MV Mol Comfort splits in two and sinks - Page 2 - Ships Nostalgia
13:36

Welcome
Welcome!Welcome to Ships Nostalgia, the world's greatest online community for people worldwide with an interest in ships and shipping. Whether you are crew, ex-crew, ship enthusiasts or cruisers, this is the forum for you. And what's more, it's completely FREE.

Click here to go to the forums home page and find out more.
Click here to join.
Log in
User Name Password

MV Mol Comfort splits in two and sinks

User Tag List

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #26  
Old 25th June 2013, 21:49
FILIPVS FILIPVS is offline  
user
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Department: Deck
Active: 1998 - Present
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
My location
Posts: 1,035
In this case, fortunately for crew the ship did not sink, so subsequent on board research can clarify what really happened. But when the ship had sunk, and structure remained thousands of meters deep ... then this whole mess always is resolved by blaming the crew ... is the unjust law of the sea according with, crew is always guilty of any accident. And for this, is better if captain goes to the bottom with the ship... so he can not defence himself.

I would like to see, at least this time, Class societies and naval architects sitted on a Court and giving explanations about how is a new ship broken in two possible?? And also being resposible for the damages incured

And also MSC NAPOLI had similar troubles in the hull... so I wonder for what class siocieties and flag states are useful??? It seems they are not complying with their control tasks, so they are criminal organizations working in a quite clandestine way... with total impunity

Last edited by FILIPVS; 25th June 2013 at 22:00..
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 25th June 2013, 22:20
FILIPVS FILIPVS is offline  
user
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Department: Deck
Active: 1998 - Present
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
My location
Posts: 1,035
Quote:
Originally Posted by FILIPVS View Post
Watching from outside, cargo stowage on deck of MOL COMFORT is correctly distributed.
Furthermore, after accident both sections remained afloat, close to even keel and in upright position; this is only posible when cargo distribution is well done.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 26th June 2013, 09:43
John Cassels John Cassels is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
My location
Posts: 2,944
Quote:
Originally Posted by FILIPVS View Post
Furthermore, after accident both sections remained afloat, close to even keel and in upright position; this is only posible when cargo distribution is well done.
Not quite true ; depends on the relative positions of the
LCG and LCB of both sections.
__________________
JC ; same initials-but the other guy did the miracles.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 26th June 2013, 14:53
Supergoods's Avatar
Supergoods Supergoods is offline  
Senior Member
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Department: Navigation
Active: 1958 - 2015
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 822
I would be interested to see what the draft is on the two sections.

Ian
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 26th June 2013, 15:03
Cisco's Avatar
Cisco Cisco is offline  
Senior Member
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Department: Navigation
Active: 1963 - 2006
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
My location
Posts: 6,275
I seem to recall them using high tensile steel in some big bulkies some years ago... they stopped using it when they realised that high tensile rusted at the same rate as the old stuff and being thinner plates the outcome was not as desired.
__________________
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 26th June 2013, 16:31
FILIPVS FILIPVS is offline  
user
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Department: Deck
Active: 1998 - Present
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
My location
Posts: 1,035
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Cassels View Post
Not quite true ; depends on the relative positions of the
LCG and LCB of both sections.
Well it is evident that in this case LCG and LCB are well balanced, before and after the accident. This is only possible if cargo plus ballast distribution is correct.

If cargo distribution was wrong, after hull failure the trim would be altered a lot. This was not the case, because i see in the photos that trim remains in aceptable values (ie, cargo weight is evenly distributed along ship's length).

Last edited by FILIPVS; 26th June 2013 at 16:41..
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 26th June 2013, 16:39
FILIPVS FILIPVS is offline  
user
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Department: Deck
Active: 1998 - Present
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
My location
Posts: 1,035
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cisco View Post
I seem to recall them using high tensile steel in some big bulkies some years ago... they stopped using it when they realised that high tensile rusted at the same rate as the old stuff and being thinner plates the outcome was not as desired.
I also have heard that information. many tankers and OBO were repaired with that material and many had hull damages.

Owners like HTS because lightship weight is reduced so cargo capacity is increased. Finally you have a weaker ship with more cargo on board... It is evident that structural problems will arise in a quite easy way. I wonder how many sailors must die before somebody take a decission about this.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 26th June 2013, 16:40
borderreiver borderreiver is offline  
Senior Member
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Department: Deck
Active: 1960 - 2010
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,753
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cisco View Post
I seem to recall them using high tensile steel in some big bulkies some years ago... they stopped using it when they realised that high tensile rusted at the same rate as the old stuff and being thinner plates the outcome was not as desired.
The sat 55 very made with high tensile steel. They started rusting from the day they left the yard. On the Alvega we sandblasted the deck and coated by hand with red lead and under coat apox 7 coats 9 months later we were playing football with the rust. lot cracks on bulkheads and gussets on the main girder.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 26th June 2013, 19:48
John Cassels John Cassels is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
My location
Posts: 2,944
Quote:
Originally Posted by FILIPVS View Post
Well it is evident that in this case LCG and LCB are well balanced, before and after the accident. This is only possible if cargo plus ballast distribution is correct.

If cargo distribution was wrong, after hull failure the trim would be altered a lot. This was not the case, because i see in the photos that trim remains in aceptable values (ie, cargo weight is evenly distributed along ship's length).
Oh my goodness !.
__________________
JC ; same initials-but the other guy did the miracles.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 26th June 2013, 21:54
John Dryden John Dryden is offline  
user
Active: 1969 - 1973
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Cassels View Post
Oh my goodness !.
I believe I know what you are thinking there JC.
However, I have a vision of a sailor emerging from the paint locker hours later and uttering the very same words(expletives deleted)
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 27th June 2013, 13:36
Erimus's Avatar
Erimus Erimus is offline  
Senior Member
Organisation: Maritime Enthusiast
Department: Office / Administration
Active: 1958 - 2010
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 3,867
Lloyds Loading List today report:-

MITSUI OSK Lines (MOL) has announced it will withdraw six containerships from services to upgrade their hull structures as precautionary measures, after sister vessel MOL Comfort split during heavy weather off Yemen ten days ago.

The move comes after MOL, the vessels’ shipbuilder Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and class society ClassNK carried out initial inspections over the ships and began operational precautions to reduce the stress on their hulls.

According to a MOL statement, the six ships sufficiently fill the safety standard required by ClassNK in compliance to International Association of Classification Societies but the upgrades are meant to enhance the strength of the hulls “twice as much” as the safety standard.

The Japanese carrier said it is not yet certain how long the upgrades will take and when those ships will be back in services.

The six vessels, all operated by MOL on G6 services, include MOL Creation , MOL Charisma , MOL Celebration , MOL Courage , MOL Competence . All five are 8,110 teu, 86,692 gt vessels built with Sulzer engines in 2007-2008, same as MOL Comfort.

The sixth ship is MOL Commitment , a vessel delivered earlier this year. It has a similar design to the other five, but can carry 8,540 teu of boxes nominally and uses a B&W engine.

On the LP1 service, MOL Courage was already phased out on Sunday, MOL Creation will be phased out on July 4 and MOL Charisma on July 19.

MOL Commitment, on the CEC service, will be offline after July 28.

On the EUM service, MOL Celebration will be out on July 10.

The 5,605 teu MOL Glide will phase in for MOL Commitment, and the 6,724 teu MOL Maestro will take the position of MOL Celebration.

The carrier will release further details on MOL Competence and other replacement matters later.

On June 17, MOL Comfort split 200 miles off the coast of Yemen. As of 1800 Dubai time Thursday, the forepart was located near 15’52”N 68’53”E and the afterpart was drifting near 14’13”N 66’04”E in an east-northeast direction.

MOL Comfort’s afterpart is “rolling heavily in adverse weather”, which adds that “ingressing water in the cargo hold and the loss of containers on deck are progressing”, the carrier said. Oil film is seen around this section, whose towing operation has not started.

The fore section is being towed stably with the majority of cargo aboard to the Arabian Gulf.

SMIT and Nippon Salvage have been appointed as the salvors.

geoff
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 27th June 2013, 13:45
stores stores is offline   SN Supporter
STORES
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 940
Container Ship Breaks In Half

more updates and photos on gcaptain
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 27th June 2013, 14:20
stores stores is offline   SN Supporter
STORES
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 940
Mol Comfort

Aft Section Sinks In 4000 Meters
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 27th June 2013, 15:33
Basil's Avatar
Basil Basil is online now  
Senior Member
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Department: Engineering
Active: 1962 - 1964
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 4,049
I recollect hearing that, when high tensile steel was introduced for hull structures, one thing to take into consideration was that, although the plate could be thinner, corrosion progressed at the same rate as MS, i.e. at a higher percentage rate.
e.g. in round figures:
20mm MS 1mm corrosion = 5% loss
10mm HTS 1mm corrosion = 10% loss

Perhaps a naval architect could comment.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 27th June 2013, 16:18
Brian Dobbie Brian Dobbie is offline  
Senior Member
Department: Engineering
Active: 1967 - 2006
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,201
Modern containerships have the ballast tanks shot blasted and airless sprayed with protective paint. Given the age of these ships corrosion should not be an issue particularly as this one has just dry-docked and therefore tanks will have been surveyed.
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 27th June 2013, 16:25
Erimus's Avatar
Erimus Erimus is offline  
Senior Member
Organisation: Maritime Enthusiast
Department: Office / Administration
Active: 1958 - 2010
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 3,867
Quote:
Originally Posted by stores View Post
Aft Section Sinks In 4000 Meters
Chapter and verse........



http://www.mol.co.jp/en/pr/2013/13045.html

geoff
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 27th June 2013, 17:05
FILIPVS FILIPVS is offline  
user
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Department: Deck
Active: 1998 - Present
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
My location
Posts: 1,035
Quote:
Originally Posted by stores View Post
Aft Section Sinks In 4000 Meters
the "corpus delicti" disappears at 4000 meters ... too deep to be examinated. So, some people in Japanese shipyards will rest with "comfort" with this new...

Last edited by FILIPVS; 27th June 2013 at 17:13..
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 27th June 2013, 17:10
FILIPVS FILIPVS is offline  
user
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Department: Deck
Active: 1998 - Present
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
My location
Posts: 1,035
Quote:
Originally Posted by Basil View Post
Perhaps a naval architect could comment.
No, he would say that crew was doing something wrong because as all we know architects are infallible...
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 27th June 2013, 17:39
Erimus's Avatar
Erimus Erimus is offline  
Senior Member
Organisation: Maritime Enthusiast
Department: Office / Administration
Active: 1958 - 2010
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 3,867
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Dobbie View Post
Modern containerships have the ballast tanks shot blasted and airless sprayed with protective paint. Given the age of these ships corrosion should not be an issue particularly as this one has just dry-docked and therefore tanks will have been surveyed.
Indeed and last drydock was for Special Survey so there will be a few worried surveyors methinks....

geoff
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 27th June 2013, 18:04
Duncan112's Avatar
Duncan112 Duncan112 is offline  
Senior Member
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Department: Engineering
Active: 1981 - 2003
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
My location
Posts: 3,447
Basil is quite correct on his statement on rates of corrosion and reduction in strength - similarly the adoption of double hulls has, in theory, increased the second moment of the structure allowing a further reduction in scantlings.

I fear however that corrosion is not the issue here but the propogation of cracking in the hull structure until the crack reaches its critical length allowing it to propogate through the material at the speed of sound in that material. The length of critical crack is completely independent of structure size - a plate 25mm thick will have the same critical crack length as one 2mm thick, but very dependent on the stress in the material at the crack zone and the material the structure is constructed of.

The question we must be asking here is, assuming that the vessel did not encounter extraordinary sea conditions between it's survey docking and structural failure how a crack that must have been close to critical length was missed during close up examination.

From a dissertation I did I found that in mild steel structures the critical crack length on a Bulk Carrier of around 164 000 tonnes 283m LOA lies between 77 and 500mm depending on the sea state and loading condition developing the stress 500mm is quite some crack, 77mm could, potentially be missed. I would have loved to develop this further for different types and sizes of ships but was limited in length so couldnt.
__________________
“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

George Santayana (1863 - 1952)

Last edited by Duncan112; 27th June 2013 at 18:05.. Reason: Clarification
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 27th June 2013, 19:59
FILIPVS FILIPVS is offline  
user
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Department: Deck
Active: 1998 - Present
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
My location
Posts: 1,035
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duncan112 View Post
The question we must be asking here is, assuming that the vessel did not encounter extraordinary sea conditions between it's survey docking and structural failure how a crack that must have been close to critical length was missed during close up examination.
It is well know that surveys in dry dock or afloat are always done in the same places, i.e in easy accesible and well ventilated and luminated spaces...

As consequence, at the end of the her life, 90% of the hull structure never was examinated for one surveyor....

Conclusion: You can not rely on surveys... and this is specially true when ship's size increases

Last edited by FILIPVS; 27th June 2013 at 20:01..
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 28th June 2013, 09:08
John Briggs's Avatar
John Briggs John Briggs is offline  
Forever a Seaman
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Department: Navigation
Active: 1956 - 1973
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
My location
Posts: 8,604
Some interesting photos here:- http://gcaptain.com/comfort-images/
__________________
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]JB
Inside every older person is a younger person - wondering what the hell happened.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 28th June 2013, 10:18
Brian Dobbie Brian Dobbie is offline  
Senior Member
Department: Engineering
Active: 1967 - 2006
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,201
Quote:
Originally Posted by FILIPVS View Post
It is well know that surveys in dry dock or afloat are always done in the same places, i.e in easy accesible and well ventilated and luminated spaces...

As consequence, at the end of the her life, 90% of the hull structure never was examinated for one surveyor....

Conclusion: You can not rely on surveys... and this is specially true when ship's size increases
Sorry to disagree completely.
My experience of crawling through ballast tanks, fuel tanks, void spaces etc then pressure testing would indicate that the entire ship is examined in detail at special surveys, normally at 5,10,15,20 and 25 years of age.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 28th June 2013, 10:36
Varley's Avatar
Varley Varley is offline   SN Supporter
Senior Member
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Active: 1971 - 2011
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,561
Of course one cannot rely 100% in surveyors. You cannot rely 100% on anything but death and taxes. You require a vessel well found when launched (Well engineered, built by proper tradesmen and well inspected), operation by competent staff within design criteria, continued inspection regime both in house and external finally timely and well engineered repairs when defects are detected). Ignore any one of these and there will be an increased risk of calamity.

Strengthening on her sisters is reported as being 'planned' - it is unlikely that any such has been done without an analysis that such is necessary (or as with Napoli reappraisal of original engineering methodology).

It is unthinkable that such 'strengthening' would simply be proactive application of the traditional remedy of welding railway lines to reinforce the deck structure.

(Our previous Lt.Governor, a Naval Gentlemen, reported this as an RN 'traditional' repair method too!)

Last edited by Varley; 28th June 2013 at 10:39..
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 28th June 2013, 15:25
Duncan112's Avatar
Duncan112 Duncan112 is offline  
Senior Member
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Department: Engineering
Active: 1981 - 2003
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
My location
Posts: 3,447
MHI press releases here http://www.mhi.co.jp/en/notice/notice_130628_2.html There is, of course nothing to stop owners specifying scantlings above rule and one must ask if IACS minimum standards are below those suggested by, for example LR?
__________________
“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

George Santayana (1863 - 1952)
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Tanker splits in half near Suez Canal John Campbell News and Views from the Shipping World 24 2nd September 2009 21:08
now working on hospital ship usns comfort. mrcanoehead Say Hello 14 17th September 2007 23:23



Support SN


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging v3.1.0 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.