PALUBA
December 15, 2018, 06:30:01 am *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News:
Glavni pokrovitelj foruma Paluba
kompanija
Protexi Group System
http://www.protexigroup.co.rs/
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Del.icio.us Digg FURL FaceBook Stumble Upon Reddit SlashDot

Pages:  1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Sudar tankera i ratnog broda  (Read 5797 times)
 
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
kumbor
kapetan bojnog broda
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 13 868


« Reply #120 on: December 05, 2018, 05:38:50 pm »



5 odseka, pa to je propast. Liči na potonuće Titanika, plavljenje susednih odseka prelivanjem i curenjem kroz nehermetične spojeve! Španci, vrsni škverani, gradili brod za izvrsne norveške mornare. I NAPRAVILI SRANJE! pilot
Logged
MOTORISTA
Writer Palube
Global Moderator
kapetan bojnog broda
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 30 002



« Reply #121 on: December 06, 2018, 06:46:26 am »

Sve u svemu posada je mislila da je tanker stacionarni objekat na kopnu, osovina propelera nije bila vodonepropusna već je se kroz te otvore došlo do prodora vode u brod i posada nije imala tri veze kako da spreči dalji prodor.

Quote

Early report blames confused watchstanders, possible design flaws for Norway’s sunken frigate
By: David B. Larter and Carl Prine 6 days ago

ORLANDO, Fla. — Norway’s accident investigation board is raising questions about the watertight integrity of the Nansen-class frigates and is pointing its finger at shipbuilder Navantia in the wake of the collision and subsequent sinking of the frigate Helge Ingstad in early November.

In a preliminary report released Thursday, the board reached an initial conclusion that confusion on the Ingstad’s bridge during watch turnover was the proximate cause of the accident, but the sinking of the ship was caused by progressive flooding that appeared to overmatch Ingstad’s watertight integrity.

The Accident Investigation Board Norway, or AIBN, issued a public addendum to the report and a pair of warnings that the issues that sunk Ingstad could also apply to other Navantia ships, raising questions about a widespread quality issue at the Spanish shipbuilder.

“The AIBN has found safety critical issues relating to the vessel’s watertight compartments,” the report reads. “This must be assumed to also apply to the other four Nansen-class frigates."

“It cannot be excluded that the same applies to vessels of a similar design delivered by Navantia, or that the design concept continues to be used for similar vessel models. The AIBN assumes that its findings are not in conformity with the required damage stability standard for the Nansen-class frigates.”

In a statement to Defense News, Navantia spokesperson Esther Benito Lope stressed that the report is “very preliminary” and that the company has offered to work with Norway on the investigation.

“Navantia has offered, since the very beginning, its collaboration with the [Royal Norwegian Navy] in order to clarify the accident,” Benito Lope said. “Navantia will analyze all the possibilities, considering that some of the mentioned possibilities … are concluded from a very preliminary investigation.”

The statement went on to say that the company has not received any official notice or fielded any consultations about the cause of the accident. “Navantia has not received any official communication, neither any consults about possible causes, nor participated in any action … in Norway,” Benito Lope wrote.

Progressive flooding


In the addendum to the report, the board found that the initial assessment by the crew in the wake of the accident was that some crew quarters, the aft generator room and the ship’s stores room were flooded, but that the ship was stable and could survive if the situation remained relatively controlled.

But then it didn’t.

The crew began seeing water quickly flooding into the gear room via the ship’s hollow propeller shaft, with flooding then creeping into the engine rooms through the bulkheads.

Propeller shafts have to pass through multiple engineering spaces through watertight openings in the wall known as stuffing tubes or stuffing boxes that are supposed to tighten down as water tries to get through, preventing progressive flooding.

The board’s initial assessment based on crew interviews is that the stuffing boxes did not work as designed on Ingstad.

“This meant that the flooding became substantially more extensive than indicated by the original damage,” the report reads. “Based on the flooding of the gear room, it was decided to prepare for evacuation.”

As a result of the findings, the AIBN issued two warnings: one to the Norwegian military to assess its ships to address the safety concerns, and one to Navantia to “conduct investigations into the issues identified during this initial investigation and to ascertain whether this is also an issue relating to other vessels.”

Confusion

Apart from the flooding that ultimately sank the Ingstad, the accident itself raises some vexing questions.

Ingstad collided with the Mata-flagged tanker Sola TS at around 4 a.m. in unlimited visibility just minutes after Sola had gotten underway from Norway’s Sture Terminal.

The report found that Ingstad was transiting the channel at about 17 knots well before dawn, faster than one might expect near a busy port at night. It also found that the collision took place about 10-15 minutes after a watch turnover.

The report concludes that Ingstad’s bridge watch team mistook Sola for an object on land, and that Sola’s illuminated deck lights obscured its navigation lights from view. Furthermore, even after the Sola got underway there would have been relatively little motion of Sola’s lights as it moved away from the quay.

In the last six minutes before the collision, Sola contacted Ingstad and instructed it to turn away from its course. Ingstad’s watchstanders thought they were communicating with one of the other ships in the channel, still thinking Sola was a stationary object, and said if they turned, they’d run into the object that turned out to be the rapidly closing tanker.

By the time Ingstad’s bridge team recognized the error and tried to evade Sola, it was too late, the report found.

“The AIBN's preliminary assessment is that the accident was not caused by any single act or event, but can be explained by a series of interacting complex factors and circumstances,” the report reads. The investigation team is seeking to identify and understand these factors. “So far, the AIBN has not seen any indication of technical systems not working as intended up until the time of the collision.”

More questions than answers

To retired Capt. Lawrence Brennan, a career U.S. Navy attorney and now an instructor at Fordham University’s School of Law, what’s interesting isn’t just what’s in the interim report but what was left out and will be explored later by other probes.

He pointed to the crew of the frigate Helge Ingstad and wondered what condition they had set the frigate to mitigate or prevent flooding.

He asked about the shift change on the bridge that seemed to coincide with the frigate entering waters bustling with commercial shipping in low visibility.

He indicated that more will be learned from engineers poring over the gash in the hull, which “seemed to be opened up like a can opener,” and interviews with crew members who can trace the quick decision-making process of a watch team that realized, like aviators, that its vessel had “put itself in a box” and faced increasingly bad options as danger loomed.

As for the AIBN’s twin interim safety recommendations to shipyards and Oslo’s military leaders, Brennan said that’s exactly what everyone should expect from an initial probe.

“We saw the exact same sort of investigations into defects discovered in Japanese-built container ships,” Brennan said.


Izvor: www.defencenews.com
Logged
dzumba
Stručni saradnik - specijalne jedinice
kapetan bojnog broda
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 16 827


« Reply #122 on: December 08, 2018, 08:31:45 pm »

Quote
Sve u svemu posada je mislila da je tanker stacionarni objekat na kopnu,

Па испаде да су хтели да се "закуцају" у копно... Изгледа да је посада била састављена од дилетаната...
Logged
kilezr
poručnik fregate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4 098



« Reply #123 on: December 09, 2018, 12:54:25 pm »


 Prodor vode kroz osovinu propelera koja nije vodonepropusna???

 Totalno nemoguće.
 Samo mi nije jasno koji način brtvljenja osovine je na ovom tipu broda. Da sada ne nabrajam načine . Osovina MORA biti zabrtvljena-
 vodonepropusna inače bi more non stop prodiralo u brod.Usled udara je došlo do propuštanja na osovini. Znači da je fizko oštećenje uzrok .
Logged
bristova
razvodnik
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 97


« Reply #124 on: December 09, 2018, 01:22:46 pm »

Izgleda da je more prošlo kroz šuplju osovinu s polužjem mehanizma za zakretanje krila propelera, nakon što je glavčina s prekretnim krilima teško oštećena udarom podvodnog dijela pramca tankera.
Tlak vode je izbacio ulje i koristio osovinu propelera kao cijev za naplavljivanje.

Niti jedan brod vodonepropusne odjeljke ne projektira s pretpostavkom da u slučaju vanjskog proboja šuplje osovine zakretnih propelera ona ostaje nepropusna. Niti jedan.

Sam sudar pak dokazuje Ajnštajna: "Samo su dvije stvari na svijetu beskonačne, svemir i ljudska glupost, samo što za svemir još nismo sigurni."
« Last Edit: December 09, 2018, 01:33:29 pm by bristova » Logged
kumbor
kapetan bojnog broda
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 13 868


« Reply #125 on: December 09, 2018, 02:51:47 pm »



Koliko sam shvatio, bristova ima profesionalne veze sa pomorstvom, pa verovatno zna šta govori. Po mom amaterskom mišljenju ležajevi osovinskih vodova i ležajevi lista kormila teško mogu biti potpuno nepropusni, naročito ako su propeleri prekretni. Čemu inače služe santine broda nego da kupe filtriranu vodu, koja je inače malih količina. Podvodno oštećenje sve to poremeti i prodor vode može postati znatan, kao što je reč u ovom slučaju.
Logged
bristova
razvodnik
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 97


« Reply #126 on: December 09, 2018, 04:13:39 pm »

Kumbore,

Ležajevi brodskih osovina (vratila -  tehnički pravilnije) sami po sebi su samo ležajevi i nisu vodonepropusni.
Neki se u statvenoj cijevi podmazuju uljem, neki materijali ležajeva morskom vodom - "sveto drvo", tordon, posebne ležajne gumene smjese i sl. U skrok ležaju (ležaj prije propelera) podmazivanje ležaja morem je pravilo.

Brtvljenje osovina postiže se pak specijalnim brtvenim sklopovima - brtvenicama (mehaničke brtve, pletenice) montiranim oko rotirajaćuh osovina na mjestima gdje one prolaze kroz trup broda i vodonepropusne pregrade.
One ne nose osovine već samo brtve prolaze kroz trup i pregrade.
To je uvjet na kome inzistiraju i civilni registri brodova a kamoli ne ratna brodogradnja.
Za eventualna minimalna tehnološka kapanja, kako si i rekao, služe santine. Curenja nisu dozvoljena.

U ovom konkretnom slučaju veliki je manjak preciznih informacija. Nije profesionalno brzati sa sudovima a pogotovo ne s osuđivanjem.
Ipak, na temalju prije prikazane simulacije, proizilazi da su kritična plavljena vodonepropusnih odjeljaka prema pramcu nastala uslijed prolaska mora kroz šuplju pogonsku osovinu, ne oko nje. Mada, zbog snažnog udara, ni to nije isključeno.

Nadalje, pitanje je koliko su i same krmene vodonepropusne pregrade neoštećeno prošle sudar. Dobro i duboko je tanker zakačio fregatu.
I manja oštećenja i deformacije pregrada izacuju ih barem dijelom iz funkcije. Pitanje je što je tu grupa za borbenu otpornost broda (grupa BOB-a) mogla na brzinu napraviti. Vjerojatno ništa.

Količina mora koja kroz i male rupe ulazi u brod je jako velika i brzo nadvlada sposobnost pumpi da tu vodu izbacuju van. U praksi, raznim zakrpama, patentnim i drvenim čepovima čepe se rupe do max 150 -200 mm. Ako su rupe veće, more toliko brzo nadire da se zapovjeda trenutno napuštanje odjeljka, negovo zatvaranje, dodatno podupiranje i nastavak borbe  grupe BOB-a (i čitave posade) da se prodor dalje ne širi kroz brod.

Postoje točni izračuni i obvezatni dijagrami i nacrti "Damage control"-a za svaki brod, pogotovo za fregatu.
Poznavanje navedenog je vrlo bitan dio osposobljavanja i stručnog ispita za svakog nadležnog tehničkog i pomorskog časnika na ratnom brodu.
« Last Edit: December 09, 2018, 04:39:11 pm by bristova » Logged
Prvačić
vodnik
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 452


« Reply #127 on: December 09, 2018, 04:32:47 pm »

Znači i na brodovima postoje posebni dijelovi za zaptivanje, tzv. "semerinzi"?
Koliko razumjeh pogonska vratila nisu šipke već cijevi.
Mada me čudi da ta cijev nije fabrički zatvorena sa oba kraja.
Ako je otvorena sa unutrašnjeg kraja, zar je neće napuniti ulje iz reduktora?
Logged
bristova
razvodnik
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 97


« Reply #128 on: December 09, 2018, 04:49:09 pm »

Znači i na brodovima postoje posebni dijelovi za zaptivanje, tzv. "semerinzi"?
Koliko razumjeh pogonska vratila nisu šipke već cijevi.
Mada me čudi da ta cijev nije fabrički zatvorena sa oba kraja.
Ako je otvorena sa unutrašnjeg kraja, zar je neće napuniti ulje iz reduktora?
Postoje i oko brodskih osovina naravno "semerinzi", recimo to tako.
I naravno da je cijev prekretnog propelera tvornički zatvorena na krajevima, glavčinom propelera s vanjske i reduktorom s hidrauličkim agregatom na unutarnjoj strani broda.
Kad sve radi kako treba, ni kap mora tu ne prolazi.

I na fregati je sve bilo super; dok joj u strojarnicu "kao slon u apoteku" nije uletio supertanker.
Logged
tihi
zastavnik I klase
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1 570



« Reply #129 on: December 09, 2018, 07:12:08 pm »

Quote
"sveto drvo", tordon,

 Zanimljivo je da se i u namodernijim brodovima kao zaptivni materijal jos uvek koristi drvo, posebno na osovini.  Pokusavam da nadjem na netu nesto o ovom drvetu ali mi ne ide. Koje mu je englesko (ili latinsko) ime?
Logged
bristova
razvodnik
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 97


« Reply #130 on: December 09, 2018, 07:42:37 pm »

Quote
"sveto drvo", tordon,

 Zanimljivo je da se i u namodernijim brodovima kao zaptivni materijal jos uvek koristi drvo, posebno na osovini.  Pokusavam da nadjem na netu nesto o ovom drvetu ali mi ne ide. Koje mu je englesko (ili latinsko) ime?
Lignum vitae (lat) ili Palo Santo (esp)
Logged
buva
mladji vodnik
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 156


« Reply #131 on: December 09, 2018, 08:37:29 pm »



bravo bristova     

tema: BOB i osovinski vod
Logged
bristova
razvodnik
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 97


« Reply #132 on: December 09, 2018, 11:11:52 pm »

Hvala Buva  Wink
Logged
kilezr
poručnik fregate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4 098



« Reply #133 on: December 10, 2018, 07:20:04 pm »


 Zar " sveto drvo " nije meterijal za ležajeve osovinskih vodova? Brtvljenje se vrši šuperenjem ili semerinzima.
Logged
kumbor
kapetan bojnog broda
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 13 868


« Reply #134 on: December 10, 2018, 11:30:54 pm »


 Zar " sveto drvo " nije meterijal za ležajeve osovinskih vodova? Brtvljenje se vrši šuperenjem ili semerinzima.

Pa meni se čini da baš to ljudi i pominju. Uostalom, reč je o strogo profesionalnim detaljima. Prava i podrobna istraga veštaka - pomorskih inženjera još nije ni počela, pa je rano govoriti o takvim sitnim detaljima kao što su ležajevi osovina, koje po dosad poznatom stanju stvari verovatno nisu ni bile oštećene, mada nisu isključene njihove konstruktivne manjkavosti. Brod je još uvek u moru, skoro potpuno potopljen.
Logged
Pages:  1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
Simple Audio Video Embedder

SMFAds for Free Forums
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.024 seconds with 26 queries.