Baltimore's Francis Scott Key Bridge Collapses after Ship Strike

  • Thread starter Thread starter Borg
  • Start date Start date
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Ask a follow-up in this thread, or start your own.
Sign up Log in
293 replies · 31K views
And why seats have Scotchguard.
 
Reply
  • Haha
Likes   Reactions: jbriggs444, ShadowKraz, Tom.G and 1 other person
Engineering news on Phys.org
Baltimore shipping channel fully reopens after bridge collapse
https://apnews.com/article/baltimor...nnel-reopens-cf12f3b3e2914efa05a91dd399b0dd64
BALTIMORE (AP) — The main shipping channel into Baltimore’s port has fully reopened to its original depth and width following the March 26 collapse of the Francis Scott Key Bridge, which blocked most maritime traffic into the harbor.

Officials announced the full reopening in a news release Monday evening. It comes after a massive cleanup effort as crews removed an estimated 50,000 tons of steel and concrete from the Patapsco River.

After the Dali was moved, crews opened a channel that was 50 feet (15 meters) deep and 400 feet (122 meters) wide. The full federal shipping channel is 700 feet (213 meters) wide, which means two-way traffic can resume, officials said. They said other additional safety requirements have also been lifted because of the increased width.

Officials said a total of 56 federal, state and local agencies participated in the salvage operations, including about 500 specialists from around the world who operated a fleet of 18 barges, 22 tugboats, 13 floating cranes, 10 excavators and four survey boats.
 
Reply
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: BillTre, gleem and sophiecentaur
While Chief MAKOi has supplied us with more information, it appears to me that he's guessing.
Also, while I have zero knowledge of this type of vessel, it strikes me as very peculiar that the chief's schematic shows the 'reefer containers' and 'bow thrusters' running on 6600 volts. A quick google shows that these type of 'reefers' run on 440 volts, which would be more in line what I would suspect.

https://www.elecdirect.com/pin-sleeve-devices/reefer-plugs-sockets

As a general rule, I don't like being pedantic, but this makes me question whether he really knows what he's talking about or is just mansplaining.
 
Reply
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: russ_watters and BillTre
or is just marinesplaining
 
Reply
  • Like
  • Haha
Likes   Reactions: russ_watters, OmCheeto, jack action and 1 other person
OmCheeto said:
he's guessing.
Until we get an official report, isn't everyone just guessing?
 
OmCheeto said:
it strikes me as very peculiar that the chief's schematic shows the 'reefer containers' and 'bow thrusters' running on 6600 volts. A quick google shows that these type of 'reefers' run on 440 volts, which would be more in line what I would suspect.
Maybe the reefer banks have transformers not shown on that schematic?

I don't have any background in marine design but ... In stationary plants I've seen 440 volts for small stuff, 4160 volts for motors up to 400 to 500 hp, and 6600 volts for big motors. How big do you suppose the thruster motors are?
 
gmax137 said:
Maybe the reefer banks have transformers not shown on that schematic?

I don't have any background in marine design but ... In stationary plants I've seen 440 volts for small stuff, 4160 volts for motors up to 400 to 500 hp, and 6600 volts for big motors. How big do you suppose the thruster motors are?
https://chiefengineerlog.com/2022/1...ine industry, voltages below,6.6 kV and 11 kV.

The 6600 volts seems to be used for distribution over long distances, with step down transformers located near the loads. Maybe some simplified diagrams don't show the transformers separately, but merge them with the 440V loads, as gmax suggests.
 
gmax137 said:
How big do you suppose the thruster motors are?
According to wiki "For maneuvering, Dali has a single 3,000 kW (4,000 hp) bow thruster."

That's about 3/4 of the capacity of one of its four 4 megawatt diesels. Going back to the original NTSB report, it does show the bow thruster being powered off of the 6600v bus. My bad!
 
Reply
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes   Reactions: renormalize, russ_watters and gmax137
berkeman said:
Sure, but that's why engines have rev limiters. :smile:
I was going to mention that my 70’s vintage cars do not have rev limiters, but I was wrong. An out of control over rev situation is automatically corrected when a con rod comes out through the block.
 
Reply
  • Haha
Likes   Reactions: sophiecentaur, Flyboy, berkeman and 2 others
Nugatory said:
An out of control over rev situation is automatically corrected when a con rod comes out through the block.
So it's a "rev limiter" in much the same way as the ground is a "fall limiter"?
 
Reply
  • Like
  • Wow
Likes   Reactions: sophiecentaur, berkeman and Nugatory
Nugatory said:
I was going to mention that my 70’s vintage cars do not have rev limiters, but I was wrong. An out of control over rev situation is automatically corrected when a con rod comes out through the block.
Or when you run out of oil on the Interstate Highway. :cry:
 
OmCheeto said:
Also, while I have zero knowledge of this type of vessel, it strikes me as very peculiar that the chief's schematic shows the 'reefer containers' and 'bow thrusters' running on 6600 volts. A quick google shows that these type of 'reefers' run on 440 volts, which would be more in line what I would suspect.
I think you badly underestimate the power requirements for thrusters on large ships. Below are some specifications for a fairly large vessel built to transport and deploy loads of rock that underlays submerged pipelines: (https://www.ingeteam.com/Download/2574/attachment/case-study-joseph-plateau.pdf.aspx)
Vessel Thrusters.png

Vessel Specs.png

All of the electric motors for thrust and propulsion provide multiple-megawatts of mechanical power and all run at over 3000V, so each draws currents of multiple-hundreds of amps. If they all ran at 440V instead, their draw would increase to multiple-thousands of amps each. Can you imagine the size of the conductors needed to carry that much current and the additional weight-penalty that the vessel would have to bear?
 
Last edited:
Reply
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Astronuc and OmCheeto
renormalize said:
Can you imagine the size of the conductors needed to carry that much current and the additional weight-penalty that the vessel would have to bear?

You are of course correct. I guess I should have done the maths after I found the actual wattage rating (Post # 281).

3,000,000 watts/6600 volts = 450 amps * 1 cable
3,000,000 watts/440 volts = 6800 amps ≈ 15 cables * 450 amps

I would love to see the control circuitry for that monster. I wonder how long it takes to get up to full speed. Might be a factor in the incident.
 
berkeman said:
Your backordered part here
From the start, I was wondering about people who had their personal belongings in the containers - household property, antique cars or bikes, artwork, etc. etc. I guess if you're going to ship your stuff across the ocean you'd better have it insured for replacement cost.
 
It's complicated. There is something called "general average" in maritime law. If I am shipping $1M worth of stuff and you are shipping $1M of stiff, and yours is lost - say tossed overboard to save the ship - then I owe you $500K if general average applies.

If you have cargo insurance, then the insurance pays you $500K and I or my agent pays you $500K.

Of course in real life there are many shippers, many cargoes, many insurance policies. and this rule may apply in some cases and not others. Oh, and the lost cargo may be salvaged. This keeps the lawyers busy.
 
Last edited:
Vanadium 50 said:
. This keeps the lawyers busy
So has it always been...
 
AP News - Loose electrical cable found on ship that caused Baltimore bridge collapse
https://apnews.com/article/baltimor...-loose-cable-57c8260759fd313de006cf02bcf3ccfb

BALTIMORE (AP) — Investigators working to pinpoint the cause of Baltimore’s Francis Scott Key Bridge collapse discovered a loose cable that could have caused electrical issues on the Dali, the massive cargo ship that lost power and disastrously veered off course before striking the bridge.

When disconnected, the problematic cable triggered an electrical blackout on the ship similar to what happened as it approached the bridge on March 26, according to new documents released Wednesday by the National Transportation Safety Board.

The documents don’t include any analysis or conclusions, which will be released later in the board’s final report. A spokesperson for the board declined to comment as the investigation is ongoing.

Waiting for NTSB final report - https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/Pages/DCA24MM031.aspx
 
Reply
  • Informative
  • Wow
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Tom.G, russ_watters, OmCheeto and 2 others
I assume this is some kind of control cable and not the power itself? Those cables are...beefy. Really beefy. Not like a Taco Bell burrito. I couldn't find more details, though.
 
Reply
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes   Reactions: BillTre, Vanadium 50, Rive and 3 others