Відео

That isn’t my area of expertise but my understanding is bow thrusters are only effective at low speed. I don’t believe the status of it’s running is in this report to anylze

Ebartonce@gmail.com there is a link somewhere on this UA-cam channel

Hence why I sold my last diesel vehicle a few years ago and will probably not buy another one

I plan on doing a high pressure fuel injection pump video when time is right. Unfortunately the report lacks key information on zeroing in on the true cause. Basically the fuel injection pumps I’m focusing on are solely lubricated by the fluid they are pumping hence their susceptibility to wear and getting stuck and are an hours based overhaul or replacement item

So what are your thoughts on this is related to securing the bow thruster and possibly a 3rd generator, then the other generators not being able to adjust to the load? I know it’s hypothetical but it fits very well

@@steamman9193 it's possible... unless we have the fuel system lines to guide us, we will have to wait for full report... but I strongly feel that something went wrong with frequency.... only reason being that the DGs were running, both blackouts were breakers tripping....why?? .

@@sonishankar6008 agreed frequency or voltage tripped the breakers as they should have worked

That’s a far more complicated question than on the surface. You would have to add additional components to regulate flow that would be subject to failure themselves so would it be better? Also in this case it would not have prevented the accident so now we are solving a problem that didn’t exist. I don’t believe the core failure exists with the busses or switchboards

Not sure how they build them differently but yes arcing is a challenge

motors above about 400 HP use high voltage

Definitely an area to be investigated but I doubt the problem as the regular heavy oil they burn is much dirtier, plus each engine should have its own filtration so more than 1 becoming a problem at the same isn’t very likely

@@steamman9193 , I figured there was likely some separation and/or redundancy but I'm not a marine engineer. Thanks for the response and clarification.

I really don’t know why they did it for sure. Higher voltages require smaller wires aka save money on construction costs. Personally I wouldn’t put too much effort into any of this as I am highly suspect that there is nothing wrong with the switchboard and breakers at all. It’s far more likely there was a fault with the ships generators and the breakers opened because of that. Having different power or switchboard arrangements wouldn’t have changed that and the accident still occurred. That’s just an educated theory for now though until the final report

Most likely all the generators get their fuel from a single service tank, but with redundant electric feed pumps. And no indication so far this was in any way related to the event, there should have been alarms associated with and discrepancy’s

same here

It’s the way this system is designed. I haven’t worked with a switchboard setup Like this. But before we go too deep down into how it should have been run i say wait until the final findings because i have significant doubts there were any problems with the circuit breakers it’s far more likely they worked as designed and were protecting the system from generation problems

It’s going to be awhile before I’m near that tool

It’s not fair to compare to Dali because my main engine is much larger, and not all of this information is in 1 place but Main lube oil motor is 355KW. Cooling water pumps are 65KW each and absolute minimum of 1 salt water and 1 fresh water required. Those are 900 cubic meters/hour

Haha I laugh quietly to myself when people start talking about horsepower and they don’t have 5 digits in their number.

Heavy fuel oil. Hfo it’s towards the bottom of what is left in refining crude oil very thick, and has to be heated to even pump but it lubricates parts very well and has more energy density aka more miles/gallon

@@steamman9193 Sounds like “Bunker C”, the same stuff that merchant marine steamships used.

@@steamman9193 `Chief´, can you help to double confirm, please? I'm aware HFO / MGO needs to be heated for pumping (like you wrote), up to temperatures around 40°C - 50°C. My guess has been around 80°C for injection, but Wiki tells even up to 130°C - 140°C (perhaps this partly comes along while increasing pressure up to 320 bar as per your other reply). Question also targets how heating is done and which bus used for power. I'd expect it is done both electrically as well as using heat from all the big diesel engines via their water cooling system? Good opportunity to expand my broad-band knowledge ...

@@NRZ-3Pi10 this is weeks worth of education. But I’ll try to simplify. Hfo has to be heated how high is based on test results of the fuel. I’m currently burning at 88C but I have had fuels at 155C. Do not heat diesel it gets to thin and wears parts out. Heating is typically done via steam

@@steamman9193 Thanks; also don't expect you to come back with lengthy reply like some of my comments, well, partly `novels` 😂. So steam can be created by oil burner, electric heating or from heat of the engine (but up to 155°C might be a challenge for the latter).

I didn’t get into it in this video but I lean heavily on fuel being the main failure because of the heavy black smoke see in the accident videos. A normal breaker trip or engine starting shouldn’t smoke like that. And now that we have the report where the main engine was never started we now know it’s a generator

Thinking on this more a permanent electric fault should have presented itself obviously to the investigation team by now. Even an intermittent fault may have made itself apparent.

@@steamman9193 NTSB preliminary reports states DGR 3 & 4 kept running und thus also keeping HV bus alive. This suggests their fuel pumps connected to HV bus and still working, too. So no shut-down of the generators then; but at least drop to (very?) low-load condition. But when re-connecting TR1 (which might cause additional load in case of defect), that might be quite some heavy duty for DGR 3 & 4 then. That might explain heavy smoke (`black´ appearance to certain amount might also come from missing lighting on that side we see in the port cam video). In addition, like you've mentioned, could also be interesting how DGR3 reacted to this, considering the issues observed while in-port. If DGR3 struggles to support fully, `poor´ DGR4 would have to take all the load then, most likely even to `fight´ against DGR3 ...

@@steamman9193 I am going to have to print out the NTSB (I do have the Electrical Schematic). Smoke could be from the emergency generator starting or DG2. HR1 and LR1 would not open up due to generator issues, that is not their job. As you pointed out, they did open up a bit latter. But at that point they may be the most sophisticated breakers in the system left. Mine as I recall has 4 to 6 trip functions (two of those had to do with the Generator dropping off frequency or reverse power). But DG2 started, closed and ran. While I could see making a case for the 2nd outage being fuel it would not seem likely and DG2 seems to have kept running fine. I had cases where more sophisticated breakers with more settings (vs thermal) and or micro processor controlled tripped upstream leaving the downstream breaker still engaged (in one case it too tripped after a small amount of time but the upstream sensed before that fault first and opened.

@@steamman9193 That is one of my two electrical based theories. We don't know what the CB types and protections on HR1 and LR1 were (yet). A Transformer fault should not trip LR1, but it seems that is a possibility. I never had two high feature breakers one after another let alone across an Xformer bridge, so I can't say that a zark out of the Xformer would send a signal downstream. Equipment ground fault can be interesting and on a ship with its isolated grounding, more so not to mention the other faults.

Marine industry 1,000v is “high voltage” most ships use 440/450 and 220v or 110v

@@steamman9193 that's how it works in my trade too, 600 and under is low voltage ans 1000 and up is high voltage. But for me 480v is high enough to play with! That seems like really high voltage just to run lube pumps with. Not to mention you would always have to have 2 generators running at all times while under way to supply low and high voltage unless they do it with transformers, I guess I don't have any real understanding so I don't get the logic there...

@@shawnbeerens4292 the drawing shows transformers between the different busses that’s what the breakers that tripped are directly for. And there is a secondary that you probably wouldn’t run at the same time but as a backup

@@shawnbeerens4292 In my world it was 24 volt, 120/208 (3 phase) and 480 (technically 460 but 480 out of the main boards). I did a bit of work with 7500 volts under supervision of a HV rated (former lineman) instruction. Ungh. Dead 7500 line jumped a 3 inch gap just on induction through a couple miles of line). I had no issues with 480 but did not want to have to deal with 7500 (and that is weird to have a HV motor mixed with 440 motors as the insulation and isolation is extreme). BT I can see just due to the long run but not anything in an engine room.

@@gregoryschmitz2131 7500 is WAY beyond my pay grade!!

I’m not sure your aviation analogy works. Firstly, they had 1 of 1 propulsion engines online. Second, takeoff is the highest demand made of aircraft engines, as they go flat out to convert a static lump of metal i to something that is flying, before the runway runs out. In contrast, this ship was moving slowly as she navigated through somewhat difficult and restricted waters.

@@DanielsPolitics1 Sure, the analogy does not work when only taking the perspective of propulsion, of course. It does work if you compare 4 diesel generators with 4 jet engines, which also have the task to provide `auxiliary´ power for hydraulics, electricity etc. which is equally important for take-off and during flight. Next and very important analogy is safety & redundancy aspect wrt need for always having full control during the most critical phases of manoeuvring. In case of MS Dali, it’s not about maximum power in this phase, but having the required amount of energy available anytime (!), also in case of failures of single components. In confined waters, the criticality at low speed comes from reduced effectiveness of the rudder if there’s no additional water push (`wash´) from the spinning propeller, so ship movement is mainly governed by its speed and inertia, some amount of rudder, plus currents and effects from wind. NTSB preliminary report says Dali lost main engine and thus propulsion at “about 0125” and approx. 3 ship-lengths before the bridge, at a speed of ~ 9 knots (which means distance of 1 ship-length will be reached after ~ 66s, i.e. only slightly more than 1 minute). It is required that the emergency generator kicks in after 45s latest; video and VDR showed it took almost 1 minute. Means distance of Dali to the bridge was already only 2 ship-lengths when they had first possibility to get some reduced rudder control provided by emergency generator then - but also only 130s to close the distance to the bridge (if speed would remain constant). This is when precious time is lost due to not having redundancy already active. Note that I do not claim the crash into the bridge pillar could have been prevented safely, but split of electrical systems could significantly have reduced the probability at least (especially when main engine still running, providing sufficient propulsion for full effictiveness of rudder control). Further investigation might reveal that it’s combination of failures. One occurring at the HV-to-LV link via transformer TR1, perhaps another one related to DGR3 or it’s fuel system, with the latter possibly could even have been a central problem. If that’s the case, it would be real worst case since both sides of the system would have been affected. So all in all, the blackout obviously hit Dali at worst point in time, without any real chance to re-gain full control over its course as per the configuration of the electrical system (and potential issues with DGR3 or fuel system) … To close with the analogy: plane did neither make the take-off, nor come to a safe stop at the end of the runway.

I m leaning more towards generation problems and the circuit breakers worked as they should have

That’s a missing piece of the puzzle. If they knew the trip was related to something else there’s no reason they couldn’t reset the breaker. Also the L1 tripping then H1 indicates the problem wasn’t with a single breaker

@@steamman9193 also consider, sitting there for five weeks now, they've been running on the left hand bus without any issues, albeit not operating the main engine. (the right hand bus, from the accident, is locked out by investigators and unavailable)

@@litz13there’s no where near the Electric load sitting there to gauge anything right now. I would want to load test everything that was on that day as it was

@@steamman9193 fair point. Presumably the investigator will eventually do that.

So can it turn by the water passing over the propeller? Absolutely! At what speed that happens is variable. Yes electric blowers under low load. But electronics shouldn’t need any kind of reboot time

The loss of electricity is the center of the failure and resulting collision. What someone on what could have done is unknown as we don’t know the exact cause yet

It can there are gravity disks that can be changed for the lower specific gravity of the lighter fuel. Does it have to go through a purifier? Not necessarily it would still probably go through all of the same filtering equipment

Unfortunately without being there no one can really know IF it was possible. But what is definite is even if they did re start the main it would have shut down again on each blackout

@@steamman9193 To start the engine both the HV & LV boards need to be powered. The EG could have powered the LV board and there may have been a small window where DG2 powered the HV board. This being before the HV2 & LV2 breakers were reset. After being reset the HV board would energise TR2 and generate LV power. I do not think that there was sufficient time between the second outage to restart the engine before impact; looking at the timeline the window was only 1:45. Also having just one of the main generators online may have not been sufficient to start the engine. DG4 & DG3 had tripped offline and DG1 was not running.

@@christopherrobinson7541 powering the main switchboard from the emergency switchboard is highly regulated against the way you are describing. It’s a complex system but the line you see in the drawing is to power another emergency switchboard from the main normally, it’s not a quick evolution to make it go the other way

@@steamman9193 I appreciate that the diagram shown is a simplification of the actual system. I was suggesting that at best, the emergency generator may have been able to supply some of the LV loads required to start the engine, whilst some of the main generators were on line to cover the engine HV loads. My main point is that at best there was a narrow window (1:45) during which the engine might have been restarted. Without detailed knowledge of the system, this period appears to be too short, especially if other main generators, in addition to RG2, needed to be brought online. Given the sequence of events it is not surprising that the engine was not able to be started.

Unfortunately the report doesn’t have the cause for breaker trips that’s a very important piece of the puzzle. But yes frequency or voltage out of order are very likely to have been the cause

Yes yes yes great point fountainvalley. I'd love to know how 2 mechanical piston driven generators are synchronized when they are not connected at the crankshafts

You can be sure that there are electronic (computer) controls that monitor voltage, frequency, etc. (plus relative phase for connecting multiple generators) to protect the system before connecting to either HV or LV buss. If the controls cannot remotely trip the breakers there are surely contactors that will open these these paths, and cut power to protect the equipment.

@@mark_osborne there are electrical/electronic components that synchronize the output of the different generators. The electrical output is synchronized not the physical diesel engines.

@@fountainvalley100 Interesting, I'd love to know more about this. This mechanical engineer thinks in terms of keeping both armatures in-phase

There is no report of synchronization changes taking place to have caused the initial blackout. And unfortunately no fuel data in this report

There are lubricity additives on the market I definitely recommend running something with these low sulfur diesel. I’ve also seen fuel chillers installed which thicken it and help with lubrication properties

Absolutely if the generator isn’t getting the right amount of fuel it’s voltage and frequency can be off enough to trip breakers

@@steamman9193 Which I guess is why they wanted a team from the Japanese manufacture of the system to help gather info?

@@k53847absolutely after an accident you need an independent contractor to retrieve data

That’s Hollywood that’s not how anything works in real life

@steamman9193 It's a well known fact that as a sea going cargo vessel that have been to China, and nearly every container ship sailing today, has been to one or multiple ports in China, have been infected with malicious software via their shore line. That is a fact. Google it. Then, look up lara logan's video on the matter.

Big money when things are fine too, our fuel bill alone can easily exceed $100,000/day

If someone tells you they know what happened as of today they are lying to you. If that’s the information you prefer, lies, that’s your choice

So I’m not the expert on ship handling that’s going to be a pilot. But I do know the rudder effectiveness is significantly impacted by the water flowing past it and using the propeller to push water by the rudder to turn is a tactic, of course when the lights went out it means the engine stopped and significantly changed the amount of water moving by the rudder

One of my biggest regrets is not doing the naval reserve it used to be called MMR. I found myself on a USNS in the “war zone” in 2003. I got a medal and war zone pay but I am not a veteran or receive any benefits as such. All I had to do was be in the reserves and that would be completely different. If your going to go anyway might as well get the credit for it