the front of the fuselage. However, the two methods
37

yielded similar results, 202 MPa (29.3 ksi) from SolidWorks® compared to 206 MPa (29.9 ksi) by
the hand calculations.

3.1.3 Mast Design

Two commercially available masts were examined, a Cabrinha and a Slingshot, both of which
resembled symmetrical NACA profiles. Reverse engineering through careful measurement
revealed that the Cabrinha mast used a NACA 0012 profile.

The mast was designed with the symmetrical NACA 0012 airfoil. Like the process detailed above
for the wings, the NACA profile was transferred to a SolidWorks® readable format using the
"Code for Processing NACA Profiles into SolidWorks Readable File" [Appendix D]. A block was
created from the curve so that its overall size could be scaled as needed without distorting the
profile. The mast profile was then extruded to five inches which will accommodate the print
volume of most additive manufacturing devices.

Figure 3.16: Midsection & End Section of Mast Profiles

 38

For 3D printing the mast needed to be split into end sections and midsections, shown in Figure
3.16. The midsections had a pair of extruded 0.375 inch diameter cylinders cut from them
spaced two inches apart. The end portions of the mast required an additional cylindrical cut of
0.5 inches diameter by 2 inches deep in order to locate 0.5 inch round-stock that was drilled
and tapped for M8x1.25 threads. The cylindrical cuts were modeled so that aluminum round-
stock could be embedded into the 3D printed mast “sheath”. The rods were not intended to be
welded together, rather joined by epoxy to the PLA sheath and to each other.

Figure 3.17: Fully Assembled Mast Profile with Carbon Fibre Skin

The model was designed to take on the appearance of carbon fibre to resemble the intended
finished product, as is shown in Figure 3.17.
39

3.2 Manufacturing Process

3.2.1 Front and Rear Wing Manufacturing
The competed SolidWorks® models of the front and rear wings were cut into sections along
their cross-sections in order to accommodate a 3D printer with a standard print volume of
220x220x220 [mm3] (8.66x8.66x8.66 [in3]). In preparation of joining the wings, a hole and
dowel system was devised at each section cut, such that the wings could be joined using epoxy
after printing was completed. Below in Figure 3.18, the hole and dowel system for locating the
adjacent part is shown on a section of the front wing.

Figure 3.18: Hole & Dowel System used for Joining Wing Sections
 40

3.2.1.1 3D Printing – Additive Manufacturing

Due to the complex wing geometry, 3D printing was well-suited to achieve the desired shape of
the wing cores. As mentioned above, the wings were separated into sections and printed
vertically in order to accommodate the 3D printer’s printing capability and provide the highest
quality print without the use of support material. Several preliminary wing designs were able to
be printed so that they could be evaluated further. This method of rapid prototyping proved to
be an invaluable tool during design review as it allowed the team to anticipate several issues
that arose prior to carbon fibre layup. Below in Figure 3.19, a wing section is shown during
printing.

Figure 3.19: 3D Printing Front Wing Section

41

3.2.1.2 Wing joining and layup preparation

The wing sections were connected with the designed dowel-pin system and epoxied together
using JB Weld KwikWood® epoxy. The epoxy at the joints was sanded down flush with the
surface of the wing to prevent visual defects in the finished product. The 3D printing resulted in
a rough surface due to the filament layer height, this was smoothed out by applying drywall
putty and sanding. The wing shown in Figure 3.20 has had the epoxy and drywall putty applied.
The wings were then painted using grey spray on primer and allowed to dry.

Figure 3.20: Prototype Wing Epoxied Together, Drywall Putty Applied, & Sanded

3.2.1.3 Carbon Fibre and Epoxy Layup

Woven carbon fibre sheets were cut to fit over the wing, with fibres oriented on 0o-90o and 45o-
135o to ensure quasi-isotropic properties were achieved for the laminate. This fibre architecture
is well suited to take the complex loading that will be applied to the wings. The epoxy used was
“Cold Cure” by System Three, it has a cure time of approximately 35 minutes, and worked
suitably as a top coat when applied thinly to the wings after layup and curing.
 42

Figure 3.21: Application of Epoxy to the Front Wing Prototype

The wings were brushed with epoxy prior to the application of the first layer of carbon fibre, as
shown in Figure 3.21. This was done to ensure good adhesion of the carbon fibre to the PLA
core.

Figure 3.22: Application of the First Carbon Fiber Layer to the Epoxied Wing Core
43

The first layer of carbon fibre was then applied to the wing, careful consideration was given to
ensuring the fibre weave conformed to the leading-edge geometry of the wing. This process is
shown above in Figure 3.22.

For the prototype wing the carbon fibre was made to conform to the leading edge of the wing
up to approximately 3 inches from the wingtips, after which darts (i.e. relief cuts) were cut into
the carbon fibre and it was folded back onto itself. This method proved to be problematic as it
required a considerable amount of skill to execute well. Furthermore, it resulted in loose fibre
strands adhering to the outside surface, which appeared as visual artifacts on the finished
product.

For the second prototype of the front wing, the carbon fibre was made to conform to the wing
up to approximately 3 inches from the wing tip and then was allowed to naturally run out from
there. When the epoxy cured this excess flashing was cut off using a pneumatic die-grinder.
 44

Figure 3.23: Application of the Second Carbon Fibre Layer.

The surface of the first layer of carbon fibre was painted with epoxy, then the second layer of
carbon fibre was applied, as shown in Figure 3.23. The second layer of carbon fibre was
oriented 45o to the first layer. With the two layers of carbon fibre applied, the wing was
wrapped in peel-ply, a thin white fabric that ensures an even surface finish and easy removal of
material after the epoxy has cured. This was followed by a breather cloth, a fluffy, low density
material that allows air to be removed from the vacuum bag. The wing, wrapped in breather
cloth, was placed inside a clear plastic sheet and sealed with two-way adhesive with a hose
penetrating one edge and touching the breather cloth as shown below in Figure 3.24. A vacuum
pump removed excess air for several hours while the epoxy cured.

Figure 3.24: (L) Wing Wrapped in Breather Cloth (R): Wing sealed in the vacuum bag.
45

3.2.1.4 Wing Finishing

To achieve a glossy clear finish, two additional layers of Cold Cure epoxy were applied to the
surface of the wings.

After the wings were removed from the vacuum bag process detailed in the previous sections, a
thin coat of epoxy was applied to the top and bottom surfaces. These applications were done
one surface at a time (i.e. top of the wing, then bottom of the wing) and allowed to cure before
moving on to the other surface. This prevented drips from forming, which had occurred on the
first prototype when it was hung to dry.

The first topcoat of epoxy was then sanded with successively finer grits of sandpaper, from 220
to 1500 grit (220, 400, 600, 1500), to even out the surface. Careful attention was paid to not
sand through the carbon fiber and epoxy, especially at the wingtips, which had occurred on the
first prototype.

A second coat of epoxy was applied, again thinly, according to the same procedure as the first
application. The second layer of topcoat epoxy was also sanded with 220 to 1500 grit
sandpaper. The resulting surface was smooth to the touch and the carbon fiber was clearly
visible through the topcoats.
 46

Several coats of Rust-Oleum® Painters Touch Ultra Cover Clear Gloss spray on clear coat were
applied to the wings. The advantage of this is that it provides UV protection to the epoxy and it
provides a “wetted” surface to the wings. The resulting finish was striking, the carbon fiber
showed through well and caught the light. This is shown in Figure 3.25 below.

Figure 3.25: Front wing with clear coat and top coat applied.
47

3.2.2 Fuselage
The fuselage was manufactured according to the shop drawing shown in Appendix G “Fuselage
As-Built Shop Drawing”. The design of the fuselage was detailed Section 3.1.2.

A 30-inch section of one-inch diameter round-stock aluminum was cut using a descending
bandsaw. The section of aluminum was fixed in two parallel vices on the bed of a milling
machine, shown below in Figure 3.26. The milling machine ensure accurate machining due to
the high tolerances of the digital controls.

Figure 3.26: Aluminum Fuselage Fixed in Vices on Milling Machine

 48

Figure 3.27: Edge Finder Used on Fuselage

The rough-cut ends of the fuselage were trued using a ¾ x ¾ three flute end mill. An edge finder
was used to locate the faces of the fuselage and zero the coordinates of the milling machine,
this is shown above in Figure 3.27. Material was removed 0.020 inches at a time to a depth of
0.125 inches where required.
49

Figure 3.28: End Mill Removing Material from Fuselage

A ¾ x ¾ three flute end mill was used to make the 0.125-inch-deep cuts for the wing and mast
interfaces through successive passes removing 0.020 inches of material with each pass. This
process is depicted above in Figure 3.28. The rear wing and mast interface cuts were made on
the top side of the fuselage, per the shop drawing. The required holes were drilled using the
milling machine, pilot holes were drilled with a 1/8-inch drill bit for locating all holes. The mast
connection holes were drilled out using an 8mm drill bit to allow the fasteners to freely pass
through to the threaded connections in the mast. For the rear wing attachment holes a 17/64-
inch drill bit was used, which is the required tap drill size for a M8x1.25mm tap.
 50

Figure 3.29: Fuselage Prior to Machining Front Wing Interface

The fuselage was rotated 180o and the two milled cuts were supported with two machined
blocks of equal height to ensure that the fuselage was parallel to the milling bed and did not
deflect away from the bit during machining, this is shown above in Figure 3.29. The edge finder
was used to zero the milling machine. With the fuselage rotated the bottom side of the mast
attachment holes were chamfered to fit the countersink screw heads. The milling passes for the
front wing attachment were made in the same fashion as for the rear wing and mast. The
method of drilling the front wing attachment holes was the same as the rear wing holes
detailed previously.
51

Figure 3.30: Tapping Operation for Wing Attachment Holes

The wing attachment holes were tapped to M8x1.25mm threads using a hand turned tap. The
fuselage was clamped in a bench vice for this operation, shown in Figure 3.30.

Figure 3.31: Fuselage with Rounded Profile & Sandblasted Finish

The stepped edges of the milling cuts, shown above in Figure 3.31, were radiused using a half-
round file, this could also be achieved by using a different style of cutting head during the
milling operation. The leading edge of the fuselage was rounded out using a file to the shape.
All deep scratches were removed from the fuselage using a fine-toothed flat file. The fuselage
was sandblasted to even out the surface finish prior to powder coating, the sand blasted
fuselage is shown in Figure 3.31.
 52

The fuselage was cleaned with isopropyl alcohol prior to ensure good adhesion between the
aluminum fuselage and the raw powder coat particles. Red was the colour of choice because it
is aesthetically pleasing and is not used by any popular commercially available manufacturers.
The fuselage was hung in a powder application booth using a section of welding rod wrapped
around a bolt threaded into the fuselage. Bolts were used to protect the threads from being
powder coated as this would create undesired interference with the mounting fasteners. A
large furnace was heated to 400oC and the coated fuselage was placed into the furnace for 20
minutes. After heating, the fuselage was removed and allowed to cool slowly. The results of this
procedure are shown below in Figure 3.32.

Figure 3.32: Fuselage with Powder Coating

53

3.2.3 Mast
The mast designed for this project was not manufactured by the project team. The manufacture
of this part will be completed shortly after the publication of this document by Chris Chambers
of BCIT’s TTED program.

The manufacturing process is similar to the process described for the wings, in that the core is
manufactured, then wrapped in carbon fibre and epoxy composite. Sections of the mast are 3D
printed out of PLA, epoxied together with two aluminum rods embedded into the mast. The
embedded aluminum rods have their ends drilled and tapped to accept M8x1.25mm fasteners.
The excess epoxy would be sanded down at the interfaces and then Bondo or drywall filler
applied to the profile in order to even out the surface.

The mast would then be coated in epoxy and woven carbon fibre and vacuum bagged,
following the same procedure detailed for the wings.

Figure 3.33: 3D printed mast core with aluminum connecting rods.

The pre-layup mast is shown in Figure 3.33 with the aluminum connecting rods epoxied in
place.
4 Discussion of Results
4.1 Prototype Manufacturing Results
The result of the design and manufacture of a surf foil was successful. The surface quality of the
carbon fibre wings is above expectation. Although they are not without some minor visual
defects, they appear to be structurally sound and have passed an initial 3-point bend test.
However, greater refinements to the efficiency of the manufacturing processes and the
consistency of the finish is attainable. Such as finer resolution of prints and smaller prints
through more segments.

The fuselage machining tolerances were well within the limits of variation and the overall fit of
the attached parts is excellent. Initially an anodized finished was strongly considered, however;
a powder-coating was selected as the process could be performed by the team inhouse.

A set of 3 masts were purchased from SlingShot®, as the team is planning on testing the
product over the summer. The designed foil is being also constructed by Chris Chambers, a
TTED student at BCIT, his will include the designed mast. Its completion will be after the
publication of this report.

All external hardware such as the Slingshot® pedestal and FoilMount® surf foil mounting
materials have been received. The purchase of the surfboard is still outstanding due to
availability.

55
 56

4.2 Project Management Results

The project management portion of the project was also successful. The preliminary
documentation was completed on time and all major milestones were reached. The largest
discrepancy with the Projected Gantt chart [Appendix I] and the actual time line was in the
completion of the design and solid modeling work packages. It was initially projected to be
completed January 14th but required an additional two months. This was due to the ease in
which iterations of components can be created with additive manufacturing which led to a far
more refined design.

The delay with completion of the solid modeling did not prevent the completion of the final
product, which was right on schedule. The work remaining is a presentation to peers on the
outcome of this project and a public exhibition of engineering capstone projects throughout
BCIT.
5 Conclusion
5.1 Lessons Learned and Potential Improvements
The fuselage interface ramp angle is too steep for optimal forming of the carbon fibre and
epoxy composite, particularly with respect to the front wing. This can be resolved by altering
the model to prevent a pocket from forming at that junction or by building up on the core with
a compound while the wings are being assembled.

In order to achieve a higher quality surface finish, it is imperative that the core is blemish free,
as even small ridges will show clearly through the carbon fibre and epoxy composite treated
with a clear finish. Surface imperfections are extremely difficult to improve, and the touch-ups
may result in lower overall product quality due to excessive sanding of additional epoxy.

Prior to carbon fiber lay-up, the connections between wing segments need to be sanded flush
to the wing surface. The final prototype has some minor blemishes as a result of these seams
not being sufficiently sanded during the preparation phase.

Post layup, the wings should be protected from contaminants and handled with gloves. It is
suspected that some of the minor surface imperfections in the finish are due to contaminants
beneath the top coat of epoxy that were not removed by cleaning with isopropyl alcohol.

57
 58

Figure 5.1: Fuselage Interface on Front Wing

The corner of the fuselage interface ramp, shown in Figure 5.1, sanded through very easily. This
slowed the finishing process as additional care had to be taken in this area. This area should be
redesigned so the front edge (left of center in Figure 5.1) is not proud of the wing surface and
the trailing edge should be rounded out. Additional carbon fibre strips should be tested in this
area to see if this prevents sand-through.

Clear coat should be applied on top of the sanded topcoats of epoxy to achieve a glossy clear
finish that displays the carbon fiber pattern. When applying clear coat many light coats are
best, as heavy applications of clear coat tend to run. Clear coat should be sprayed according to
the instructions on the can.
59

..
QI

l!
!.
E
Liquid Gel d
[ Open Time Initial Cure Flnalcure
w

Cure time after mixing

Figure 5.2: Plot of the relationship of epoxy cure time and temperature [31].
Epoxy cure time is closely related to temperature. Higher temperatures lead to faster curing, as
shown in Figure 5.2.

Figure 5.3: Picture showing the circular region on the test wing.
 60

When applying top coat epoxy to the first prototype wing plastic cups were used to support the
wing while it was curing (epoxy had been applied to the opposite face of the wing). A circular
region of epoxy with considerably better finish occurred on the area above where the cup had
been placed. We theorize that the cup had captured some heat created by the exothermic
curing of the epoxy and had sped up the cure of the epoxy in that area and the surrounding
areas on the wing were pockmarked. This is shown in Figure 5.3.

As such, when applying the top coat of epoxy, the room temperature should be carefully
controlled to ensure that the epoxy cures quickly to avoid spotty coverage. This is likely due to
small scale high spots (<0.001 inches) that the epoxy flows away from to the surrounding areas.
61

5.2 Fulfillment of Project Objectives

The major objectives of the design and manufacture of a surf foil system were to create
parametric 3D models of all the components, followed by their manufacture as well as full
documentation of the progress of the project, including presentation to peers and the public.

Figure 5.4: Fully Assembled Surf Foil

All design objectives have been met. The manufacturing objectives have been met and the fully
assembled surf foil is seen in Figure 5.4. The manufacture of the mast was not required because
a set was purchased, and priority was given to the completion of project documentation and
the exhibition of the project. The project is on schedule to meet the remaining documentation
and presentation requirements.

All the information required to reproduce this product have been included with the hope that
this work will aid in the development and advancement of surf foil technology.
6 Bibliography

[1] US Water Ski & Wake, "US Water Ski," 2013. [Online]. Available:
http://www.usawaterski.org/pages/USA-WS%20Profile.htm. [Accessed 04 May 2019].

[2] S. Gill, "Is There an Average Weight for Men?," 14 February 2018. [Online]. Available:
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/320917.php. [Accessed 04 May 2019].

[3] C. Muller, "Kite Hydrofoil," SABDA Studios, 2019. [Online]. Available:

http://kitehydrofoil.com/index.html. [Accessed 02 March 2019].

[4] M. Todd, "How to Make Your Own Hydrofoil," Seabreeze, 2019. [Online]. Available:
https://www.seabreeze.com.au/News/Kitesurfing/How-to-make-your-own-
Hydrofoil_8649403.aspx. [Accessed 02 May 2019].

[5] Naish, "Thrust Windsurf Foil," Naish, 2019. [Online]. Available:

https://www.naishfoils.com/product/thrust-windsurf-foil-complete-standard/. [Accessed 02 May
2019].

[6] SlingShot, "Aluminum Surf Foils vs. Carbon Surf Foils," SlingShot, 2019. [Online]. Available:
https://blog.slingshotsports.com/aluminum-surf-foils-vs-carbon-surf-foils-which-is-better/.
[Accessed 02 May 2019].

[7] IKO, "How to Choose your Hydrofoil Board," IKO, 2019. [Online]. Available:
https://www.ikointl.com/how-to-choose-your-hydrofoil-board. [Accessed 02 May 2019].

[8] M. H. Sadraey, Aircraft Design: A Systems Engineering Approach, New Hampshire: A John Wiley &
Sons, Ltd., Publication, 2013.

[9] A. Engineering, "Control and Stability of Aircraft," 23 January 2016. [Online]. Available:
https://aerospaceengineeringblog.com/control-and-stability-of-aircraft/. [Accessed 04 May
2019].

[10] Warwickl, "Stabaliser Wing," Seabreeze, 03 June 2018. [Online]. Available:

https://www.seabreeze.com.au/forums/Stand-Up-Paddle/Foiling/Stabaliser-wing-which-
way-up?page=1. [Accessed 04 January 2019].

[11] C. Muller, "Design," SABDA Studios, [Online]. Available: http://kitehydrofoil.com/design.html.

[Accessed 04 January 2019].

[12] C. Garbous, "Hydrofoil SUP - Kai Lenny's Board Explained," Total SUP, 04 May 2016. [Online].
Available: https://www.totalsup.com/news/kai-lennys-hydrofoil-sup-explained/. [Accessed 05
May 2019].

62
[13] Wikipedia, "Forward-Swept Wing," Wikipedia, 02 January 2019. [Online]. Available:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forward-swept_wing. [Accessed 04 January 2019].

[14] Wikipedia, "Delta Wing," Wikipedia, 09 December 2018. [Online]. Available:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_wing. [Accessed 04 January 2019].

[15] Wikipedia, "Wing Configuration," Wikipedia, 10 December 2018. [Online]. Available:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wing_configuration#Chord_variation_along_span. [Accessed 04
January 2019].

[16] D. F. W. Riefels, "Aerofoil Sections," Butterworths, London, 1961.

[17] T. V. B. C. W. a. R. R. G. Robert H. Neely, "Experimental & Calculated Characteristics of NACA 44-

Series Wings," Langley Memorial Aeronautical Laboratory, Washington, 1947.

[18] Federal Aviation Administration, "Pilot’s Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge," U.S. Department
of Transportation, Oklahoma City, 2016.

[19] T. Benson, "Modern Lift Equation," NASA, 05 April 2018. [Online]. Available:
https://wright.nasa.gov/airplane/lifteq.html. [Accessed 04 January 2019].

[20] Glen Research Center, "Shape Effects on Drag," NASA, 2019. [Online]. Available:
https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/shaped.html. [Accessed 05 May 2019].

[21] N. Hall, "The Drag Equation," NASA, 05 May 2015. [Online]. Available:
https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/drageq.html. [Accessed 04 January 2019].

[22] Foilever, "Technical Terms: Kitefoil and Windfoil," Foilever, 2017. [Online]. Available:
http://www.foilever.com/en/content/11-technical-terms-kitefoil-windfoil. [Accessed 04 January
2019].

[23] J. Smith, "Kiteboarding," Power Kite Shop, [Online]. Available:

https://powerkiteshop.com/kiteboarding/. [Accessed 05 05 2019].

[24] N. Hall, "Inclination Effects on Lift," National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 05 April
2018. [Online]. Available: https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/incline.html. [Accessed
04 January 2019].

[25] Airfoil Tools, "NACA 23015," Airfoil Tools, 2019. [Online]. Available:
http://airfoiltools.com/airfoil/details?airfoil=naca23015-il. [Accessed 03 May 2019].

[26] H. Y. Mark Drela, "XFOIL: Subsonic Airfoil Development System," 13 December 2013. [Online].
Available: https://web.mit.edu/drela/Public/web/xfoil/. [Accessed 3 November 2018].

[27] Wold Sea Temperature, NOAA, "Vancouver Sea Temperature," 2019. [Online]. Available:
https://www.seatemperature.org/north-america/canada/vancouver.htm. [Accessed 04 May
2019].

63
[28] UNSW, "De Casteljau Bezier Curves and Design," University of New South Wales, 2019. [Online].
Available: https://www.futurelearn.com/courses/maths-linear-quadratic-
relations/0/steps/12129. [Accessed 05 May 2019].

[29] S. Saunder, "Tensile Properties of 3D Printed PLA Specimens," 3DPrint.com, 16 January 2019.
[Online]. Available: https://3dprint.com/233916/tensile-properties-of-3d-printed-pla/. [Accessed
05 May 2019].

[30] McMaster-Carr, "Metric 18-8 Stainless Steel Hex Drive Flat Head Screws," McMaster-Carr, 2019.
[Online]. Available: https://www.mcmaster.com/countersunk-screws. [Accessed 04 May 2019].

[31] W. System, "Epoxy Chemistry," [Online]. Available: https://www.westsystem.com/instruction-

2/epoxy-basics/epoxy-chemistry/. [Accessed 09 05 2019].

[32] R. H. Neely, "Experimental & Calculated Characterisics of NACA 44-Series Wings," Langley
Memorial Aeronautical Laboratory, Washington, 1947.

[33] A. Udris, "What Are Canards?," BoldMethod, 14 July 2014. [Online]. Available:
https://www.boldmethod.com/learn-to-fly/aircraft-systems/canards/. [Accessed 04 January
2019].

[34] N. Hall, "Airplane Parts and Function," NASA, 05 May 2015. [Online]. Available:
https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/airplane.html. [Accessed 04 January 2019].

[35] PB Kiteboarding, "Spotz Tuna 58cm 61cm Lightwind," PBK, 2018. [Online]. Available:
https://www.pbkiteboarding.com/Kiteboarding-Snowkiting-
Equipment/Spotz_Tuna_Hydrofoils_Kitefoils_Kiteboarding_Kitesurfing_Foils/Spotz_Tuna_Hydrof
oils_Kitefoils_Kiteboarding_Kitesurfing_Foils.html. [Accessed 04 January 2019].

[36] RC Powers, "Anhedral Wings :: Detailed explanations of anhedral plane designs," RC Powers, 16
February 2009. [Online]. Available: https://www.rcpowers.com/community/threads/anhedral-
wings-detailed-explanations-of-anhedral-plane-designs.234/. [Accessed 04 January 2019].

64
Appendix A: Original Request for Proposal (RFP)

Poseidon Adventures
Water Sports Equipment Manufacturing
Location: 123 Fake Sttee-t, Burnaby BC. VSG 4J3
Proposal Number: A001234
Dat e: October 16th_2018

Proj ect Overview:

Poc--eidon Adventures is a new company that i.s looking to m anufacture high quality recreational
hydrofoils in their Vancouver, 8.C. focation. The successful candidate will d esi:gn, buikl and t est a ca.rbon
fiber hyd.rofoil to be used rect eat ionalty with a w akeboard or wake-surf board. Poseidon Adventures
wants a hydrofoil design t h.at is based on a rolid scientific foundation, rather than the industry prev alent
proc.ess of t rial-and-effor.

Obj ectives:
The goal of this project is to dev elop and test a lightweight and dura.ble composite hydrofoil ior t he
recre,ational m ark.et. The hydrofoi1 should be designed fOf use w it h a wakeboard or w ake-surf board and
be tailored towards adult users in t he North American mart.et. The design must be competitive in terms
of cost wit h simi:la.r h ~nd hydrofoils.

Successful execution of t he project wil be the dev elopm.ent of a scientific approach to hydrofoil design.
The design process must include applied aerodynamic wing theory to justify d e.sign choices. Specifically,
with ref erence to the ways i.n which foil form, shape, and size affect t he performance of the hydrofoil.
Ah.er successful prototyping, Poseidon Advent ures intends to produce 30 units per month of t he
d:e.signed hydrofoil at a high-quality fewl.

Scope of Pr oject:
This Request for Proposal has been developed t o secure de$ign, manufacturing and t esting services for
the development of a: recreational hydrofoil. The project must be fully executed before May 8"', 2019 in
order to allow for beta t~"'ting d uring the summer recreation season. The deliverables of the
recre,ational hydrofoil design project include, but are not limited to:

Design and Simulation Deliverables

Technica l specffications
Concept design
Concept drawings
Detail design
Solid modeling

65
 Figure A.1: Original RFP from Poseidon Adventures Ltd (p1/2).

Prototype Deliverables
Manufacturing drawings
Fully functional protot ype
Technical manual out lining t he manufacturing process

Product Testing/ Design Validation

Technical analyslS
Design validation through t esting

In addition to the above, t he project t eam will take patt in w eekly meetings wit h t he project sponsor to
review progress. The project team will prepare an agenda prior to each meeting and will record meeting
minutes.

Pr oposal Requirements:
The proposal should be submitted in PDF form no later t hat 4:00 PM October 301h, 2018. Late submittals
will not be considered.

Please note t hat all work must be completed by t he recipient{s) of t his RFP and sub-contracting of any
project component must be approv ed by Poseidon Adventures. Include C.V.' s of all team members
detailing relevant past wort and an organizational flow chatt detailing team m embers' responsibilities.

Regards,

C. Jct,,.,,,,,,,,.
Cave Johnson

Poseidon Adventures CFO

604-5S5-1745

Figure A.2:Original RFP from Poseidon Adventures (p2/2).

66
Appendix B: Lift Calculations

-
AS~\lMfT\aN~:

~~e. T-=2-~•c
)(

f r n ) JLJ I 1111 '

L-,

mau I m : 1r j..J
K, = I JCJ{)
, •I - ,-
Rey(\/0\../) 1 1Wf'110ft I
f,,t.A-v171 I J : ,.f'/ f'2
vJt~~ ?t4frt-f) )-JO/ S-

0:, F1'.- - - M :, f\.. ':. -ffl + f'f

0 = F\.. - ""'l
FL :: 'Yl l
: ( 1 S- ) ( '\ · &"I "7 1. )

= i'3/.7r-"'

Figure B.1: Minimum lift velocity calculations (p1/2).

67
 -) c.\. o. 3 s-

2-('\>\ . '\S-) ll,

(o .1~)( '\~ 1 ) ( o.t,'tl)
'1

J r . 1-t.t 'i t I

Figure B.2: Minimum lift velocity calculations (p2/2).

68
Appendix C: Design Review Package
Executive Summary
BTB Engineering will be conducting a critical design review on February 6th, 2019. The following
document is provided to participants who are attending to inform them on the current state of the
surf foil project as well as promote feedback in this stage of development.

Th e front and rear hydrofoil wings are NACA 23015 airfoil section s to be conn ect ed to a 1" diameter
aluminum fuselage. The mast will have an aluminum core surrounded by a 3D print ed form and
covered with a carbon fiber skin. Assuming a combined board and rider mass of 95 kg the current
design would have a "lift off' velocity of 11 mph.

Th e project is on schedule and on budget. BTB engineering will purchase the remaining components
and materia ls at a total cost of $1070 and commence manufacturing by February 131\ 2019.

Current Product Development Specif ications

Design Load (Rider weight): 198 lbm (90kg)
Surf Foil Assembly Weight Target: 11 lbm (5kg)
Required lift for Foiling: 209.5 lbf (932 N)
Minimum Foiling Velocity: 11.7 mph (18.8 km/h)
Maximum Foiling Velocity: 20 mph (32 .2 km/h)

SEC T ON A-A
SCALE l ;2

S EC r lDN ll-~
SCALE 1 ,2

e.CO l.75

Figure 1: Drawing of current front wing design

Front Wing Span: 32" (813 mm)

Front Wing Chord Length: 8" (203 mm) - maximum
Front Wing Surface Area: 439in2 (283090 mm2 )

Figure C.1: Design review package (p1/9).

69
 § :~ -- --= --- - ~
Figure 2: Drawing of current rear wing design

Rear Wing Spa n: 16" (406 mm)

Rear Wing Chord Length: 4" (102 mm)
Rear Wing Surface Area : 138in2 ( 88890mm2 )

Wing Material: PLA plast ic core reinforced with carbon fibr e epoxy composit e
Fuselage Material: 6061-T6 Aluminum, l " round bar
Mast Core M at erial: 6061-T6 Aluminum, 2" x ¾" flat bar & PLA plastic core
Mast Skin M aterial: Carbon fiber epoxy layup

Wing Airfoil Profile: NACA 23015

..
t
Cl/Cd v Alpha ---,
Cm v Alpha
O.OJ . . - - - - - - - - - - ' ' - - - - - - - ~
100

80

60 0_01

40 0.00

20 •0,01

0 -0-02

-20 -0.03

-0.0o!

•60 •0,05

80 0_06
20.0 15.o 10_0 5.o o_o 5.o 10.0 15_0 20.0 20.0 15.o 10.0 -s.o o.o 5.o 10.0 15.o 20.0
Figure 3: Top: Outline of the NACA 23015 airfoil. Bottom Left: Ratio of lift to drag coefficients as a function of
attack angle. Bottom Right: Plot of the internal moment induoed on the wilg as a function of attack angle.

Figure C.2: Design review package (p2/9).

70
 Lift Calculations

• .-I"'"!
; ('ltf-,,sr,-11
; 1]). ,.J

r ~;~. r-,[co~r)((~~~l)(o., ~4L)r·.

""· "'' ,-.v-. .stn-o kQ., ,ACf \.--\YT: ( oc.: o· )

-J , 8'.0 II)
: l't-C.,J... -.p'-..

G,. JJJ.1"?

("'- - ,: J .I C. l.,, -;:::. o. \ 'S

Figure C.3: Design review package (p3/9).

71
 Lift vs Velocity
5000

- Fl 1, a = 0
4500

- Fl 2, a = 1
4000
- Fl 3, a = 2
3500
- Rider Weight

-..
z
,-,
3000

Cl)
u 2500
0
u.
2000

1500

1000

500

0
0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Water Vel ocity, (m/s]

Figure 4: Rot showing the required Jill (yellow line) and them generated by the NACA 23015 foil forrhree
different attack angles, as a func(fon offluid velocity.

The above plot shows water velocity vs net lift force to be theoretically achieved by the surf
foil. In green, red, and blue are shown the expected lift forces for different angles of attad<,
of 0, 1, and 2 degrees with res pect to the direction of fluid flow . The yellow line indicates the
minimum lift for ce required for the surf foil and rider to achieve equilibrium with gravity. The
points at which the lift force curves intersect with this line indicates the minimum velocity
required for hydrofoiling to occur.

A variety of attack angles were used to give more insight into the likely rang es of foiling
velocities. Due to the variability in rider weight, surfing conditions. and riding style, the results
presented above are theoretical and likely to change in practice. In particular, small changes
in the angle of attack dramatically affect the amount of lift produced.

Figure C.4: Design review package (p4/9).

72
 Competitive Analysis

Figure 5: Plctu,e of the Slingshot Hover Glicle kite foil Figu,e 6: Cabrinha Double /!(Jent hydrofoil

2019 Slingshot Hover Glide kite foil Cabrinha Double Agent Hydrofoil/ Surf Skate
(https://www.slingshotsports.com/2019-Hover- (https://www.cabrinhakites.com/products/double-
Glide-FKite-Foil) agent)

Slingshot Features: Cabrinha Features:

Large, low-aspect Space Skate 65 wing has tons of Fun multi use board: foil / surf skate/ wake surf
lift and stability Easy to use and progress
Dihedral shape provides ·self-centering" flight Lively and responsive shape
Shift Fuselage: Different connection points for Single concave to angled v-tail channels
different performance provides exceptional grip
Aluminum mast- sturdy, affordable super durable Strapless, 2 or 3 strap configuration - for a fully
Excellent wake and surf crossover customizable ride
Safe-T winglets prevent injury Full EVA deck pad - thick & comfortable
Stable 71cm (28 inch) mast TT quad fins for surf skate / wake surf use
Compatible with the modular Hl:RISE foil system

Figure C.5: Design review package (p5/6).

73
 So/idworks Mode/

F,gure 7 Curront m0<1e1 ofthe hYCff0f011 des,gn

des,gn
p,_..,,,_,
F;g,,,-9 8 F,.,,t ..n. .Sho""1g /"" ddfo,9nt fus,,/""9 •nt•dace St,fes ,.,,,. Cu,mnt de.... fvgh(_

Figure C.6: Design review package (p6/9).

74
Ma nufacturing & Prototyping Process
Front & Rear Wi ngs
For the purpose of producing a test prototype , the hydrofoil wings w ings are to be
manufactured using 30 printing and carbon fiber epoxy composite. The complex wing
geometry will be reproduced from CAD using filament deposition modelling (FDM) . The
material t o be used is a plastic commonly used in FDM, polylact ic acid (PLA). The wings
must be 3D printed in sections due to print size and print orientational limitations. Once all
wing sections are printed, they are to be assembled and fused together using a high streng th
epoxy.

The mounting holes on each wing will be reinforced with aluminum sheet metal and anti-
crush inserts. T his reinforcement assembly is to be epoxied in place onto the plastic PLA
cores. The purpose of this reinforcement assembly is to prevent failure at the mounting
location to the f uselage. This will allow t he mounting hardware to be torqued sufficiently lo
ensure a rigid connection between the fuselage and wings.

The wings' surfaces will then be prepared for carbon fibre layup. A marine grade epoxy
matrix is to be used with carbon fibre mats t o creat e a structural composite material.

Fuselage
The fuselage will be manufactured by m illing the ends of a 1" diameter 6061-T6 aluminum
round bar. This will provide a smooth, flat surface for the interface between the wings and
the fuselage. Holes are t o be drilled and tapped on the flat surface t o receive t he bolts
attaching the mast, front and rear wings . T he le ading and trailing faces are to be streamlined
in order to reduce drag as well as providing a pleasing aesthetic to the f uselage.

Mast
The mast will be built around a 6061-T6 Aluminum 2" x ¾" flat bar that runs the entire length
of the mast. Exterior core components to form the desired fluid dynamic shape will be 3D
printed using PLA. This will provide a consist ent structure for t he carbon fiber layup giving
the mast the require d strength and stiffness. Holes will be drilled and tapped to allow the
mast t o be m ou nted to the board pedestal and fuselage.

Figure 9: Solidworks model of the mast showing the 3D printed outer shape and the barstock core.

Figure C.7: Design review package (p7/9).

75
Schedule Stat us
T he project schedule is being tracked using a Gantt chart. BTB Engineering is pleased wijh
the current state of the schedule. All milestones to date have been completed. The virtual
models of key components are nearly complete and material testing is underway . BTB
Engineering is confident that the projected date of complet ion will coincide wijh the actual
date of project completion.

]6/10/2018 05/]2/2018 ]5/03/201, Od/05/20.,

Nomenclature

-
Design i>aremeters

i>erforman ce i>aram eters

Benchmarking

-- •
WlngTheorv

Paramete rized Design

Component Si,ecincatitn

30 Solid Modeling

Design Review

Force Analysis

CoreComponentMa~._,factu rhg

Prototype Productlon

Materials Testing

Design ValldatlO'l

Prototype Streng ht Test ing

Figure 10: Project Gantt chart

Cost Projections
T he following list provides an itemized breakdown of the material costs required.

Surfboard: $800.00
Mounting Pedestal: $90.00
Materials for Mast: $50.00
Materials for Fuselage: $25.00
Materials for Front and Rear Wing s: $75.00
Misc. Hardware : $30.00

Total: $1070.00

Figure C.8: Design review package (p8/9).

76
Project Risk Analys is
With the aid of our in-house plastics specialist. Greg King , all parts requiring carbon fibre
epoxy composite will be fabricated using vacuum bag techniques .
Delamination due to air pockets introduced during the layup process are a concern and will
be mnigated by using vacuum bagging all carbon fiber parts. After consultation with
composites experts, the issue galvanic corrosion of aluminum in contact with carbon fiber
has been brought to our attention and direct contact between these two materials will be
mitigated by applying a anodizing to all aluminum parts.

Figure 11: Cabnnha pedestal forJom,ng the mast to the board.

The pedestal (which joins the mast to the board) needs to be purchased and analysed in
order to locate the mast attachment points, this creates a time concern which will be
mitigated by ordering the pedestal within one week of the design review . Concerns about the
attachment points between the wings and fus elage have been identified due to potential
crushing during attachment and loading . One method to address this iss ue is to install anti-
crush guards.

The fuselage provides the locating points for both wings and the mast. As highlighted in the
Lift vs Velocity graph, small chang es in the angle of attack have a significant impact on the
amount of lift generated for a particular velocny. For this reason, the fuselage will require
precise machining to ensure accurate rotational and hole alignment of the components.
Additionally, shims will be manufactured to adjust the attack ang le. The shims will be placed
between the fuselage and mast as needed to adjust the attack angle.

Preliminary calculations show that the mast des ign will have minimal deflection under the
expected operating conditions, however a more detailed analys is of the mast deflection will
be conducted to include the 30 printed material and the carbon fiber skin.

Figure C.9: Design review package (p9/9).

77
Appendix D: Code for Processing NACA Profiles into SolidWorks Readable Filele File
/*****************************************************************************
Purpose: This program will accept NACA x and y points from
h ttp://airfoiltools.com/airfoil/naca4digit
and append a z column to it so that it can be opened as a curve in solidworks.
It can also generate a scaled wing profile.

#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <math.h>
#include <string.h>
#pragma warning(disable:4996)
//---------------------------------- CONSTANTS -------------------------------------------
#define PI 3.14159265358979
#define MAX_ITERS 100000 // maximum iterations for F-D
#define MAX_RESIDUAL (1.0e-8) // solution accuracy
#define FILE_NAME "Foilpoints.txt"
#define ROWS 199
#define COLS 3
//------------------------- FUNCTION PROTOTYPES ------------------------------------
void calcFN();
//------------------------- CODED FUNCTIONS ---------------------------------------------
// DESCRIPTION: Main function
// ARGUMENTS: none
// RETURN VALUE: return 0 to O/S to indicate normal termination
int main()
{
int nodes; // counter variables
double tFinal, *tNew, *tOld; //simulation variables
calcFN();
printf("Done\n");
getchar();
return 0;
}

// DESCRIPTION: Prints a NACA wing profile in a format that is compatible

// with solidworks
// ARGUMENTS: none
// RETURN VALUE: none
void calcFN()
{
int i, j;
double *x, *y, *z;

78
char filef[50], file[50], filet[50];
FILE *f, *t, *p, *q;

// Dynamic memory allocation

x = (double*)malloc((double)ROWS * sizeof(double));
y = (double*)malloc((double)ROWS * sizeof(double));
z = (double*)malloc((double)ROWS * sizeof(double));

for (i = 0; i < ROWS-1; i++) // zero allocation for each axis

{
x[i] = 0.0;
y[i] = 0.0;
z[i] = 0.0;
//printf("%lf\n", x[i]); //For debugging
}

//Assign file name to array

sprintf(file, FILE_NAME);
//Open file streat to write
t = fopen(file, "r");

for (j = 0; j < ROWS-2; j++)

{
fscanf(t,"%lf %lf",&x[j],&y[j]); //Reads data from the input file
// printf("%lf, %lf, %lf\n", x[j],y[j],z[j]); //For debugging
}
fclose(t);

//Assign file name to array

sprintf(filef,"Foilpointscenter.txt");
//Open file streat to write
f = fopen(filef, "w");

for (i = 0; i < ROWS-2; i++) //Prints the coordinates for x, y, & z in columns
{
fprintf(f, "%lf, %lf, %lf\n ", SF*x[i], SF*y[i], z[i]);
}
fclose(f);

// Commented out because we an used blocks in Solidworks to scale the wings

/*
//Assign file name to array
sprintf(filet, "Foilpointsend.txt");
//Open file streat to write

79
 p = fopen(filet, "w");
for (i = 0; i < ROWS - 2; i++)
//Prints a scaled coordinate set for the wing profile
{
fprintf(p, "%lf, %lf, %lf\n ", x[i],y[i],z[i]);
}
fclose(p);

//Assign file name to array

sprintf(filet, "Foilpointxz.txt");
//Open file streat to write
q = fopen(filet, "w");
for (i = 0; i < ROWS - 2; i++)
//Prints the wing profile coordinates in the xz plane
{
fprintf(q, "%lf, %lf, %lf\n ", x[i], z[i], y[i]);
}
printf("\nIt works!\n");
fclose(q);
*/
}

80
Appendix E: Crush Protection Calculation for M8

io,,. ~'(I\"" , R1 ~mW'

~c
-=-

\o:: ~: 7. + ib-i. = ~".,_ B.,;

\c= \\. 314 \'f\1'\

r~)( = a, .~i i~.o }l • ~o\.5~r(\I(\._ ,:- 11qv~N

flt.1{\.,__

s.~, ~°' L \\\ = 1i4C)11

\ \() \,l
s. ~1
Figure E.1: Wing compressive stress calculations. Based on M8 - Flat Head Screw

81
 Appendix F: Fuselage Length Calculations

t__ F.:" = L:+~ f.,,.. .F +,,~h

X. f"u,1.1>.
1,.,;0
1-..,....,..= l:t\ f.,u £ fe,.r
1-,·:J
co .c;.~ I LC 1);$~0--<< \.,J,..,.....
f. t I
l:·h f;,,....,
3 I- J.
J, 1),,1-..~- kt""'""'°
,,._~..,- s """';/.1
it: '""''f V

x~ 1):,1..~..... ..r,.-
,,.,...,1, I-• ¼k~ 1:H
f:rc..e locor,,, t,.:.....

[,,.~, - t=;Q - F;.,.r • qJ - 3

F.",

JJ - F;_ , { X) - f.:.r ( L- X) ~¢

Ks (F;,.k, - F;:,.r) d - C,_ L

F;.._~ - F~

/\,,,.""'0
1· ~'!,1.'lql-,J

d rs.1s ;. .
T"'<l.--..
J

Figure F.1: Fuselage length calculations

82
Appendix G: Fuselage As-Built Shop Drawing

8 7 6 s 4 3 2

0 D

/ \ \
2 X ¢0.2 66 2 X M8 - CORSE THREA D 2 X 00.266
C C

RO. I
1-¥-
I . ·$· ) ( @; @;,
'Q ~, )',"'L1 ·EB-
--·
-~ -
> --

'-,
q' 0
")

B B

2 X 90 d e COUNTER SINK @ 5/ 16'" DEPTH

Tirlf :
A A
Fuse lage

8 7 6 s 4 3 2

Figure G.1:Fuselage as-built shop drawing.

83
 Appendix H: Fuselage Stress Calculations

0y , 1 b 1--\?"

,.. \ .;: ..
pc~":· t-,,.;,_ $.l;J Wo,k s:
,J
A\ .\k I,,\~ k,\.,-. v{
J.I - - I-
I I
r,~t- 1-r ,_...,). lo.61,...,,
. '{
CIDI• C. 0 l'I \ :?>'3. ,,.
i J

J
....,.,;[~
I I
I
I I
1 I
A+ lk \,,H \,.,\.,, -
..- -...
CID :(,a 0. 02~0'65 ;, •

7 • A

V(N) j l.l)l,, .;,.

I SO
loo

So

. ,..,
• l"iO

Figure H.1: Fuselage stress calculations (p1/2).

84
 T=
C= O. oo'1S1<;,.,,,
cI I )
lo 'il. 214 N.-. ( o ooq51c; ~)
i !16~ 'jSS , 10·• ,,,<

oc Ma,
loi .1.<i w..., ( 0. 00951.s..,'i lob. 4 /vlP.,
q_boi,01.,. 10-'I ,..,_,

~->s, a';. o.. l1.h. . . :1...,......._ ..,

\,.

o,,& -/k st""s""s ,;h"""-

i~ 1;.,,te .

Figure H.2: Fuselage stress calculations (p2/2).

85
Appendix I: Project Gantt Chart
2018-10-16 2018-11-15 2018-U-15 2019 01 ·14 201902-13 2019-03 15 2019-04-14 2019 05-14

Nomendature -

Design Parameters

Benchmarkil'\g

Wing Theory

Parameterized Design

Component SpecifKatioo

30Solid Modeling

Oesign fteview

Fom• Malvsis

Core Componenl Manufacturil'\g

Prototype Production

Materials Testing

Prototype st,ef'\glh Ttsti"8

Figure I.1: Project Gantt chart.

86
Appendix J: Front Wing Drawings & Dimensions
8 7 6 s 4 3 2

2 X M B THROUG H HOLES WITH 90 d e COUNTERSIN K

r
A

C C

SECTION A -A

800

-
-
..-4'.
1.12 N

B L... / B
A
/
32.00

..;;:::;::::::: ~1 mt•

Front
Wing
A A
Oit.'ENSIONSA.i!E l',I INCHU

MATE~ L! ltA C ORE WlfH IAYIP

,ev
PIOPRIOARY ANO OONflOf NTIAl CAR90H f\8Si EPOXY
l l-E INFOf!JM110H CONf""'EO IN THIS
ORA.WNO G TI-IE SO.EPliOPERN Of SIZE CWG . 00.
l!ta. ANYR!PiOOUCTION I',! PAll':f OR
ASA W!iOLE
W l'HOIJf ll-E w.;mt;N PSU,USSICN Of
JINISH. CUAltOOAT s.EAUtlT
0 13 T
l!t.S IS Pi0Hll,1fl).
00 NOf SCA.LE oeAWNG SCALE: 1:1 WSX:.HT: 2.8 tx .IMl:!C I Ol' I

8 7 6 s 4 3 2

Figure J.1: Front wing CAD drawing

87
Appendix K: Front Wing Drawings & Dimensions
8 7 6 s 4 3 2

0 0

16.00

8.00

C C
0
q
"'

2 X MB THROUG H HO LES W ITH 90d e COUN TERSINK

SECTIO N B-B
B B

< z = '\

Rear
A
Wing A

8 7 6 s 4 3 2

Figure K.1: Rear wing CAD drawing.

88
Appendix L: Responsibility Assignment Matrix

Stakeholder
Responsibility Assignment
Matrix Jackson Anthony Johan Poseidon
Todd Backus Greg King
Bryla Taylor Fourie Adventures

Chief Lead Manufacturing Lead Materials Technical Manufacturing &

Role Project Sponsor
Engineer Engineer Engineer Advisor Materials Advisor

Activity
Theory & Nomenclature A R R C I I
Design Parameters R A R C I I
Performance Parameters R R A C I I
Benchmarking R A R I C I
3D Modelling A R R I I I
Force Analysis R R A C I I
Component Specification A R R I C I
Design Review A R R C C C
Core Components R R A I C I
Composite Lay-up R A R I C I
Assembly R A R I C I
Prototype Manufacture R A R C C I
Materials & Strength Testing R R A I I I
Design Validation A R R C I I
Legend A = Accountable I R = Responsible I C = Consult I I = Inform
Figure L.1: Project responsibility assignment matrix.

89
Appendix M: Project Work Breakdown Structure

Surf Foil Design & Manufacturing

Research
/ Design
l l
Manufacturing

Theory & Nomenclature 3D Solid Model Core Components Materials Testing

Design Parameters Force Analysis Composite Lay-up Design Validation

Performance Parameters Component Assembly Prototype

Specifications Strength Testing
Industry Standards Produce Prototypes
Design Review
Benchmarking

Figure M.1: Work breakdown structure chart for the project.

90
Appendix N: Milestone Schedule: Key Dates of Projected Milestone Schedule

Table N.1: Project Milestone Schedule Key Dates.

Task End Date

Complete Research November-30-18
Design & 3D Solid Model January-14-19
Design Review February-15-19
Manufacture Prototype May-01-19
Technical Analysis Report May-01-19
Project Wrap-up May-20-19

91