In reply to Steve_Jones :
no argument, same page, just a great graphic to drive home the same point.
In reply to Steve_Jones :
no argument, same page, just a great graphic to drive home the same point.
Steve_Jones said:Apexcarver said:Ya think they had any idea 47 years ago that ships would get THAT big? Plus, doubling in the last 10 years? Good luck keeping infrastructure up with that!You and I are on the same page, but look back a few pages, lol. Like I posted a few pages back, photos do not show just how massive these boats can be, if anyone ever gets the chance to get close to one, take the time to do so, you won't forget seeing it up close.
I always heard it like this.
A crash stop, from full speed to stopped, with the engine running at max RPMs in reverse, it can take a loaded container ship up to 4 miles to come to a complete stop. Think about that. 55k hp working as hard as it can to stop it. 4 miles later it finally succeeds.
You aren't going to stop it on a dime without a massive structure.
In reply to Toyman! :
Of note is that in many cases you don't need to stop it, just deflect it a bit.
Still a LOT of energy involved of course, but generally a small fraction of the entirety.
In reply to DeadSkunk (Warren) :
The barriers around the power line poles are to prevent recreational boaters from accessing the ladders to climb up and dive from, not to serve as impact protection. I'll try to dive through some old photos to find before and after photos, I have to admit that I'm part of the reason that they were installed.
In reply to Ian F (Forum Supporter) :
I don't see it as a single size thing, but a number and location thing. Can't prevent the strike, but can you lessen the blow so that it doesn't fall and block the channel?
The Mackinaw bridge has been hit multiple times, and the Lakers that travel the Great Lakes are huge, too.
Reducing the damage to just the bridge is worth a few more reinforced pilings , I would think.
It's been a very long time since I've been involved with marine tranportation and even in those days the standards of other countries vs. US flagged ships was considerable. With the increased amount of automation that is relied on to operate these ships with minimal watch standers a complete power failure onboard could have shut down the main engine when the technology running the automation system went down. It takes time for all that to re-boot and reset and it happened where that wasn't available. I would expect the USCG is aware and will add that to the list of things that will be in discussion.
Yay, numbers!
KE=1/2 mv squared.
Assuming MV Dali was at or near her deadweight tonnage of 116,851t, drifting at 8kt (her estimated speed at time of impact)-
gives us an impact force of 989,599,290 joules (989.5 mJ) or 729,890,979 ft-lbs of kinetic energy.
There's not a dolphin or piling out there that can withstand a direct hit from that kind of force.
I have to agree with a previous poster- focus on inspections and repairs that limit/eliminate the dead-in-water, drifting scenario.
Steve_Jones said:
Got it. let me know if you need more.
Steve_Jones said:In reply to Apexcarver :
Apparently they should have planned for that size ship "just in case" anyway.... /sarcasm
Future proofing is stupid. Technology never advances.
Also there have been some recent issues in that industry with contaminated oil/fuel.
In reply to Recon1342 :
It doesn't have to absorb the whole thing. Just lessen the blow to the bridge to prevent fouling of the water passage.
Limit the problem to just the bridge structure, and we are way ahead of where are now.
Terrible mess and I hate that it happened. I am sure this will lead to many what if questions. I don't think I saw anyone ask about tugs? After the Exxon Valdez accident one of the corrective actions were all tankers going into and out of Valdez had tug Ford Econoboxs. https://www.murkowski.senate.gov/press/article/two-tug-tanker-Ford Econobox-could-become-federal-law (note: I just found the first reference to it I could, I learned it from a history channel show on the Alaska Pipeline decades ago). If Harbors that have vulnerable infrastructure did the same thing It would be one more mitigating circumstance, maybe the last line of defense in this one.
I wonder if it really was going 8 knots. I would have expected a bunch of those containers to slide off the front considering it looks like the whole ship went to zero knots in about maybe 15 feet.
CNN NEWS
Dali cargo ship suffered "severe electrical problem" while docked for 2 days before crash, port worker says
The Dali cargo ship was docked in Baltimore days prior to the crash and was facing a “severe electrical problem,” a port worker told CNN’s UK affiliate, ITN.
Julie Mitchell, co-administrator of Container Royalty, a company that keeps track of the tonnage on container ships that comes into Baltimore, said the ship was in the port for two days.
“And those two days, they were having serious power outages… they had a severe electrical problem,” Mitchell said. “It was total power failure, loss of engine power, everything.”She said refrigerated boxes kept tripping breakers, while mechanics had generators running while they were trying to fix the ship. CNN is unable to independently verify the information.
Maryland Gov. Wes Moore said Tuesday that the crew of the ship notified officials that it had lost power prior to the crash.
Mitchell said these types of power problems are “not really that common at all,” calling Tuesday’s incident “very rare.”
“They shouldn’t have let the ship leave port until they got it on under control,” she said, adding that she did not know whether the issue was fixed before the ship set sail.
CNN has reached out to the operator of the ship, Synergy Group, for comment.
I thought it was interesting how the Tampa Bay Bridge has all those protection dolphins on the outside of the pylons, but if a ship lost control UNDER the bridge, it could drift sideways into them.
Recon1342 said:Yay, numbers!
KE=1/2 mv squared.
Assuming MV Dali was at or near her deadweight tonnage of 116,851t, drifting at 8kt (her estimated speed at time of impact)-
gives us an impact force of 989,599,290 joules (989.5 mJ) or 729,890,979 ft-lbs of kinetic energy.
There's not a dolphin or piling out there that can withstand a direct hit from that kind of force.
I have to agree with a previous poster- focus on inspections and repairs that limit/eliminate the dead-in-water, drifting scenario.
We're seemingly not installing dolphins on the interior side of the pylon/channel. Presumably to make the shipping lane wider so that two large vessels can pass one another under the bridge at the same time.
That just seems foolish. The bridge should be protected from channel traffic on all sides, so if a ship parked itself under the bridge and drifted sideways, it doesn't take out the pylon.
If that means a narrow shipping lane under the bridge for which only a single large vessel can pass, so be it.
Dolphins are cheap. Put more of them down.
NY Nick said:Terrible mess and I hate that it happened. I am sure this will lead to many what if questions. I don't think I saw anyone ask about tugs? After the Exxon Valdez accident one of the corrective actions were all tankers going into and out of Valdez had tug Ford Econoboxs. https://www.murkowski.senate.gov/press/article/two-tug-tanker-Ford Econobox-could-become-federal-law (note: I just found the first reference to it I could, I learned it from a history channel show on the Alaska Pipeline decades ago). If Harbors that have vulnerable infrastructure did the same thing It would be one more mitigating circumstance, maybe the last line of defense in this one.
Tug Boats get them out of the Harbor and into the channel, at that point they are under their own power.
That has not been an issue for millions of boats over decades of time, neither has the size of the dolphins or the size of the shipping lanes. Many things had to line up for this to happen. The main cause of this is a ship with known power issues trying to get underway with out fixing that problem.
In reply to Steve_Jones :
No argument from me on the root cause. Was just thinking about reasonable mitigations. I don't know this waterway or how far this bridge is from the port.
Note: I also got auto corrected and didn't read my previous post before submitting. Ford Econoboxes was supposed to be "boats for guidance".
Steve_Jones said:Tug Boats get them out of the Harbor and into the channel, at that point they are under their own power.
That has not been an issue for millions of boats over decades of time, neither has the size of the dolphins or the size of the shipping lanes. Many things had to line up for this to happen. The main cause of this is a ship with known power issues trying to get underway with out fixing that problem.
Bingo. Ultimately down to the master for deciding to go out but I wonder if it was under the direction/pressure from upper management. Wonder if the port authority was pressuring them to get out as well.
Time will tell on those questions.
This has been informative, but I do have a question-
If that CNN article was right, in that there were severe electrical issues aboard the ship for the 2 days it took to offload/reload (I presume), how does one go about the troubleshooting/repair process on something this utterly MASSIVE? Like, the ship can't just stay on the loading dock indefinitely I would assume, but are there like "Ship repair docks" in harbors for this type of event? I genuinely am fascinated but have no idea how commercial shipping and maintenance of said equipment works. I'm sure a lot of this is a Time is Money situation, but it seems like that's a pretty big risk to take for the sake of keeping a schedule.
golfduke said:This has been informative, but I do have a question-
If that CNN article was right, in that there were severe electrical issues aboard the ship for the 2 days it took to offload/reload (I presume), how does one go about the troubleshooting/repair process on something this utterly MASSIVE? Like, the ship can't just stay on the loading dock indefinitely I would assume, but are there like "Ship repair docks" in harbors for this type of event? I genuinely am fascinated but have no idea how commercial shipping and maintenance of said equipment works. I'm sure a lot of this is a Time is Money situation, but it seems like that's a pretty big risk to take for the sake of keeping a schedule.
IMO, if they have to clear the berth but still need repairs, why not task the tugs (which were used to clear the berth) to help guide you out to safe waters?
golfduke said:This has been informative, but I do have a question-
If that CNN article was right, in that there were severe electrical issues aboard the ship for the 2 days it took to offload/reload (I presume), how does one go about the troubleshooting/repair process on something this utterly MASSIVE? Like, the ship can't just stay on the loading dock indefinitely I would assume, but are there like "Ship repair docks" in harbors for this type of event? I genuinely am fascinated but have no idea how commercial shipping and maintenance of said equipment works. I'm sure a lot of this is a Time is Money situation, but it seems like that's a pretty big risk to take for the sake of keeping a schedule.
It seems like if a ship could be given "disabled" status because of electrical problems, and there was no dock space because of demand, they could anchor it in that harbor and do repairs. Technicians could be brought over by tenders if needed.
golfduke said:This has been informative, but I do have a question-
If that CNN article was right, in that there were severe electrical issues aboard the ship for the 2 days it took to offload/reload (I presume), how does one go about the troubleshooting/repair process on something this utterly MASSIVE? Like, the ship can't just stay on the loading dock indefinitely I would assume, but are there like "Ship repair docks" in harbors for this type of event? I genuinely am fascinated but have no idea how commercial shipping and maintenance of said equipment works. I'm sure a lot of this is a Time is Money situation, but it seems like that's a pretty big risk to take for the sake of keeping a schedule.
Most harbors have anchorages where ships can anchor to make repairs. The problem is it costs tens of thousands of dollars per hour for a ship to sit so they usually have the engineering crew repair systems while under way.
I can't believe talk of ladies of the evening so rampant at one time it needed to be added to the list of filtered words. I miss all the fun.
In reply to Wally (Forum Supporter) :
It's a crime to expose yourself to a blind person.
Think about that. It's happened enough that they've had to make it illegal.
jmabarone said:golfduke said:This has been informative, but I do have a question-
If that CNN article was right, in that there were severe electrical issues aboard the ship for the 2 days it took to offload/reload (I presume), how does one go about the troubleshooting/repair process on something this utterly MASSIVE? Like, the ship can't just stay on the loading dock indefinitely I would assume, but are there like "Ship repair docks" in harbors for this type of event? I genuinely am fascinated but have no idea how commercial shipping and maintenance of said equipment works. I'm sure a lot of this is a Time is Money situation, but it seems like that's a pretty big risk to take for the sake of keeping a schedule.
IMO, if they have to clear the berth but still need repairs, why not task the tugs (which were used to clear the berth) to help guide you out to safe waters?
You get into money and ass covering with this one. Money, because the tugs cost a good amount, so the ship most likely told them "all good". Ass covering because if the tugs know there are issues but release them and something happens, guess who gets blamed? At this point, there's only one company/boat to blame, and it's easy to spot :)
You'll need to log in to post.
