Boat Design Forums  |  Boat Design Directory  |  Boat Design Gallery  |  Boat Design Book Store  |  Thanks to Our Site Sponsors

Go Back   Boat Design Forums > Community > Open Discussion: All Things Boats & Boating
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Most Recent Posts Gallery Images Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #766  
Old 01-25-2012, 02:21 PM
BPL BPL is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Rep: 209 Posts: 221
Location: Home base USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by peter radclyffe View Post
Thanks for the link Peter. Too bad the bottom isn't visible. And the recovery portion appears overly-simplified.
Reply With Quote


  #767  
Old 01-25-2012, 02:41 PM
peter radclyffe's Avatar
peter radclyffe peter radclyffe is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Rep: 662 Posts: 1,361
Location: europe
http://www.fincantieri.it/cms/data/p...urce3_orig.pdf
Reply With Quote
  #768  
Old 01-25-2012, 02:45 PM
BPL BPL is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Rep: 209 Posts: 221
Location: Home base USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gian Milan View Post
However in 1912 they had all entrusted to the great designers that, having regard to considerations of traffic, given the numbers, all evaluated with great intelligence, thought adequate lifeboats for only half the passengers.

Something makes me think that the designers have had children and grandchildren.
How about naming some of these great designers of 1912 Gian?
Or that could be a good topic on its own.
Reply With Quote
  #769  
Old 01-25-2012, 02:47 PM
BPL BPL is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Rep: 209 Posts: 221
Location: Home base USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by peter radclyffe View Post
Thanks for this PDF link Peter. The charts are interesting.
Reply With Quote
  #770  
Old 01-25-2012, 02:57 PM
Gian Milan Gian Milan is offline
Previous Member
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BPL View Post
How about naming some of these great designers of 1912 Gian?
Or that could be a good topic on its own.
The Titanic was designed by William Pirrie and Thomas Andrewsby who was the chief designer.
By agreeing to remove a lot of lifeboats (for aesthetic reasons!) they have made ​​a mistake scary.
It is my absolute opinion that designers of Concordia, like their predecessors of Titanic, have designed a not safe ship.

But Andrew and Pirrie Have no previous experience.
So they are less guilty of their "grandchildren".

Last edited by Gian Milan : 01-26-2012 at 07:39 PM. Reason: mistake writing
Reply With Quote
  #771  
Old 01-25-2012, 06:28 PM
IEWinkle IEWinkle is offline
Retired Naval Architect
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Rep: 184 Posts: 97
Location: Glasgow
Quote:
Originally Posted by nettersheim View Post
According to the delivery time the vessel has been built under SOLAS 90 rules. That means the deterministic principles have been used and based on this I suppose the vessel is a "2 floodable compartments".
I think you will find that for a ship of this size with as many passengers SOLAS 90 would require a '3 compartment standard'
Reply With Quote
  #772  
Old 01-25-2012, 07:56 PM
masalai masalai is offline
masalai
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Rep: 1847 Posts: 6,854
Location: cruising, Australia
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-01-2...n-rome/3794044
__________________
Try to be helpful...
Remember that there are at least two sides for every story...
Reply With Quote
  #773  
Old 01-25-2012, 09:07 PM
Petros Petros is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Rep: 1440 Posts: 2,479
Location: Arlington, WA-USA
Comparison to Titanic is not really valid (though inevitable). Very different deisign conditions, etc. A number of coincidences caused the accident, but Titanic ultimately failed because the designers had specified a new type of alloy that was both strong and tough, and allowed for a larger hull to be designed. The steel supplier could not deliver the quantities in time to meet contractual delivery schedule so substituted a different alloy without authorization. the alloy had the same ultimate strength but was brittle (did not have the same toughness). When it struck the ice burg the hull plates cracked open rather than just buckled, allow too many internal compartments to flood.

It went down fast, and ultimately the hull cracked in two. None of this was known until the wreckage was discovered more recently and it was found on the bottom in two pieces, and samples of the hull material was brought up and sent to a metallurgy lab. I had read a number of technical books when in collage on why it sank, all were speculation and none got it correct until the samples were tested.

You can only design for what you would reasonably anticipate, it would be far too costly to design for every stupid and inconceivable thing that MIGHT happen. Some fool will always find a way to thwart the best efforts of the designers.

The Concordia was ripped open on a rock, and almost everyone had gotten out. More would have gotten out had the crew had their act together it sounds like to me.
Reply With Quote
  #774  
Old 01-25-2012, 09:24 PM
powerabout powerabout is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Rep: 692 Posts: 2,385
Location: Melbourne/Singapore/Italy
sounds like a Benetti built today
__________________
Boat builders are not necessarily Boat designers who are not necessarily Engineers who are not builders who are not designers.....
Reply With Quote
  #775  
Old 01-25-2012, 09:27 PM
BPL BPL is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Rep: 209 Posts: 221
Location: Home base USA
Did not hear about that accident powerabout. Do you have a link to the accident report?
Reply With Quote
  #776  
Old 01-25-2012, 10:45 PM
Gian Milan Gian Milan is offline
Previous Member
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Petros View Post
.......

You can only design for what you would reasonably anticipate, it would be far too costly to design for every stupid and inconceivable thing that MIGHT happen. Some fool will always find a way to thwart the best efforts of the designers.

.........................

Wade, W.C. 1986. The Titanic: End of a Dream, Penguin Books, p. 41:

....Alewander Carlisle,..... designed the Titanic, said: "Unless the Board of Trade and governments do not make it necessary to install a sufficient number of lifeboats, no manufacturer can afford so much useless weight"

**************

**********************
After this post, here I think exhausted my contribution.
Thank you for the exquisite hospitality.
Greetings to all and ...Gonfie Vele!
Reply With Quote
  #777  
Old 01-26-2012, 03:34 AM
nettersheim nettersheim is offline
Consultant
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Rep: 152 Posts: 47
Location: France
Quote:
Originally Posted by IEWinkle View Post
I think you will find that for a ship of this size with as many passengers SOLAS 90 would require a '3 compartment standard'

Hello Sir,

You are certainly right...
But it seems that sometime the "Solas 90" calculations lead to a "2 compartments standard" for similar vessel. We obviously need more information about that matter.

Guillermo in a previous post asked if somebody has info regarding floodable length for "Costa Concordia", which is clearly a related issue. I am afraid that we will not have answers to our questions shortly.

Have you an opinion on the list which has developped quite rapidly ? Normally, according to "Solas 90" no large heel should have been experienced (cross flooding devices... transverse watertight bulkheads... no longitudinal watertights bulkheads like in wing tanks or whatever without transverse connecting ducts, ...). Something has gone wrong after the collision. Actual damage size compare to "theoretical" damage size ? Too large free surface effect after flooding ?


Francois-Xavier Nettersheim
Reply With Quote
  #778  
Old 01-26-2012, 06:04 AM
powerabout powerabout is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Rep: 692 Posts: 2,385
Location: Melbourne/Singapore/Italy
Quote:
Originally Posted by BPL View Post
Did not hear about that accident powerabout. Do you have a link to the accident report?
meaning any Benetti, they use high tensile paper thin steel
try dry docking one
__________________
Boat builders are not necessarily Boat designers who are not necessarily Engineers who are not builders who are not designers.....
Reply With Quote
  #779  
Old 01-26-2012, 08:06 AM
IEWinkle IEWinkle is offline
Retired Naval Architect
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Rep: 184 Posts: 97
Location: Glasgow
Quote:
Originally Posted by Petros View Post
Titanic ultimately failed because the designers had specified a new type of alloy that was both strong and tough, and allowed for a larger hull to be designed. The steel supplier could not deliver the quantities in time to meet contractual delivery schedule so substituted a different alloy without authorization. the alloy had the same ultimate strength but was brittle (did not have the same toughness). When it struck the ice burg the hull plates cracked open rather than just buckled, allow too many internal compartments to flood.

It went down fast, and ultimately the hull cracked in two.
I cannot agree with this analysis. The long raking damage to the Titanic's hull openned it up in a very similar way to that of the Costa Concordia. It is all a question of ship's speed and the energy of the collision and the fact that any riveted hull of that period would have split either at the longitudinal seams and/or by tearing of the plating in the same circumstances. All ship's steel of the time at the Titanic was relatively brittle at the temperatures then prevailing. It was not until after WW II that notch tough steels such as you would expect to see in the welded bilge structure of the Costa Concordia were widely applied and these are only applied to provide crack arrestors after the demise of riveted hulls.

You should also note that that the sinking of Titanic was 'slow and graceful' (as required as the basis for the SOLAS regulations derived from her demise) over a period of some 2 hr 40 min, which is a relatively long time for a vessel which is doomed to sink, and she sank upright without capsize! The fact that she ultimately broke in two after an extreme trim condition developed is not a matter of significant concern as ships are never designed to support such a large proportion of their hull unsupported by buoyancy.
Reply With Quote


  #780  
Old 01-26-2012, 08:13 AM
IEWinkle IEWinkle is offline
Retired Naval Architect
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Rep: 184 Posts: 97
Location: Glasgow
Quote:
Originally Posted by nettersheim View Post
Have you an opinion on the list which has developped quite rapidly ? Normally, according to "Solas 90" no large heel should have been experienced (cross flooding devices... transverse watertight bulkheads... no longitudinal watertights bulkheads like in wing tanks or whatever without transverse connecting ducts, ...). Something has gone wrong after the collision. Actual damage size compare to "theoretical" damage size ? Too large free surface effect after flooding ?


Francois-Xavier Nettersheim
I refer you to my post 10 on thread Simulating Costa Concordia
Reply With Quote
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
help with cruise ship jobs james1911 Services & Employment 2 02-08-2012 07:28 PM
Cruise Ship Stability Willallison Stability 10 02-09-2005 03:09 PM
Cruise Ship Project cruiserbrain Boat Design 0 03-26-2004 08:16 PM
Need help with cruise ship mathematical formulas cmc Boat Design 4 12-12-2003 12:30 AM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:14 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Web Site Design and Content Copyright ©1999 - 2014 Boat Design Net