Baltimore's Francis Scott Key Bridge Collapses after Ship Strike

  • Thread starter Borg
  • Start date
In summary, the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore collapsed following a collision with a ship. The incident raised concerns about infrastructure safety and prompted investigations into the circumstances surrounding the accident. Emergency services responded quickly to assess the damage and ensure public safety.
  • #71
Borg said:
My assumption with my post was that they appeared to be lined up properly such that the rudder would have been pointed directly aft. It seems like a pretty bad design to have to twist the rudder to one side in order to continue in a straight direction (minus any outside effects like current). The fuel impacts alone are mind-boggling.

I'm also not clear on the rudder dynamics when power is lost. Assuming that it is using hydraulics, it would just remain in position when power is lost.
View attachment 342463
What I can see from this image, and previous "marinetraffic" AIS data, is that there seem to be very few GPS datapoints after the ship made the turn into the straight. Unfortunately I can't download the historical data as there is a paywall...
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
  • #72
A really good commentary. Much more than just a time line.

 
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes sophiecentaur, Astronuc and Rive
  • #73
This is a Jeff Ostroff video commenting on the inspection of DALI after the collision and the revealing electrical problem before the ship left the dock at time 9:55 of the video

 
  • Informative
Likes Klystron
  • #74
gleem said:
This is a Jeff Ostroff video ...
Thanks @gleem .

Anyone else notice the NTSB inspectors are all wearing shiny new white hardhats? I hope this is not their first trip to the field.

I know they are hard to pack, but I always took mine.
 
  • #75
Has there been any report on what crew were aboard? The first article I read, just hours after the incident, seemed to say there was no crew on board. Obviously there must have been the pilots, but still, why would there be no crew?
 
  • #76
DaveC426913 said:
Has there been any report on what crew were aboard? The first article I read, just hours after the incident, seemed to say there was no crew on board. Obviously there must have been the pilots, but still, why would there be no crew?

Here's one report:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/c...rancis-scott-key-bridge-collision/ar-BB1kIaa5
The crew of the Dali, the ill-fated vessel that slammed into the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore, are still onboard the cargo ship — and they could be stuck there even longer as authorities continue to assess the situation.

Two pilots and 21 crewmembers were manning the Dali on Tuesday when it rammed into one of the bridge’s support pillars, causing the 1.6-mile span to crumble and plunge into the Patapsco River.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #78
Multiple cranes being positioned this morning. Some cutting of the steel has already begun.

Baltimore_Cranes.jpg
 
  • #79
Is the plan to try and float the ship away? Or to cart it away in pieces?

If removed, is that enough to reopen the channel? Or is there too much bridge debris?
 
  • #80
Vanadium 50 said:
Is the plan to try and float the ship away? Or to cart it away in pieces?

If removed, is that enough to reopen the channel? Or is there too much bridge debris?
The plan is to float the ship away. Tearing it apart would create too much waste.

There is too much bridge debris. Somewhere I read that there is only 12 to 18 inches of clearance for large ships. Admittedly smaller ships, might be allowed earlier.
 
  • #81
Frabjous said:
There is too much bridge debris. Somewhere I read that there is only 12 to 18 inches of clearance for large ships.
My neighbor learned that lesson when trying to park his giant Hum-V in his garage. It didn't fit. Not the first time, anyway. :wink:

The more I think about the cleanup, the more of a mess this looks like it will be. And the Port of Baltimore is not exactly tiny. Not only do you have ship debris and bridge debris, you have cargo and fuel. And the competing goals of cleaning up quickly and preserving evidence.
 
Last edited:
  • #82
Vanadium 50 said:
Is the plan to try and float the ship away? Or to cart it away in pieces?

If removed, is that enough to reopen the channel? Or is there too much bridge debris?
In the local news conferences, they've stated generally the following phases:
  • Clear enough debris from the channel for one-way traffic
  • Remove the debris from the ship, float it away and clear remaining debris from center of channel for two-way traffic.
  • Clear the remaining bridge debris outside of the channel
  • Rebuild the bridge (many years of course)
The haven't give a timeline for recovering the remaining bodies. They're saying it's just too dangerous for the divers right now but they do want to recover them as soon as they can. There haven't been any timelines but I'm guessing from the way that it's being discussed that phase one might be completed within two months or less. The local news last night had a large list of 8+cranes, more than a dozen tugs, barges and support ships all on site or arriving soon. They have stressed over and over that getting the harbor open and doing it safely are the top priorities. When it comes to the logistics, it looks to be full speed ahead.
 
  • #84
I would expect the main channel to be cleared quickly. Bridge truss sections can be cut apart, using shaped charges placed by divers, then lifted by the cranes onto barges for removal. Bureaucracy and environmental impact permits can delay that process.

The vessel hull appears to be functional, so the insurance company will want to tow the DALI back to the container terminal ASAP to be unloaded.
 
  • Like
Likes russ_watters
  • #85
gmax137 said:
Anyone else notice the NTSB inspectors are all wearing shiny new white hardhats
Are you surprised? This is an election year, this will get a lot of coverage, and it doesn't hurt that the Secretary has aspirations. I'm sure everyone within range of a camera has a brand new hard hat.

As far as alternative routes, the next best options are tunnels, which means no hazardous materials. That includes things like gasoline.

I am wondering if they might set up a ferry. It won't handle the 30,000 cars per day, but it could mitigate the need to drive all the way around. The Boston MBTA operates two, and up until recently there was a ferry across the Potomac in north suburban DC.
 
  • Informative
Likes berkeman
  • #86
Vanadium 50 said:
Are you surprised? This is an election year, this will get a lot of coverage, and it doesn't hurt that the Secretary has aspirations. I'm sure everyone within range of a camera has a brand new hard hat.

As far as alternative routes, the next best options are tunnels, which means no hazardous materials. That includes things like gasoline.

I am wondering if they might set up a ferry. It won't handle the 30,000 cars per day, but it could mitigate the need to drive all the way around. The Boston MBTA operates two, and up until recently there was a ferry across the Potomac in north suburban DC.
Gotta be honest. New hard hats don't give me the confidence level that well used hard hats would.
 
  • Like
Likes ShadowKraz
  • #87
ChemAir said:
Gotta be honest. New hard hats don't give me the confidence level that well used hard hats would.
I have a pretty hard hat for pictures. I have a well used one for, well everything else.
 
  • #88
ChemAir said:
Gotta be honest. New hard hats don't give me the confidence level that well used hard hats would.
What would you bet that those guys work for many different customers, consulting and such. I bet their favorite hard hat is in their back of their truck and doesn't have a NTSB sticker on it. I don't imagine that would go over well with developers on normal job sites.
 
  • #89
The ones I hated to wear the most were the orange ones that say "VISITOR."
 
  • #90
Abi Aghayere, a professor of structural engineering at Drexel University, said his first reaction to seeing footage of the disaster was to wonder whether the bridge was designed to resist the massive force that would be generated by impact from a container ship, even traveling at low speeds.

Given that the four-lane bridge was constructed half a century ago, Aghayere questioned whether the original design took into account that the ships, which have grown considerably in size since then, would be maneuvering so close to the piers.
https://www.thebaltimorebanner.com/...esign-engineering-MZ6H4HUQOJGKRES3AYKGJZEXNI/

Legitimate concerns. At what point should a bridge (or its design) be evaluated for protection - besides routine inspection? Every 5 years? Every decade?

Edit/update: Titanic Law Helps Ship Owner Limit Bridge Collapse Liability (3)
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/insur...ship-owner-limit-liability-in-bridge-collapse

Companies file claim under 'Titanic' law that could drastically limit bridge collapse payout
https://www.wbaltv.com/article/brid...pany-petition-limit-payout-liability/60359628

As for Boring, Inc.
Recent investigations into The Boring Company, a tunnel construction startup founded by Elon Musk, have raised significant concerns over worker safety at its project sites. A recent investigation by Fortune found a widespread lack of accountability, dangerous working conditions, and a series of injuries that surfaced, casting a shadow over the company’s ambitious mission to revolutionize transportation through underground tunneling.

In May, an alarming email from an employee at the Bastrop, Texas, site to the company's then–safety manager, Wayne Merideth, revealed the dire situation: “I feel that the company as a whole has been very fortunate these past few months that there hasn't been a fatality,” the employee wrote. This message was just one of many warnings that Merideth received during his tenure, indicating a consistent disregard for employee safety under the pressure to meet high expectations and tight deadlines.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/refuse-first-fatality-elon-musks-161507318.html

That is concerning.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes difalcojr
  • #91
DaveE said:
What would you bet that those guys work for many different customers, consulting and such. I bet their favorite hard hat is in their back of their truck and doesn't have a NTSB sticker on it. I don't imagine that would go over well with developers on normal job sites.
Call me cynical, but I doubt these folks have any hard hats, work boots, or gloves, of their own. They are probably the PR crew. Available for pictures, but not much else.

I'd rather see cranes/jack-up rigs moving to pick up this mess. And, its a big one (mess, that is).
 
  • Like
Likes DaveE
  • #92
ChemAir said:
Call me cynical, but I doubt these folks have any hard hats, work boots, or gloves, of their own. They are probably the PR crew. Available for pictures, but not much else.

I'd rather see cranes/jack-up rigs moving to pick up this mess. And, its a big one (mess, that is).
Yeah, I wasn't too impressed by their actions on the video. Mostly wandering around snapping seemingly random photos with their cell phones. That's not forensic investigation, IMO.
 
  • #93
As Eisenhower once said "There are armies for marching and armies for fighting". There are NTSB crews for photo-ops and NTSB crews for investigation.
 
  • Like
Likes berkeman and Bystander
  • #94
Sorry if this info is in the videos that I haven't watched, but the cause of the accident was loss of main engine power, right? And has there been any indication what could have caused that? Is it an unusual failure? (I would guess so, but I don't know). Thanks.
 
  • Like
Likes russ_watters
  • #95
berkeman said:
Sorry if this info is in the videos that I haven't watched, but the cause of the accident was loss of main engine power, right? And has there been any indication what could have caused that? Is it an unusual failure? (I would guess so, but I don't know). Thanks.
Crickets, "aka.. 'the usual suspects,'" conspiracy theories...yada-yada-yada....
 
  • #96
berkeman said:
Sorry if this info is in the videos that I haven't watched, but the cause of the accident was loss of main engine power, right?
The fundamental cause has not been revealed. Which safety systems failed to operate has not been revealed.

My guess of a scenario at the moment, is a "jammed" rudder for some reason, followed by an attempt to reverse the engine to stop the turning ship.
 
  • Like
Likes russ_watters
  • #97
berkeman said:
Sorry if this info is in the videos that I haven't watched, but the cause of the accident was loss of main engine power, right? And has there been any indication what could have caused that? Is it an unusual failure? (I would guess so, but I don't know). Thanks.
Has main engine failure been positively identified? What I've seen for sure is power failure, which isn't necessarily the same thing (the main engine isn't necessarily driving a generator in addition to the screw). But either one is a no; no they are not terribly uncommon. Power failures in particular; can you imagine a worse environment in which to run a generator reliably?
 
Last edited:
  • #98
ChemAir said:
Gotta be honest. New hard hats don't give me the confidence level that well used hard hats would.
et al; I don't understand the anti-NTSB flak/jokes here. The NTSB is maybe the best forensic engineering organization in the world. There's nobody else you would want to be investigating this, at least in terms of the crash itself (I think the 9/11 structural sims were done by NIST).

Do you think the people available for easily accessible media photos are the most critical? How many seats for the media are there on the helicopter? The RHIB? Other side of the coin: if your department has a bunch of newbies, and you have a major project, do you make them stay in the office or have them shadow you in the field?

BTW, COVID was a black hole and my company re-branded twice in the past 6 years, so I have two gleaming-white hard hats in addition to a beat-up one that I don't wear anymore unless both of the others migrate to my garage.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes ShadowKraz, weirdoguy, sophiecentaur and 3 others
  • #99
russ_watters said:
Has main engine failure been identified? What I've seen for sure is power failure, which isn't necessarily the same thing.
Main engine failure has not been identified.

As far as I can tell, the main engine is a two-stroke diesel engine, 9-cylinder, 41.5 MW, 82.5 rpm. It is directly coupled, without clutch or gears, to a fixed-pitch propeller. To go astern, the engine is first stopped, the valve gear is changed over, then it may be started again backwards.

The main engine powers two 3.8 MW electricity generators, one hot, one spare. There are also two auxiliary 4.4 MW diesel generators, for use in port or emergency, again one hot and one spare.

I hypothesise loss of rudder control, jammed on the starboard curved course. Unable to control the ship in the channel, the main engine was stopped, and the port anchor dropped to partly counter the turn. Stopping the engine would cut main electrical power, until an auxiliary diesel generator started, if it did. The main engine was then started in reverse, producing the black smoke, but too late to stop the ship in time.

There are many reasons why rudder control might be lost. Mechanical, electrical or hydraulic failure of the rudder drive machinery. Loss of a main generator, switchboard, or the main engine, without an auto-start of the hot auxiliary generator.

It would have been hectic in the engine room for those 5 minutes, not sure of what was happening or why.

There is a ships engineer, oral exam question. What would you do if, while the ship was turning into a narrow channel, your mate fell across the 4 kV main generator bus? The correct answer is to start an auxiliary generator immediately, the ship and the channel are more important than body recovery. It is unlikely the mate could survive the accident. The wrong answer is to isolate the generator and remove your mate.
 
  • Like
  • Wow
  • Informative
Likes berkeman, russ_watters and Swamp Thing
  • #100
russ_watters said:
et al; I don't understand the anti-NTSB flak/jokes here.
Right. That visit on the video is apparently not about work to be done but about the 'work' already done. The wear missing on the hats only means they are new, and nothing more.
Watch for the pictures about the people with the cutting torches... Those hats will got the wear soon enough.
 
  • Like
Likes russ_watters and sophiecentaur
  • #101
Frabjous said:
Somewhere I read that there is only 12 to 18 inches of clearance for large ships.
The space between water and the highest point on a vessel is called 'air draught' A nice term which should tell you your headroom. According to Google, the tidal range in Baltimore harbour is less than 2 feet which is small compared with many places (many metres). Hitting overhead structures is not altogether rare; that's something that a Pilot should know all about.
 
  • #102
russ_watters said:
Power failures in particular; can you imagine a worse environment in which to run a generator reliably?
Submarines.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Likes ShadowKraz, Astronuc and berkeman
  • #103
I've seen in a couple places that the Vessel Data Recorder (VDR) seemed to shut down during each of the power loss windows. That seems really strange to me that the VDR and all sensors are not battery backed up to enable recording during a ship power outage. Does anybody have any knowledge about VDR systems on ships?

1:24 a.m. -- The livestream camera shows the cargo ship's lights suddenly going off and then coming back on.

1:24:59 a.m. -- Numerous audible alarms go off on the bridge of the container ship. The VDR temporarily goes off.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/timeline-...llapse-shows-moments-cargo/story?id=108540377
 
  • #104
Vanadium 50 said:
Submarines.
I'm not being completely facetious. An engineering casualty at sea is bad. You can't run to the hardware store to grab a replacement part, and you can't run away if things go even more pear-shaped. All of those problems are worse on submarines.

Your options are to be very, very careful, or to litter the bottom of the ocean with sunken hulls. There are examples of both options.

8 knots is 13.5 feet per second. That means that in the time it takes to start the auxiliary diesels (too small to drive the ship), the ship will traverse the distance of two football fields. The kinetic energy is equivalent to 500-1000 pounds of high explosive. You really, really do not want to lose control of the vessel.
 
  • #105
Baluncore said:
There are also two auxiliary 4.4 MW diesel generators

Vanadium 50 said:
8 knots is 13.5 feet per second. That means that in the time it takes to start the auxiliary diesels (too small to drive the ship), the ship will traverse the distance of two football fields.
So the aux diesel start time is ~45 seconds? Did you see this stated somewhere? I have been wondering about this.

The emergency diesels in the nuclear plants are smaller (typically 1.5 or 2 MW). In emergency conditions, they start and begin loading in 10 seconds, but this is very harsh service and the machines require a lot of maintenance. 45 seconds would be a little easier on the hardware but it's still pretty severe.
 

Similar threads

2
Replies
52
Views
5K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
22
Views
6K
Replies
23
Views
3K
Replies
54
Views
6K
Replies
19
Views
4K
Replies
21
Views
5K
Back
Top