Costa Concordia, 80 deg list, really scary !!

Wikipedia has RMS QUEEN ELIZABETH at 83,673 gross tons, bit less for tonnes. Displacement is the only thing I understand . . .

 

You need to tell these guys that really quick .... that is the plan they briefed ....

Crazy Italians! They told the reporters off after that, and the reporters still applauded them.



Hilarious.

 

Awesome salvage achievement . . . !

Really sad to see such a great ship covered in slime though.

 

Actually more for tonnes. A tonne is 1 metric ton, 1000 kg or 2205 lbs, ships physical tonnages are calculated/referenced in Long Tons, 2240 lbs. Anyway I make QE's displacement tonnage from her particulars to be ~ 87,000 LT/ 88,396 Tonne at 38 ft draft which is not full load.

Gross tonnage is a measure of volume though, that varies depending on who is measuring (generally 100 or 95 cf of commercial volume = 1 gross ton). Since fees are calculated on Gross Tonnage, you used to do everything you could to minimize Gross Tonnage. Because the QE and CC are so far apart in the tonnage measuring scheme it is difficult to compare Gross Tonnages because of changes to what is/is not included in Gross tonnage. Deadweight tonnage is a measure of weight, at full load to the heaviest Plimsoll mark (which may not be the highest so lots of games can be played with that)

For liners it is really convoluted, because you wanted the "largest" ship, but you didn't want to pay any more fees than you had to (important for ocean liners in regular routes). So as a comparison for the submerged prism of the two (assuming the overhangs are approximately equal)

QE = 314.2m(1031 ft)x36m(118 ft)x11.6m(38 ft) = 131,210 cubic m (4,623,004 cf)
CC = 292.2m(952ft)x35.5m(116.5 fy)x8.2m(26.9 ft) = 85,095 cubic m (2,983,425 cf)

Even allowing for the difference in prismatic coefficient, Cp, between the two (QE=~0.65, CC =~0.8), Costa Concordia's true displacement has been exaggerated/or her draft understated because her prism is less than her stated deadweight.

Without a full set of D&O's and a weight report I'm just using intuition, but the numbers say the Queen was significantly heavier at light ship. Really, most Gross tonnage on cruise ships is just air. See this post I made long ago in the Wooden Boat Forum

http://forum.woodenboat.com/showthr...hip-rolling-in-big-seas&p=1575804#post1575804

 

Great feed from Reuter Salvagecam.

Thanks Peter for posting the url to the Reuter "salvagecam" .
On a job in Houston... we were all sitting on the shore of the Isola del Giglio as the ship started 'la rotazione'. Great feed, picture & sound.

 

I looked at the link posted by El Guero. Although it won't play, in the early part, there was a white bearded speaker in the video. It looks like one of the member here as he has posted his picture sometime in the discussion about the Concordia. Is he one of you?

 

Great pictures on Dailymail

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ordia-emerges-sea-19-hour-salvage-battle.html

 

I just realized there was no real advantage taken of the advertising opportunities that were present during this whole operation. No "TITAN SALVAGE" plastered over everything so as to tell you who was doing it even though you didn't care.

 

The people who need to know already know!

 

Years ago, I did some remodeling and repairs on a home in the Hollywood Hills... I was originally hired to hang a door. But the elderly couple kept calling me off and on for several years, for a long list of miscellaneous repairs and modifications. And although the lady of the house was a chatty sort who talked my ear off, I eventually realized there was almost no personal information in anything she said - side from the fact that she owned one of the first Ford Mustangs ever sold, and almost lost her license for the speeding tickets she racked up on the way to and from their Palm Springs home (and she was no spring chicken even then).

Her husband was definitely on the quiet side. I never learned exactly what he did for a living, except that he was some sort of business consultant.' He eventually gave me his business card, and there was nothing on it but his name and home telephone number. When I commented that it was a bit short on specifics he replied, "anyone I hand a card to knows who I am, and what I do."

 

It is proposed that the M/S Costa Concordia parbuckling up-righting Monday went OK because the wreck was in fact up righted BUT in the process the starboard bilge/bottom hull structure was destroyed/damaged/fractured by the forces applied during the rotation.
So the QUESTIONS remaining are:
1. Is the damaged wreck strong enough to be refloated with external buoyancy tanks attached to it?
2. Is the floating wreck/buoyancy tanks assembly strong enough to be towed anywhere?
Media evidently didn't ask these question when the wreck was rolled upright so we have to await developments. :?:
It is strange that the Salvors are not using less expensive and more effective salvage methods that I describe at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/news811.htm .
Reason is probably they cost too little and will finish the job within a month.

 

With the amount of damage revealed to both port and starboard sides, I doubt the vessel could have been re-floated, easily, if at all.

I think they may have to attach more caissons than originally considered, but it looks like a more reasonable method overall - to me.

 

We have just seen the crushed starboard topside of the very light deck house which does not contribute to hull strength. Any caissons must be connected to the hull.
The hull is today 10-25 meters below water.
The starboard side hull bilge/bottom was severely damaged when the wreck was parbuckled around the bilge.
Adding caissons do not add to the strength of the damaged hull.
And how do you attach 15 off 2 500 m3 caissons to a damaged and deformed hull 10-25 meters below water? Bolting? Welding? Tape? Rope?
Any ideas? Pity media didn't ask how the Salvors intend to proceed.

The deck house is 10 meters below water and 14 meters above water and of little interest except that it is heavy - 30 000 tons.
The hull with engines is lighter - say about 24 000 tons.
If they had removed the 30 000 tons deck house before parbuckling the hull would not have been damaged and easier to lift up.
IMHO the Salvors will not succeed with the existing plan, which has to be changed.

 

We shall see in about 9 months.

 

The mass of the wreck (in air) may today be of the order 60 000 tons with added caissons on port side and allowing for 80% being submerged below water maybe 50 000 tons is now resting on the false seabed of steel platforms and grouting bags. The submerged volumes (10 000 m3?) of the wreck provides optimistically 10 000 tons of buoyancy (see Archimedes).
So if the port side caissons are emptied of water and provides an extra 30 000 m3 (or tons) of buoyancy, the wreck will not move one millimeter.
To be able to lift the vessel the Salvors need 30 000 m3 of buoyancy on the starboard side. The Salvors say they will attach 15 buoyancy tanks on the starboard side but ... cannot say how they will be attached to the wreck.
We will see.
In the meantime the hull must be carefully examined for damages, cracks and fractures. The sides are free to examine and if the bottom platforms are provided with openings you can also see most of the bottom.
If the hull is free of defects, you only have to attach the 15 starboard buoyancy tanks and empty all 30 buoyancy tanks and ... the wreck full of water floats on the empty buoyancy tanks. Draft 18.5 meters of the wreck/buoyancy tanks assembly we are told.
We will only see another 6.5 meters of the deck house rise above water.

Maybe it will happen September 2014?