Costa Concordia, 80 deg list, really scary !!

[smartbight]

Thanks Peter. Good site

[smartbight]

Here is your answer and more from NA Professor Winkle

Simulating Costa Concordia

"I am grateful that you have found a source for the Displacment of this vessel. However, I must correct the Freeboard quoted to 14.18m as given in the vessel's Wikipedia entry together with an Lpp of 247.4m. This allows an estimate of its Block Coefficient as 0.696 and approximation of its KB at 4.5m and BMt at 15.6m. With a KMt of around 20.1m it is fair to assume that the KG of the vessel lies between 18 and 19m."......

"At that time news photos clearly show the aft starboard corner of the bulkhead deck substantially under water which is likely to result in progressive flooding of the lower passenger deck which together with further breaches of the hull around the grounding point would result in the eventual total capsize."

[Tad]

It has been reported that the duty engineer has stated he knew almost immediately that 5 watertight compartments (including some or all of the engine room/rooms) were breached and flooded in the initial grounding. He has stated he knew the ship became unstable with 3 compartments flooded.

I don't think you can model much without knowing......
1) the arrangement of watertight bulkheads and boundaries
2) which compartments were flooded
3) which WT doors/vents were open and which were closed
4) and the load condition at the time of grounding

I'm not sure anyone knows 2,3, and 4 with any certainty at this time.

[jehardiman]

Originally Posted by smartbight

Looks like the boulder is right smack in the engine rooms and beyond. Which explain the nice white paint seen through the breech.
No wing tanks to protect those vital compartments ?.
No wonder it was all flooded down there ! Any collision with a rock, a ship, an iceberg and we are back to 1912 !
Good old Harry Benford would have given me a C- if this had been my final design project.

Benford may have passed you if you put in wing tanks (I heard he was like that when he was teaching), but Yagle would have failed you for wing tanks on a passanger vessel. For passanger ships, wing tanks, and thier eccentric flooding, are more dangerous to the safety of the ship than complete compartment flooding due to thier required size. The onerous requirements levied on them by SOLAS underlines this fact. You really should become more familiar with SOLAS 74 as ammended by MSC Resolution 216.(82).

Originally Posted by Tad

It has been reported that the duty engineer has stated he knew almost immediately that 5 watertight compartments (including some or all of the engine room/rooms) were breached and flooded in the initial grounding. He has stated he knew the ship became unstable with 3 compartments flooded.

I don't think you can model much without knowing......
1) the arrangement of watertight bulkheads and boundaries
2) which compartments were flooded
3) which WT doors/vents were open and which were closed
4) and the load condition at the time of grounding

I'm not sure anyone knows 2,3, and 4 with any certainty at this time.

Yep, and as I try to keep pointing out, most cruise liners are registered with flag states that enforce SOLAS 74, and that document does not require survival with this extent of damage (generally 2-3 compartment is the norm given the required damage extent and derived subdivision length). All it requires is that the ship remain stable as it sinks which it appears that the Costa Concordia would have if it had not been grounded, and in grounding, she did not sink, so you are in one of those betwixt and between situations. The vast majority of the passangers made it off, which is what the rules are supposed enforce, so the ship and design were adaquate.

[ancient kayaker]

Originally Posted by smartbight

BPL:
" I would like to see the Costa Concordia's CG on a drawing. "

A good 'educated' guess shouldn't be that hard to come up with for some of the smart dudes on this forum !

What is your best guess for the GM ? . . .

No idea, but the ship is probably not designed for excessive stability, it is more comfortable to keep it down and let the stabilizers keep her upright, and probably requires less power too. You'd want adequate secondary stability in case a freak wave laid her on her ear but all that stuff on top would help provided the windows held up . . . once the hull starts to fill with water all bets are off.

[Tad]

Originally Posted by ancient kayaker

You'd want adequate secondary stability in case a freak wave laid her on her ear but all that stuff on top would help provided the windows held up . . .

I have no idea what "secondary stability" is, in my book you either got it or ya don't.......But this type of ship will run out of positive stability long before 90 degrees heel, at a guess somewhere around 60-70 degrees, perhaps less......I believe IMO Stability Standards only have requirements to 40-50 degrees....

[Lister]

Cruise ship business is the closest business you can find after the mafia business.
No one is responsible, cascade of corporation, millions of dollars spend on lobbying, Jone's act just put to the garbage for them.
These overweight billionaires living in Florida, owner of these death trap should be criminally prosecuted for 16 count of shear murder.
The pitiful chromosome, owner of Carnival and owner of the sunken ship didn't even went to the Island.
Why we accept these coward and there "entourage" and floating death chambers in my country, is behind comprehension.
Are we so greedy? 16 death is not enough?

The naval architect who pretend the evacuation of 4000 peoples is matter of minutes should be accountable for criminally negligence by design.

The Congress and Florida should get rid of these bastards.

Oh yes, I forget, we can't, they are billionaires

A very emotionally disturbed Lister who do not like people dying for the bank account of some obese Floridian.

(Google his name to see his mension and private yacht were he is hidding while the Italian enquire on the accident)

[BPL]

If the stability of this was a "death trap" as Lister says, why are the IMO Stability Standards not more demanding?

[Lister]

Originally Posted by BPL

If the stability of this was a "death trap" as Lister says, why are the IMO Stability Standards not more demanding?

It is a good question.
The reason is the cruise ship are not designed for transatlantic winter passage, they are designed for week at a time and close to shore by good weather.
They didn't realize that the ship went bigger in no time. They use old principle, and hope it works.

If the Agencies will effectively intervene, they will have to prohibit these kind of ship, since the evacuation in due time is impossible.
They had several accident in the Golf of Mexico, all put under the carpet.
The cruise ship business has a special logo:

DO NOT DISTURB

It will be time for the agencies to wake up and smell the coffee, inset of patronizing playing the important people, by annoying smaller vessel at heart content.

Come with small ship and a twenty people crew, and I tel you they don't let you pass anything.

But come with a ship, describe as "Balcony, with non watertight window, all glass, with inside courtyard )without any sane evacuation), and 4000 to 6000 passengers, and they applaud.

Did I mention the gigantic crew fired during the low period and re-hired when full season come back? It is a ninety century style of management.

What do you think of the quality of the crew after that?

The fired in the laundry room who incapacitate a cruise ship, the crew didn't know what to do beside a courageous guy?

The wastewater tank dumped in the ocean not long ago.

Convenience and bank notes in the pocket of the right people.
As for the IMHO and other they are just laughable at that point.

I talk against the cruise ship business, from design to management, for more than 10 years, and this accident is not the first, and the next will be with far more damage if nobody do something.

I am always amaze how money can corrupt.

Do not ever think to take a cruise.

[masalai]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-01-2...n-rome/3794044

[powerabout]

you forgot to mention the crime on board that goes both unreported and un investigated
Best place to murder someone is on a cruise ship

[BPL]

Originally Posted by masalai

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-01-2...-rates/3794216

Wrong link? Nothing to do with the Costa Concordia's stability or lack thereof.

[masalai]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-01-2...n-rome/3794044 OOPS, Sorry - here it is...

[BPL]

Originally Posted by powerabout

That the 2nd one to fall over the last one only had a single tank punctured and the captain got everyone off to be safe then it just fell over..

What was the name of this last one to fall over?

[powerabout]

Originally Posted by BPL

What was the name of this last one to fall over?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_Sea_Diamond