Costa Concordia, 80 deg list, really scary !!

Discussion in 'Stability' started by smartbight, Jan 15, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Heiwa
    Joined: Feb 2012
    Posts: 89
    Likes: 4, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 60
    Location: France

    Heiwa Naval architect

    Hm, crew is not allowed to open any (permitted) w/t doors unless approved by Master and note made in log book, etc. And then close it at once + new note in logbook.
    You know it makes a lot of noise to open close a w/t door, alarm bells ringing, lights flashing and, pls, do not get caught in it when closing.
    So any ship that has w/t doors is probably unseaworthy.
    Of course many pax ships in the Baltic have plenty of w/t doors in pax accommodation. And the doors are always open because This determination is made by the Administration after careful consideration of the impact on ship operations and survivability.
    So pax can walk around through permanently open w/t doors. But in crew/store spaces w/t doors are not permitted.
    How old are you? 5?
    Read my famous book about the M/V Estonia incident killing 850+ innocent people - http://heiwaco.tripod.com/ekatastrofkurs.htm ! Can you read? ;)
     
  2. Pascal Warin
    Joined: Feb 2012
    Posts: 81
    Likes: 2, Points: 8, Legacy Rep: 38
    Location: Paris

    Pascal Warin Junior Member

    Can you explain us what is relationship between Estonia disaster, fact that some WT doors may be kept open when they are self closing in case of power failure and the Costa Concordia disaster ?
    Nobody ever pointed out that Costa Concordia loss has the slightest relationship with a problem related to WT doors.
     
  3. Heiwa
    Joined: Feb 2012
    Posts: 89
    Likes: 4, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 60
    Location: France

    Heiwa Naval architect

    We all know that CC survived the first contact at around 21.42 hrs on January 13 causing flooding of w/t compartments and managed to anchor outside Porto Giglio and evacuate 99% or 4 200 persons aboard to Porto Giglio.
    On January 14 CC capsized 90° to starboard and had not the shore stopped the capsize, the ship would have turned 180° and floated upside down. It is a separate, second incident.
    Why CC capsized should be investigated. Open w/t doors? CC had w/t doors. On the video from the bridge we can hear somebody suggesting to close w/t doors, etc. We do not know it they were closed.
    Evidently they should have been closed at sea! You cannot sail at sea with open w/t doors. It is not allowed! Unless your Administration has permitted it! Maybe the Italian administration permitted CC to sail at 16 knots 1 meter from a rocky shore with open w/t doors? What do you think?
    The Estonia disaster! Estonia had 22 w/t doors in 11 w/t bulkheads and all doors were always open at sea. September 28, 1993, she had a small leak in the engine rooms below waterline, many w/t compartments were flooded, ship heeled a lot and sank like a stone and 850+ people died. The accident investigation blamed the accident on a deficient weathertight door in the superstructure 2.5 m above waterline caused by a stupid shipbuilding engineer. M/V Estonia was a unseaworthy rotten coffin BUT media and authorities told another story. It doesn't improve safety at sea = my business! What do you do for a living?
     
  4. Pascal Warin
    Joined: Feb 2012
    Posts: 81
    Likes: 2, Points: 8, Legacy Rep: 38
    Location: Paris

    Pascal Warin Junior Member

    Sure it is fun to imagine complex scenarios to explain such disaster.
    For all that, the most probable one remains that the vessel suffers a damage, extent of which was too large to withstand.

    Be sure that calculation will be performed during expertise for trial, but for time being looking for imaginary conspiracy is worthless.

    "Non est ponenda pluralitas sine necessitate"

    Your other statements regarding "Estonia " are completely out of scope of this thread so I suggest you to open a separate one.
     
  5. Hawkboat
    Joined: Jan 2012
    Posts: 20
    Likes: 2, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 17
    Location: Canada

    Hawkboat Junior Member

    +1
    IMO, If your business is to stir controversy and sell books, then you have no business here.
     
  6. Heiwa
    Joined: Feb 2012
    Posts: 89
    Likes: 4, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 60
    Location: France

    Heiwa Naval architect

    We will see! I find the various incidents very strange; shearing off and scooping up a 100 tons rock from an underwater outcrop with the side of a ship without damaging its bottom. Is it normal? Or just the maneuvre close to shore! Showboating? All asleep on the island. :rolleyes:

    Evacuating 4200 persons in 2 hrs from CC to Porto Giglio and then sending them by bus up to Giglio Castello in the middle of the night, back again in the morning to Porto Giglio and to the mainland and Rome airport ... and back home. Sounds good. But how did they get hold of the bus transport? :rolleyes:

    The capsize is also strange - the vessel is stable/floating upright just outside siland ... and suddenly heels 90° on its side resting on the island. Evidently GZ became 0 ... but how? To avoid it happen again and to improve safety at sea we have to find out.

    What imaginary conspiracy are you talking about? <removed>
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 17, 2012
  7. nettersheim
    Joined: Sep 2010
    Posts: 47
    Likes: 7, Points: 8, Legacy Rep: 152
    Location: France

    nettersheim Consultant


    Absolutely right.

    But (!) :

    The interesting thing is that in new SOLAS 2009 there is no more physical limit for ship's sinking. In the aggregated calculation of attained index of subdivision A, on some cases the "individual" attained index dA is switching to 0 (as per the extract of regulation you have quoted).

    Therefore the global attained index A is not progressing with theses cases and that's all ! This is not a phisical limit.

    The only target for the naval architect with SOLAS 2009 is that global attained index A should be > to required index R.

    It means, as an exemple, that bulkhead deck has not anymore the role previously assigned in SOLAS 1974 (as amended up to 2006) and that it could be immersed. It is logical when you accept the principle of probabilistic rules. But extremely opaque for general and practical damage stability analysis in particular from the captain/officers point of view.

    "Costa Concordia" has been designed according to "old" deterministic rules. It will be abolutely fascinating to have the results of post-accident investigation and research calculations :

    - check of conformity of the original calculations (deterministic)
    - check of dispensations (if any)
    - calculation of the vessel according to the new probabilistic rules (SOLAS 2009) and see what are the value of A, R, and all the dA, the cases where factor of survivability s=0 , etc, etc
    - and then question everything independantly (?) in order to see where we are with the new rules.

    I am convinced that debate only starts now let's say rather that I do hope debate will really happen ...
     
    1 person likes this.
  8. Heiwa
    Joined: Feb 2012
    Posts: 89
    Likes: 4, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 60
    Location: France

    Heiwa Naval architect

    Well, it is not much to discuss any longer. Leave it or take it ...
    http://www.gl-group.com/pdf/MSC21682.pdf

    All calculations of survival are evidently subject to Reg 7.2.5.5 that says:
    "Except as provided in paragraph 7.2.5.3.1, openings closed by means of watertight manhole covers and flush scuttles, small watertight hatch covers, remotely operated sliding watertight doors, side scuttles of the non-opening type as well as watertight access doors and hatch covers required to be kept closed at sea need not be considered."

    Evidently openings in watertight boundaries shall always be kept closed at sea but, as we all know, sliding watertight doors are not closed on many passenge ships and ferries (it takes time to open/close them and the alarms make so much noise) ... and therefore ships will continue to sink due to damage they should survive.
     
  9. Pascal Warin
    Joined: Feb 2012
    Posts: 81
    Likes: 2, Points: 8, Legacy Rep: 38
    Location: Paris

    Pascal Warin Junior Member

    There is a name for this concept : progressive flooding.
    Although when calculating GZ curve, we (NA) assume that immersion of an unprotected opening means limit for calculating criterions, it is lucky that actually flooding is not instantaneous.

    For instance, although fire bulkheads are not considered watertight they do actually slow significantly flooding.
     
  10. Heiwa
    Joined: Feb 2012
    Posts: 89
    Likes: 4, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 60
    Location: France

    Heiwa Naval architect

    Up-flooding of a damaged hull compartment via an opening in the hull depends on the area of the breach and its distance below water. It goes pretty fast. If admin thinks a 50% upflooded compartment is more dangerous than when it is filled 100%, you have to present calculations. Do you know how to do it?:)

    Progressive flooding of an adjacent, undamaged hull compartment is just a function of the location of the opening in the boundary, e.g. an open watertight door. It takes place after the up-flooding of the damaged compartment. Evidently the door shall not be open at sea ... and that it is closed shall be recorded in the log book. I wonder what the CC logbook records? :rolleyes:

    Fire bulkheads are located above the bulkhead deck in superstructure and deck house and do not prevent flooding at all (as the spaces they divide are not subject to up-flooding). They just slow down the spread of fire.

    Do you believe a ship floats on a deckhouse? With all those windows! :mad:
     
  11. Pascal Warin
    Joined: Feb 2012
    Posts: 81
    Likes: 2, Points: 8, Legacy Rep: 38
    Location: Paris

    Pascal Warin Junior Member

    I don't understand what you suggest.
     
  12. Hawkboat
    Joined: Jan 2012
    Posts: 20
    Likes: 2, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 17
    Location: Canada

    Hawkboat Junior Member

    Don't worry, you aren't alone in your confusion!
     
  13. peter radclyffe
    Joined: Mar 2009
    Posts: 1,406
    Likes: 59, Points: 58, Legacy Rep: 680
    Location: europe

    peter radclyffe Senior Member

    Heiwa can you start a thread about Estonia,thank you
     
  14. Heiwa
    Joined: Feb 2012
    Posts: 89
    Likes: 4, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 60
    Location: France

    Heiwa Naval architect

    1. Up-flooding of a damaged hull compartment via an opening in the hull depends on the area of the breach and its distance below water. It goes pretty fast. If admin thinks a 50% upflooded compartment is more dangerous than when it is filled 100%, you have to present calculations. Do you know how to do it?

    2. Progressive flooding of an adjacent, undamaged hull compartment is just a function of the location of the opening in the boundary, e.g. an open watertight door. It takes place after the up-flooding of the damaged compartment. Evidently the door shall not be open at sea ... and that it is closed shall be recorded in the log book. I wonder what the CC logbook records?

    3. Fire bulkheads are located above the bulkhead deck in superstructure and deck house and do not prevent flooding at all (as the spaces they divide are not subject to up-flooding). They just slow down the spread of fire.

    4. Do you believe a ship floats on a deckhouse? With all those windows!

    What 1, 2, 3 or 4 don't you understand?
     

  15. Heiwa
    Joined: Feb 2012
    Posts: 89
    Likes: 4, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 60
    Location: France

    Heiwa Naval architect

    Of course - anybody can do it. Here we discuss Costa Concordia which apparently was damaged in the hull just below waterline causing capsize (GZ<0) many hours later (Estonia's hull, superstructure and deckhouse were according experts undamaged - only a weathertight opening in the superstructure was not, etc).
     
Loading...
Forum posts represent the experience, opinion, and view of individual users. Boat Design Net does not necessarily endorse nor share the view of each individual post.
When making potentially dangerous or financial decisions, always employ and consult appropriate professionals. Your circumstances or experience may be different.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.