NTSB Preliminary Report M/V Dali

@ retdmarineengineer

Please read carefully my replies. I wish you good luck with AI, it’s way to technical. :slight_smile:

I already mentîoned that English is not my 1st language, not even my 2nd.

The ram refers either to one piston side or to the single forged piece.
Please check page 3 of the Kawasaki document partially posted by KPChief where the FE Type is referred to as “2 Rams 4 Cyl.”. MacGregor also uses the same terminology. There are lots of other examples.
Both definitions are used, that’s why I edited my message, I also mentioned it.

When mentioning the S1 rating I was referring to the main pump motors of a ram-type hydraulic steering gear, those are typically rated S6 25 % or S6 30%. The motors are not manufactured specifically as S6 25 % rated motor, you just rate a motor according to specific conditions. You can get a given motor or generator and request an application-specific rating plate which corresponds to non-standard conditions, for example 31 °C cooling air temperature at an altitude of 2143 m. The motor remains the same as in the catalog.
Some rating corrections are published by the manufacturer or are parts of standards, others need to be established by the manufacturer.

SIL 3 is extremely common for a reduced set of saftey functions or even a single safety function, e.g. many emergency stops and also some burner control functions require SIL 3.
Somewhat less common but still very widespread are SIL 3 automation systems, mostly based on safety PLC’s. In-between you find safety relays. You can design simple SIL 3 controls electromechanically but you’ll spend a lot of time to document its conformity. In some cases you can also go the PL way instead of SIL.

Very rare is SIL 4, it’s mosty for emergency shut downs in the process industry and unlike SIL 3 it’s not handled by programmable control systems. Only a very few companies manufacture components for “true” SIL 4 safety controls.

Somewhere I inadvertently wrote 2-poles instead of 4-poles but I’ll let everyone read my posts and decide if I don’t know the difference or if it was an inattention.

The DG’s of the M/S Dali are 720 RPM 60 Hz (not just a guess) and the EDG is obviously a 4-stroke 1800 RPM diesel engine.

kVA (and not KVA as you wrote but don’t worry you even find it as typo in some classification society rules) and kW get often confused, the reason I mentioned it is because of possible discrepancies between the NTSB PR and the ClassNK data.

An BTW, the small servo pumps (auxiliary pumps) are shown in the PDF excerpt posted by KPChief above.

Also your quotes are misleading, just quoting “A 16 A socket can be fed directly from a 10’000 A busbar,” is tendencious as it looks totally wrong though it’s fully correct.
For example in true MCC’s with withdrawable modules you can have maybe 630 A modules as well as modules for 0.37 kW motors or a 6 A breaker for a busbar voltage monitoring circuit.

The “total generating capacity of just 2000 kW” you (retdmarineengineer) mention (let’s suppose you mean the diesel engine power, not the generator ratings in kVA) is pointless in this discussion, it’s not even 1/8 of M/S Dali’s power generation capability (beyond 16 MVA).
With only 2000 kVA you usually don’t need High Voltage.
440 V Low Voltage and 6600 V High Voltage are two totally different things, if you don’t know High Voltage well, don’t try to extrapolate your Low Voltage knowledge, HV is another dimension, the slightest mistake will probably kill you, with Low Voltage most accidents are not lethal.

And yes, the generators discussed here cannot provide high short circuit currents. I let you (retdmarineengineer) do the math.

LV BUS busbars are often so tightly sized that a lot of energy ends wasted in heat. Several percents of the produced electrical energy ist lost by Joule heating of the bus bars and cables.
Add around 1 or 2 tons of copper and you can save maybe 1 % of fuel used by the DG’s.

Maybe I’ll reply later about softstarter, DOL and motor protection. In some cases DOL is required by some supplier (e.g. MAN B&W) for specific motors. You’ll have to comply even if you’d have rather installed a softstarter, there as good reasons why DOL is sometimes the only option…

Hopefully someone who really knows can tell me where I was wrong, I always try to be accurate about technical details.

I won’t start any personal rant but denigrating someone instead of constructively discuss the points you (retdmarineengineer) consider as wrong is not that great.

Now I’m done, I won’t even check this post for typos and style.

What ever else Serco can do he sure knows his way around a keyboard.

Please make it so. And thank you for offering us that glimpse of the nexus of Google, Wikipedia, AI and social media.

I’m voting with KP Chief and Steamer. Just sayin’

This is just what you’d expect the AI to respond with to throw us off isn’t it?

Thanks you Hogsnort, Steamer, A465B and KPChief. I feel for his boss wherever he works. Probably not only not productive or willing to take instructions, the boss may need to assign another warm body to watch over him to ensure he is not walking around fiddle farting around with controls. We may all have come across or sailed with a such a ‘pest’. :blush:

Something is really odd that (most likely) the SG did not respond to helm orders. I had an experience on a company ‘owned’ tanker (about 280 DWT), HHI built 2015 vintage and managed by a ship management company. 3 SG pumps and ‘2 power units’. I do not have details on performance data … suspect each pump meets the ‘aux SG’ requirement of 0.5 deg/sec and any 2 pumps meets the 35 to30 in 28 secs. Suppose 3 pumps should be slightly faster and this was their SOP while maneuvering. Dali PR states they were operating on all 3 pumps. Maybe similar arrangement.

Soon after maneuvering, crew discovered one of the ram pins ‘rode up’ and broke the bracket installed on the ram for the guide bar. Crew managed to push the ram pin down and got the SG operational. Turns out there was a momentary hydraulic lock with the opposing cylinders pushing against each other and possibly the ram bowed up just a bit to break the bracket. OEM attended few days later with parts and repaired to the satisfaction of Class and Flag.

Wonder if Dali had a hydraulic lock, but no damage. Hydraulic lock pressure slowly dissipates and no one is none the wiser.
PS: Hydraulic lock alarm is also a Solas requirement. But no mention in the PR.

Some pics from the tanker.




Construction of ram pin.pdf (83.5 KB)

Minor elaboration and clarification for the deck officers. On the 4 ram system, to avoid the bending moment on the rudder stock, one of the hydraulic power unit powers either the diagonally opposite cylinder or the ‘mirror image’ cylinder on the other side of the tiller. Never the cylinder opposite. So the opposite cylinder (and the corresponding cylinder on the other side of the tiller) will be powered from the other hydraulic power unit.
So defective or slow solenoids that does not close completely or open completely when required may cause a ‘lock’.

Ufffff. Nów all can Find time to focus on the Real News having condemned Alias Sercos to AI boot class.

We don’t have any relevant heading information.

I’ve no experience with a ship 'smelling the bottom" but I’ve seen bank cushion a few times Outbound Fraser River for example, wheel over 10 to starboard and ship following the channel to port.

That path the Dali followed may seem unlikely but wind, current and interaction with the bottom seems more likely than other explanations.

I suppose it is difficult to notice from the wheelhouse but in the ECR it is very noticeable when passing over shallow spots. Squat changes the flow into the screw and the sound of the plant changes very subtly. Of course the gentlemanly nature of a steam plant makes those disturbances more obvious.

Maybe I’m using the term “smelling the bottom” wrong, meant the ship taking an unexpected sheer.

Gentlemanly nature … Love it! I think with the alternate fuels, gas turbines, exhaust heat recovery steam turbine and electric propulsion seems a safer option. ‘Maybe a Gentleman in the making’. :slight_smile:

Possible , we just need to layout the ‘likely’ explanations. My intent was to offer a possible theory as the rudder movement if any did not any make any difference to the heading.

question 1 - did the rudder actually move? This is knowable - and probably already known.

I am not reading too much into a 2.5 wander of heading in a minute or two - at least in my experience ships rarely maintain a perfectly steady heading with rudder amidships.

If, and a big if, the ship was maintaining the channel course without carrying rudder - it was either in balance on the hydraulics ( center of the channel) or the hydraulic forces were not that pronounced.

Fun to speculate - but all things in the fullness of time I guess.

I agree, it seems very plausible that the ship would follow that path with the rudder amidships. The idea that the steering gear failed however seems very unlikely.

On the other hand the idea that it would follow that path with the rudder as commanded by the pilot also seems very unlikely.

The second scenario, of the two, seems the more likely, but I’ve no experience with a ship behaving like that.

KC
Would you mind expanding a bit more on the second paragraph.

Might just be me being a bit dumb but I don’t really understand what you are saying.

Sailed on a T2. Clean oil cargo. Cargo pumps a flick of a switch. Bliss.

Yeah, not very clear.

The pilot gave a verbal command for hard port rudder. It’s been suggested the steering gear may have failed.

The more likely scenario however is that any link in the chain between the pilot and the rudder could have failed, including the steering gear.

For example communication between pilot and helmsman failed or helmsman had switched to NFU when the power failed and tried to use the wheel when power was restored, or the steering gear could have failed as suggested.

So the second paragraph of my post is the claim that most likely no link in the pilot-to-rudder chain failed and the rudder moved as ordered.

Thanks KC

Yes I agree, for some reason there was no movement of the rudder is what I think.

In my experience it would be rare for a helmsman to alter controls such as the switch over from FU to NFU. These are usually reserved for the OOW or captain.
In fact the only nationality that I have seen who have the helmsmen even make the switch over from auto to manual steering is American crews.

KC and 244
I agree with the first part … pilot command was executed. But ‘rudder moved as ordered’ is questionable. Maybe moved from a couple degrees right (at blackout moment) to midships when the power came back on. Hard to believe that at that speed the rudder could not provide steerage and overcome any environmental effects.