Keels and Keels Again!

[Guest625101138]

Originally Posted by ancient kayaker

.....

Rick: your point is well taken but I think Mike is covered by the conclusions of the report. However, what the authors of the report had to work with was the as-built vessel, not the design itself, which was -according to the report- unavailable. If this were a journalistic effort the designer would surely have been asked to comment, and any refusal duly noted.

.........

Terry

The conclusion in the report is only an opinion. The coast guard has a different opinion per attached.

There is also some comment purportedly from the builder and designer who stand by the design.

This will all play out in a court so you will find information harder to get. Jeff may even pull this thread. Not sure of contempt law in the US but making accusations in a high visibility public forum like this one on pending legal action could in itself be in contempt of court if it was action pending in an Australian court.

Publicly accusing someone of negligence is not wise unless you have ALL the facts and are in a position to stand by the accusation. In fact it is not at all professional or even smart.

Rick W

[Guest62110524]

possibly I am confusing 2 keel cases
One Au One USA
If so pardon me I was responding to AK,s post of testimony of (worker)
Remember a very high profile case?
Whitebread maxi DRUM, keel fell off not at root, but deeper where the keel had been welded to a (stub) Darn near drowned Rock star owner
keep ignoring , eventually may crawl under a damp rock

[Ad Hoc]

A.K.

"..My point remains, that we make up the difference between analysis and reality with the SF..."

I beg to differ, reality leads one to examine why a failure occurred. The investigation into the mechanism for failure instigates a 'new' procedure for design. It is all procedural, just as fatigue is. A factor of safety is in the absence of any formal procedure or accepted methods of detailed analysis, having already established the mechanism of failure, from previous experience.

I had already assumed you're in the aero industry..and yes an over reliance on FEA, but, taking a real structure and then FE modelling it, then testing it to destruction and various ranges of size all strain gauged allows the FEA to be calibrated to represent 'real' world responses. Then the FEA can be used with more confidence, but, only in the applications that the validation has been performed, ie a degree of sensitivity analysis does not provide carte blanch acceptance of any application.

As I'm sure you're aware the aero industry, in regards to structure is very different to the marine. Yours is the fail-safe/damage-tolerant approach. Generally in the marine field, structural failure that causes major loss of life is very rare, if ever (minor losses perhaps). Cracks are, in general, an inconvenience, not a catastrophe. I cannot see anyone in the marine industry building a full-scale vessel and testing it to failure, just to get some "more data" to design the boat "for real" again.

Different worlds and different approaches to structural design.

Having said that, my link above in post in #267 illustrates that despite the methods are known to establish and calculate SCFs, just as in your field, and how the marine and cyclic environment affects such details, as they do in the commercial high speed vessels, it is rarely understood nor implemented on smaller and luxury/pleasure craft market.

[TeddyDiver]

Well.. I dare to say that the statement "the design and building of the boat met and exceeded industry standard" in the so called "CG report" in RW's post is the ultimate ********.. Not seen the original report and somehow I have a doupt that this is just how it was stated.. just a "journalist" making inadaquate and misleading quote..

[MikeJohns]

Originally Posted by Rick Willoughby

Mike
Attached is brief CV of the NA credited with the design of the Cape Fear 38..........
You should be thoughtful when you draw conclusions that could harm someone's professional reputation and post them on a public forum. I wonder if Mr Marek can find you - how deep are your pockets - will it be worth his while?.........Rick W

Rick

This is a public document and it clearly says that keel failure occurred as a result of inadequate design. Then the designer is culpable, period.

Whether that designer was Marek or someone else may be another question but I would not want to be Marek. I think his reputation is questionable right now. The one thing that would redeem him 100% is to make public the final design. Maybe this will occur .

Above all this has cost a life needlessly, for the sake of some basic common engineering sense so sadly lacking not just in this case but also in other cases with exactly the same design faults. Does nobody read the engineering reports from the Bavaria or the Maxfun 35 debacles and put two and two together? Alarm bells should be ringing in everybody’s ears by now in this industry.

If Marek is at the heart of it then he at least understands the difference between shear and tensile strength. Although that CV looks like a brag sheet and is he licensed as a Civil or a NA in 19 states ? (it doesn't say what licenses).

Then there’s the construction facility, Cape Fear Yachts, who presumably just followed the design plans and no-one queried the hull thickness in way of the keel attachment. Usually there are some checks and balances and a good builder will query a deficient design.

Above all you'd think that after ABS screwed up with their first OSRY GRP laminate schedule in way of the keel attachment and beefed up the scantlings that designers would have at least some heightened awareness of the potential for catastrophic failure leading to a very high likelihood of fatality.

If you see anything to make you doubt a design whether you are a builder a repairer or an owner then question it. Above all if you are a designer and you become aware of common problems then review your design and act appropriately.

[Guest625101138]

Originally Posted by TeddyDiver

Well.. I dare to say that the statement "the design and building of the boat met and exceeded industry standard" in the so called "CG report" in RW's post is the ultimate ********.. Not seen the original report and somehow I have a doupt that this is just how it was stated.. just a "journalist" making inadaquate and misleading quote..

I have attached the USCG press release on their report so you can see how it was officially stated.

Who paid for the Texas A & M report??? Do you think their legal team and paid consultant would come up with a result that would find frequent groundings and using the students to make the repair (probably under faculty guidance) at fault.

I guess I am more of skeptic.

Like Pail B said eons ago there will be two sets of design information prepared, each supporting a certain opinion.

The interesting aspect in Cycnthia Woods and the Excalibur cases is the operation of the legal systems in Australia and US. The Australian builder is facing jail time. Wonder if that will happen in the US. Seems not because I have not seen any criminal proceedings related to Cynthia Woods. Just the poor widow trying to get some compensation. The last things she needs to hear is that her late husband had possibly some involvement in the negligence.

Rick W

[Guest625101138]

Originally Posted by MikeJohns

Rick

This is a public document and it clearly says that keel failure occurred as a result of inadequate design. Then the designer is culpable, period.

Whether that designer was Marek or someone else may be another question but I would not want to be Marek. I think his reputation is questionable right now. The one thing that would redeem him 100% is to make public the final design. Maybe this will occur .

Above all this has cost a life needlessly, for the sake of some basic common engineering sense so sadly lacking not just in this case but also in other cases with exactly the same design faults. Does nobody read the engineering reports from the Bavaria or the Maxfun 35 debacles and put two and two together? Alarm bells should be ringing in everybody’s ears by now in this industry.

If Marek is at the heart of it then he at least understands the difference between shear and tensile strength. Although that CV looks like a brag sheet and is he licensed as a Civil or a NA in 19 states ? (it doesn't say what licenses).

Then there’s the construction facility, Cape Fear Yachts, who presumably just followed the design plans and no-one queried the hull thickness in way of the keel attachment. Usually there are some checks and balances and a good builder will query a deficient design.

Above all you'd think that after ABS screwed up with their first OSRY GRP laminate schedule in way of the keel attachment and beefed up the scantlings that designers would have at least some heightened awareness of the potential for catastrophic failure leading to a very high likelihood of fatality.

If you see anything to make you doubt a design whether you are a builder a repairer or an owner then question it. Above all if you are a designer and you become aware of common problems then review your design and act appropriately.

Mike
Lots of assumptions and interpretations from the report in you statement above. Did Cape Fear Yachts follow the drawings? I could not imagine anyone producing drawings that showed the detail found with the mounting bolts and backing plates. The designer would be going out of his way to make something look as ugly as you could.

You are basing your comments on the report paid for by the Texas A&M and a few selected photographs. It contradicts the USCG findings that found Texas A&M were primarily responsible for poor procedures following groundings.

I consider it very poor form to accuse someone of negligence involving death based on what you know in this case. The courts will decide if Marek or the builder has a case to answer not you. Since there are no criminal proceedings as far as I can guage the authorities have already made up their mind that there is no case.

Rick W

[TeddyDiver]

Originally Posted by Rick Willoughby

I could not imagine anyone producing drawings that showed the detail found with the mounting bolts and backing plates. The designer would be going out of his way to make something look as ugly as you could.

Agree with you I do .. Wonder what were the parameters examined by Ancon Marine Consultants, the calculations and how they were compared to ABS rules and what they were asked to do in the first place?

[Guest625101138]

Originally Posted by TeddyDiver

Agree with you I do .. Wonder what were the parameters examined by Ancon Marine Consultants, the calculations and how they were compared to ABS rules and what they were asked to do in the first place?

I have found the attached reference to Ancon and their finding on the incident. Also a brief CV of the company president - it seems the Company is essentially Villalon.

So you can see there are counter opinions.

I do have some alignment with the widow's legal advisor. I get the impression that there was not a lot of science in the Ancon investigation. Sort of looked for the obvious and ran with that although they had a huge amount of information to digest.

On the other hand I would never dismiss the consequence of heavy groundings. Particularly if there is some swell and the yacht was bounced along repeatedly on its keel. Then there are the amateur repairs involved without recourse to the builder or designer.

Many factors involved.

Rick W

[ancient kayaker]

The customary attacks on the integrity of people involved in the design, construction, operation and repair of this unfortunate vessel continue and the conflicting evidence and body of opinion continue to mount. Everyone is busy getting into the most advantageous position ready for the upcoming litigation.

“A racing boat you haul every time you use it.”
“The integrity of the report is questionable at best.”
“ ... the loss of the Cynthia Woods keel was likely attributed to the number of groundings ...”
“... all of the students’ repairs were still intact ... “

- Is this what they call the fog of law?

[MikeJohns]

Originally Posted by Rick Willoughby

Mike
Lots of assumptions and interpretations from the report in you ............

You are basing your comments on the report paid for by the Texas A&M ........the USCG findings that found Texas A&M were primarily responsible for poor procedures following groundings.

I consider it very poor form to accuse someone of negligence.....The courts will decide if Marek or the builder has a case to answer... . Since there are no criminal proceedings ..the authorities have already made up their mind that there is no case.

Rick W

Yes well my opinion is that someone has been very negligent indeed in the final design of this boat.


The courts……Ha …The civil courts……. have you ever acted as expert witness ? You really think truth and justice come out of the courtroom when lawyers are involved?

As for the authorities: Bureaucracy is often very reluctant to act if and when the civil courts are involved. The Australian police may be leading the way following their recent success here.

Dobroth regardless of who engaged him as a Prof Marine Engineer measured calculated and made clear the design/construction deficiencies in a way that is unambiguous, his work is there to check, and its damning. The hull thickness and the framing were inadequate. The backing plates were abysmal in their design and application about the only thing in the whole keel attachment design that was right was the keel bolt design.

The deficient design/construction includes the very feature that allows for grounding loads imposed on the hull keel interface. Although Dobroth states categorically that the keel failed from a different mechanism to grounding damage you still need to consider that the alternate argument (that the grounding lead to the keel loss) comes straight back to the inadequate design for grounding loads, and this was in the code that the design failed to comply with.

The failure to comply will be the crux of the matter and these scantlings were required to be met for this vessels usage. In fact it missed compliance not by a gnats whisker but by a country mile on several counts. How would you find a defensible position ?

Some of these alternative arguments are laughable like the magazine article (as AK already noted) Villalon is quoted as saying " A racing boat you haul everytime you use it " the article then notes that this did not happen at A&M.......The whole import of… well racing boats are really flimsy so you have to treat them with kid gloves.......
That’s just spin and it’s irresponsibly incorrect.

[ancient kayaker]

I have already noted my Aerospace- rather than Nautical- background. Therefore someone might care to pity my ignorance and answer (rather than scoff at) what may seem a stupid question.

The photos of the Cynthia Woods show what appear to be substantial frames across the hull. The designer of the keel supports seems to have gone out of the way to avoid tying the keel to these. Is there a reason for that?

To me, the most obvious thing would have been to make these solid in the immediate region of the keel attachments, assuming they are hollow that is, and run the keel bolts clean through them, using backing plates naturally, similar to those actually used (but with rounded corners for goodness's sake). That would have spread the load far more effectively than wider plates.

Originally Posted by MikeJohns

Dobroth regardless of who engaged him as a Prof Marine Engineer measured calculated and made clear the design/construction deficiencies in a way that is unambiguous, his work is there to check, and its damning. The hull thickness and the framing were inadequate. The backing plates were abysmal in their design and application about the only thing in the whole keel attachment design that was right was the keel bolt design.

Correct!

One needs neither a court, lawyer or FEA to tell that at least the builder of this structure is incompetent! period
If the construction was according to design, then the designer is as incompetent.

Look at the intact backing plates and at the broken section (photo 3 and 5) and tell me how ignorant one must be to assume that that was a sufficient (let alone proper) arrangement to hold a 2,5 tonnes keel?

[Paul B]

Originally Posted by MikeJohns

So can we now say that another ‘yacht designers’ incompetence has caused another death.

This is the most disgusting post I have ever seen on this forum. A single post like this should lead to a ban for that individual from a board for the designer community. What a bitter loser.

There is nothing in that report that shows in any way the designer is at fault. It states that the people who wrote the report don't know what was designed. If that is so, how can they conclude that the designer is at fault? What do the lawyers call thay, "facts not in evidence"?

There has already been an INDEPENDENT review of this issue by the USCG and the designer was found to be not responsible. This dropped all the liability on the school.

So the school is in a bad place liablitity wise, and hires someone to write a report saying NOTHING THE SCHOOL CONTROLLED had anything to do with the issue. I am sure the person doing the "science" knew clearly what was expected from his results before he started to look at the evidence. It is no wonder that some things that were probably very significant don't seem to be addressed in any scientific way at all. There are things written in the document and backup materials that are obviously not "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth."

I am sure this is all going to end up in court someday, and when the lawers depose Mr. Dobroth there are a couple of questions they can ask that could take the foundation right out of this report. Maybe they could call Mr. Ted Irwin as a character witness?

I see things in this construction that I would not approve of, but for someone to glom onto a slanted report and accuse a fellow designer of negligent manslaughter, or worse, is despicable.

[Ad Hoc]

A.K.
"...Therefore someone might care to pity my ignorance and answer (rather than scoff at) what may seem a stupid question. .."

This is a very straight forward calculation, or should be:

First is to establish what load and load cases(s)to apply
Second once said load case has been established how is the load transferred into the hull, ie load paths
Third, what local supports/stiffness is there locally to transfer the load
Forth, are the local supports have sufficient stiffness to prevent excessive deflection/stress in all 3 axis and all 6 degrees of freedom?
Fifth, does the above comply with a) design allowable b) Class rules.

It really is a simple as that.

If anyone with a training education in naval architecture/structures performed the analysis, then any one of the check list would highlight any deficiency and it would have been corrected before going onto a drawing.