Container Ship Struck Key Bridge in Baltimore, Bridge has Collapsed

[chengkp75]

37 minutes ago, Pratique said:

I am reading expert commentary to the contrary, that a ship with that much mass moving at that speed would overcome anything put in its way. So not sure we can say for sure. Obviously more needs to be done. How to prioritize is a hard problem.

As was shown in the Suez canal with the Ever Given, even a larger ship moving at a higher speed does not move the earth.  With enough distance, and enough solid ground in a dolphin or around the base of the bridge abutment, you will stop the ship.  From aerial photos above the Ever Given, it drove less than 10 feet into the actual bank of the canal, due to the depth of the canal decreasing as you go towards the bank, causing more  friction and drag from resistance on the canal bottom.

[chengkp75]

40 minutes ago, Pratique said:

You mean mandatory change to the ships. I'm guessing voluntary change is asking too much.

Give me one industry that will make voluntary changes that cost millions when not required to.  And name one company that would spend millions for something that may never be needed, when their competitors won't do this, and make more money in the process.  Just the cynic in me.

[Pratique]

32 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

Give me one industry that will make voluntary changes that cost millions when not required to.  And name one company that would spend millions for something that may never be needed, when their competitors won't do this, and make more money in the process.  Just the cynic in me.

I get it. I'm just not satisfied to be content with the status quo. Maybe others are. I think we can do better if we want to. Maybe I'm a dreamer. This bridge collapse should be a wake up call. But if nothing changes, then it will probably happen again. There are companies who have profited from being innovative and delivering a higher demand product or service. Maybe Amazon is an example? I read about shippers who are frustrated with having their cargoes kicked off of the ship to make way for more profitable loads. So there are plenty of folks who would be interested in seeing some good competition, maybe driving innovation through more efficient ships that can reach more ports. Just spit balling because when I'm a cynic I tend to just sit in a rut.

 

EDIT to say "duh" Disney spends tons of money for things that may never be needed (amusement safety wise) and the competitors (smaller amusement parks) don't, and it has paid off in spades IMHO. But I get that international shipping is a different beast.

Edited May 16 by Pratique

[gatour]

39 minutes ago, Pratique said:

I get it. I'm just not satisfied to be content with the status quo. Maybe others are. I think we can do better if we want to. Maybe I'm a dreamer. This bridge collapse should be a wake up call. But if nothing changes, then it will probably happen again. There are companies who have profited from being innovative and delivering a higher demand product or service. Maybe Amazon is an example? I read about shippers who are frustrated with having their cargoes kicked off of the ship to make way for more profitable loads. So there are plenty of folks who would be interested in seeing some good competition, maybe driving innovation through more efficient ships that can reach more ports. Just spit balling because when I'm a cynic I tend to just sit in a rut.

 

EDIT to say "duh" Disney spends tons of money for things that may never be needed (amusement safety wise) and the competitors (smaller amusement parks) don't, and it has paid off in spades IMHO. But I get that international shipping is a different beast.

 

So after the Sunshine Skyway bridge disaster, why weren't dolphins/bollards added to the Key Bridge.  The owners (taxpayers) didn't feel it was worth the cost.

 

As Chengkp75 said how many private companies increase their expenses over competing companies unless they are forced to.  Many of the safety features now common in cars were mandated by gov't rules/regulations that applied to all companies in the sector so all of the companies were impacted similarly in regards to costs.

 

Disney spends tons of money because they are able to charge more than your roadside amusement park.  That is not their competition.  Universal is their competition and I imagine their safety  budget is similar to Disney.

 

In a perfect world, yes it would be nice that everything is perfectly safe but I am a pragmatist.  To make something 100% safe could also make it cost prohibitive for anyone to actually buy the product.

 

As you know there are many ways to mitigate risks, so you go through the risk matrix and figure out the most cost effective way to mitigate a particular risk.  In this case, it may be more cost effective to have a one time cost "harden" bridges instead of mandating ship have triple or more redundancy.

[smokeybandit]

2 minutes ago, gatour said:

why weren't dolphins/bollards added to the Key Bridge.

The Key Bridge had dolphins. They just weren't ever going to stop a ship as big as Dali since ships that size didn't really exist when the bridge was designed.

[Pratique]

2 hours ago, gatour said:

 

So after the Sunshine Skyway bridge disaster, why weren't dolphins/bollards added to the Key Bridge.  The owners (taxpayers) didn't feel it was worth the cost.

 

As Chengkp75 said how many private companies increase their expenses over competing companies unless they are forced to.  Many of the safety features now common in cars were mandated by gov't rules/regulations that applied to all companies in the sector so all of the companies were impacted similarly in regards to costs.

 

Disney spends tons of money because they are able to charge more than your roadside amusement park.  That is not their competition.  Universal is their competition and I imagine their safety  budget is similar to Disney.

 

In a perfect world, yes it would be nice that everything is perfectly safe but I am a pragmatist.  To make something 100% safe could also make it cost prohibitive for anyone to actually buy the product.

 

As you know there are many ways to mitigate risks, so you go through the risk matrix and figure out the most cost effective way to mitigate a particular risk.  In this case, it may be more cost effective to have a one time cost "harden" bridges instead of mandating ship have triple or more redundancy.

Yes, that’s reasonable and I’m not expecting 100% of anything. I’m reading elsewhere from people claiming to be cargo ship captains or engineers saying that the Dali should not have left port that day or at least not without taking additional precautions. So there’s no consensus that this was only a bridge problem or that nothing can be done to improve shipboard safety.

[chengkp75]

8 hours ago, smokeybandit said:

The Key Bridge had dolphins. They just weren't ever going to stop a ship as big as Dali since ships that size didn't really exist when the bridge was designed.

No, the Key bridge had dolphins that would not have been adequate for even smaller ships.  The bulkheading around the power lines that run adjacent to the bridge are larger than either the "dolphins" or the base of the bridge abutments, and due to their small size and distance from the bridge, a ship could "sneak" in between the dolphin and the abutment, just as the Dali did.  Look at the Sunshine Skyway bridge, and compare the abutment bulkheading size and the dolphin size and spacing to what was at the Key bridge.  The dolphins at the Key bridge would not stop a ship the size of the Summit Venture that took out the Sunshine Skyway bridge 40 years ago.  It was 300 ft shorter (so even easier to slip between the dolphin and abutment, and about 1/4 of the deadweight tonnage.  Now, the tonnage increase resulted in more devastation to the bridge than a smaller ship would have likely done, but the abutment "island" should have been larger to place the concrete bulkheading further out to slow/stop the ship earlier, and the dolphin should have been larger for the same reason, and closer to the abutment.  The Summit Venture would have just bounced off the Key bridge dolphin and continued on to the bridge.

[chengkp75]

6 hours ago, Pratique said:

Yes, that’s reasonable and I’m not expecting 100% of anything. I’m reading elsewhere from people claiming to be cargo ship captains or engineers saying that the Dali should not have left port that day or at least not without taking additional precautions. So there’s no consensus that this was only a bridge problem or that nothing can be done to improve shipboard safety.

Have those people made these comments before or after reading the NTSB report.  I would stake my 46 years as a marine engineer, and my time as an expert witness in marine engineering that given the facts as presented by the NTSB, there was nothing that would have forewarned of another blackout, nor anything from those incidents in port that would have contributed to the accident.  As I've said, I may change my mind, if other evidence is presented, but based on what has been published, I stand by this.  Would love to know what "additional precautions" they suggest should have been taken.

 

And, while I respect the job the Captain does, and have respected most of the Captains I've worked with, I will say that most of them don't have a real clue what goes on in the engineering spaces, especially when the excrement hits the ventilation device.

Edited May 16 by chengkp75

[Defender1158]

I have been watching this thread closely since I reported the incident back on 26 March. The discussions have been very informative.  I especially appreciate the expert input that the Chief has provided.  

 

I have driven over the Key Bridge many times, and sailed under her on Enchantment, Grandeur, Vision and my own boats.  Viewing the wreck of the bridge from my boat a few weeks ago was a solemn occasion. 

 

My own thought is that while tugs will be employed as a visual demonstration of doing something to fix the problem, the real solution will be a new stay cable bridge with pylons far enough apart to place them in water sufficiently shallow that no ship with enough mass and momentum to compromise the bridge can possibly reach it without suffering a hard grounding.  Dolphins or other obstructions could be employed to prevent large, low speed barges from having any serious effect.  Hopefully something like this will be considered as plans proceed for a new span at the Chesapeake Bay Bridge further down the bay.  

[Pratique]

1 hour ago, chengkp75 said:

Have those people made these comments before or after reading the NTSB report.  I would stake my 46 years as a marine engineer, and my time as an expert witness in marine engineering that given the facts as presented by the NTSB, there was nothing that would have forewarned of another blackout, nor anything from those incidents in port that would have contributed to the accident.  As I've said, I may change my mind, if other evidence is presented, but based on what has been published, I stand by this.  Would love to know what "additional precautions" they suggest should have been taken.

 

And, while I respect the job the Captain does, and have respected most of the Captains I've worked with, I will say that most of them don't have a real clue what goes on in the engineering spaces, especially when the excrement hits the ventilation device.

Fair enough, there are other perspectives out there some dependent on the investigation. It’s still early in the investigation.

[Badatz2]

12 hours ago, gatour said:

In a perfect world, yes it would be nice that everything is perfectly safe but I am a pragmatist.  To make something 100% safe could also make it cost prohibitive for anyone to actually buy the product.

 

This reminds me of an old saying I heard many years ago;

If the black box always survives the plane crash, why don't they make the entire plane out of the same material?

[smokeybandit]

The vulnerability of the Key Bridge is not unlike many other structures in the USA. USA just doesn't take proactive measures to keep bridges and highways up to date.

[Charles4515]

Port is reopening for Cruise Ships in and out on May 25. 
 

https://wtop.com/baltimore/2024/05/cruise-ships-set-to-sail-in-and-out-of-baltimore-again/

[BND]

17 minutes ago, Charles4515 said:

Port is reopening for Cruise Ships in and out on May 25. 
 

https://wtop.com/baltimore/2024/05/cruise-ships-set-to-sail-in-and-out-of-baltimore-again/

Port of Baltimore posted yesterday that it was reopening in time for VIsion on the 25h.

[smokeybandit]

8 minutes ago, BND said:

Port of Baltimore posted yesterday that it was reopening in time for VIsion on the 25h.

Vision would arrive on the 24th, if not earlier. Though they may not really need the cruise port spaces until the 25th.

[Pratique]

A new report in the Baltimore Sun quotes the chief engineer for Maersk as saying he would be satisfied to set sail if the in-port blackout due to human error had been adequately checked out, but he was still uncertain that the low fuel pressure issue had been sufficiently resolved. Although the NTSB report said the two events (in port and voyage) were mechanically distinct, the Maersk engineer said the pilots should have been told about the initial blackout, which would have raised questions about the seaworthiness of the ship in their minds. The Sun also quoted a marine engineer with NTSB investigation experience who said the design of the power management system might be an underlying cause and needs to be further investigated.

[chengkp75]

19 minutes ago, Pratique said:

but he was still uncertain that the low fuel pressure issue had been sufficiently resolved.

While the cause of the low fuel pressure has not been published, I don't think this had any relevance to the blackouts the next day.  Fuel pressure will have a "warning" alarm at a set pressure, and then a "shutdown" alarm at another pressure.  Since neither of these were mentioned in any of the timeline of the day of the accident, I don't see that low fuel pressure was a cause, also, low fuel pressure would not have tripped the transformer breakers.

 

24 minutes ago, Pratique said:

the Maersk engineer said the pilots should have been told about the initial blackout, which would have raised questions about the seaworthiness of the ship in their minds.

I'll disagree with this, in that a problem with one of four generators, when only two are required to be online when under the pilot's orders, isn't relevant to the pilot, any more than to tell him that there are two generators online, one in standby, and one could be torn apart for overhaul.  That overhaul would not cause any question of seaworthiness.  There may be a small question about using the #3 generator (the one that shut down on low fuel pressure the day before) as one of the online generators while leaving port, but we are not told which generator was running between the time of the blackouts in port and the time of the blackouts underway.  Was #3 running the whole time?  That would lead me to believe the problem was fixed, but we don't know this information.

 

29 minutes ago, Pratique said:

The Sun also quoted a marine engineer with NTSB investigation experience who said the design of the power management system might be an underlying cause and needs to be further investigated.

I don't know what in his "more careful review" that leads him to question the power management system.  Could there be a problem in this?  Perhaps, but a cargo ship tends to have a very simple "power management" system, and it doesn't seem like the transformers are part of the power management system, they are merely manual.  But, what he found in re-reading the existing report confounds me, in that very little description of the power management system is made, and very little about how it was reacting to the failures was not covered.  Just like above regarding the fuel pressure problem, there could be underlying problems that caused the blackouts underway, but I fail to see where any of these are even suggested in the report.

 

And, I'm glad you didn't mention "Sal" who has very little engineering knowledge.

[Engineroom Snipe]

I have been reticent to talk about this issue since their are experts far superior than me who have commented.

 

I can say I am a licensed electronic and electrical authority on land but not at sea.

 

Transformers can be rated for "dry", "damp", and "wet" conditions. The testing requirements on land are very specific.

 

Consider a substation oil cooled transformer that operates at voltages in excess of 10,000 volts AC year long exposed to the elements with a projected life span of twenty some years without failure.

 

That transformer is not concerned about weather conditions, humidity, or rain. What does affect it is heat.

 

If a transformer is subjected to conditions that was not listed and approved for usage, it will fail. I would hope that any transformers used on a ship would be rated for wet service and not fail due to condensation or moisture. Most transformers are not rated for "flood" service which would completely immerse them is water. Flooded transformers are very costly but are available.

 

Breakers are a whole different situation. There are inrush calculations, maximum surge calculations, environmental calculations as well as manufacturer cut-sheets for "exercise".

 

All breakers can oxidize due to environmental conditions affecting the physical contact surfaces and material. A breaker designed for aluminum wiring and copper wiring will have completely different ratings at different temperatures according to their listing and labeling.

 

There is so much more investigation necessary to come up with a conclusive finding.

 

Original approved design specifications..

 

Expected lifetime of original design.

 

Modification of original design.

 

Exercise of breakers.

 

What the hell, "Did you just say exercise of breakers?"

 

Not many people know that the manufacturer of most breakers installed in their homes "recommend" that the breakers be turned off and on once per year to "refresh" the physical electrical surfaces.

 

Reading the listing and labeled official cut-sheets of electrical equipment is critical to design, installation, maintenance and inspection of such items.

 

When I do inspections, I ask the contractor for the cut-sheets. If they do not have them, it is a huge red flag.

 

There are so many variables.

[Pratique]

3 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

While the cause of the low fuel pressure has not been published, I don't think this had any relevance to the blackouts the next day.  Fuel pressure will have a "warning" alarm at a set pressure, and then a "shutdown" alarm at another pressure.  Since neither of these were mentioned in any of the timeline of the day of the accident, I don't see that low fuel pressure was a cause, also, low fuel pressure would not have tripped the transformer breakers.

To me it is a question of thoroughness being raised by Maersk. If there was a problem of any kind, there should be adequate measures taken to ensure it (and anything else) had been resolved before setting sail, even if it had nothing to do with the incident. Maybe the fuel issue was resolved, but we (and they) don't know yet. And if it wasn't, then that opens a whole can of worms.

[Pratique]

1 minute ago, Engineroom Snipe said:

Exercise of breakers.

 

What the hell, "Did you just say exercise of breakers?"

 

Not many people know that the manufacturer of most breakers installed in their homes "recommend" that the breakers be turned off and on once per year to "refresh" the physical electrical surfaces.

The electricians at Disney "yelled" at us for over-exercising the breakers. We had computer controlled under-voltage relays that would trip the high voltage breakers during an emergency stop. During testing we performed hundreds of emergency stops and we wore out the breakers. Which were expensive to replace. So after we tested the relays, we bypassed them to prevent over-exercising the breakers.

[Engineroom Snipe]

1 minute ago, Pratique said:

The electricians at Disney "yelled" at us for over-exercising the breakers. We had computer controlled under-voltage relays that would trip the high voltage breakers during an emergency stop. During testing we performed hundreds of emergency stops and we wore out the breakers. Which were expensive to replace. So after we tested the relays, we bypassed them to prevent over-exercising the breakers.

 

So sad, I feel your pain. So many companies "bypass" safety in the search for profits.

 

I try to fight the good fight, but even I have been "bypassed" by superiors not because my technical analysis was flawed, but for "other" reasons.

[Pratique]

7 minutes ago, Engineroom Snipe said:

 

So sad, I feel your pain. So many companies "bypass" safety in the search for profits.

 

I try to fight the good fight, but even I have been "bypassed" by superiors not because my technical analysis was flawed, but for "other" reasons.

Ha, yes. Well, the bypass was most definitely removed after we completed testing (and the removal was tested too). I hated bypassing safeties unless it was part of the test, so we had to redesign some of the tests to accommodate this.

[broberts]

8 hours ago, Pratique said:

To me it is a question of thoroughness being raised by Maersk. If there was a problem of any kind, there should be adequate measures taken to ensure it (and anything else) had been resolved before setting sail, even if it had nothing to do with the incident. Maybe the fuel issue was resolved, but we (and they) don't know yet. And if it wasn't, then that opens a whole can of worms.

 

Maersk is just taking pot shots at a rival. If it applied the same standard to its own ships it likely would have most of its fleet sitting in port.

 

Speculating on causation and performance may entertain some. Sadly the damage done to the reputation of those involved is rarely repairable.

 

[chengkp75]

3 hours ago, broberts said:

Maersk is just taking pot shots at a rival.

Actually, Maersk has the Dali under time charter to carry Maersk's cargo.  I've worked for Maersk in the past (the Danish company, not the US subsidiary) and found that Maersk Copenhagen is a very well run company.

Edited May 18 by chengkp75

[rafinmd]

On 5/15/2024 at 12:31 PM, Charles4515 said:

You think they will get a waiver of the PVSA? 

I've been wondering the same thing.  I think they could do one more turnaround in Norfolk before returning to Baltimore since the next cruise visits Greenland which I believe makes it PVSA legal.

 

Roy