×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Collision Near China Leaves Iranian Oil Tanker in Flames

Collision Near China Leaves Iranian Oil Tanker in Flames

Collision Near China Leaves Iranian Oil Tanker in Flames

(OP)
Link

Maybe it is just more reporting, but it seems that there are more collisions recently. It will be interesting to see how this one plays out, along with the politics of who gets to investigate.

RE: Collision Near China Leaves Iranian Oil Tanker in Flames

(OP)
How is it possible for the tanker to burn that long? You'd think the heat of the fire would melt and sink the ship well before then.

RE: Collision Near China Leaves Iranian Oil Tanker in Flames

Seems incredulous that it could burn for a month. It is my understanding that it was carrying condensates, which should flash off and burn much more readily than crude or heavier distillates. As for melting, the heat sink that the ship is floating in would make that highly unlikely, but I would expect to see some seams open up from distortion and other heat related failure. Bilge pumps are certainly not functioning at this point. It's a sinker, for sure, just a matter of time.

It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.

RE: Collision Near China Leaves Iranian Oil Tanker in Flames

Metal submerged in water or oil will not get hot. The ship will burn like a candle, or a can of Sterno.

RE: Collision Near China Leaves Iranian Oil Tanker in Flames

(OP)
My second post was imprecise in terminology. The steel won't "melt" but the steel above the water line (the hull) or oil level (tank wall) will have a significant reduction in yield strength. The structural integrity of the ship will become compromised as the resistance to buckling requires that all of the hull be structurally sound, not just the portion low in the hull. Eventually, enough of the hull up high becomes weak and the hull will break apart.

RE: Collision Near China Leaves Iranian Oil Tanker in Flames

I am astonished that this disaster is classified as an "Engineering Failure & Disaster"

Could we please have a forum titled "Management and MBA Failures and Disasters" !!!

MJCronin
Sr. Process Engineer

RE: Collision Near China Leaves Iranian Oil Tanker in Flames

It sunk and there is a massive oil slick...

Dik

RE: Collision Near China Leaves Iranian Oil Tanker in Flames

There are engineering items of interest.

> Sanchi was supposedly double-hulled the minimize the possibility of massive leaks after collisions, and yet we have a massive spill
> Engineering tools for tracking vessel locations as well as for detecting nearby vessels exist, so the collision should have been avoidable
> Sanchi outweighed the Chinese vessel almost 2x, but it's the one that sank

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

RE: Collision Near China Leaves Iranian Oil Tanker in Flames

Apparently the way to deal with this oil slick is to light it and the fuel will readily burn off with minimal ecological impact as it had already been refined. This method isn't available for crude oil spills.

RE: Collision Near China Leaves Iranian Oil Tanker in Flames

(OP)

Quote (IRstuff)

There are engineering items of interest.

> Sanchi was supposedly double-hulled the minimize the possibility of massive leaks after collisions, and yet we have a massive spill

At the time of the Exxon Valdez spill, double hulls vessels were not required. Of course the argument against was driven by $$$$, but one of the arguments used against double hulls is the fire risk is greater with a double hull over a single hull. In a double hull, it is easier for the void space to fill with flammable vapors and ignite.

Quote:

> Engineering tools for tracking vessel locations as well as for detecting nearby vessels exist, so the collision should have been avoidable

Agreed. There is still a lot of work to be done though. The problem with vessels this size is that the distance required to make a correction prior to collision is so large that it is easy to overlook the other vessel until it is too late.

Quote:

> Sanchi outweighed the Chinese vessel almost 2x, but it's the one that sank

The collision didn't do the damage that sank the vessel. The fire did. All the smaller vessel has to do is poke a hole in an oil tanker and the oil tanker is done for.

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources


Close Box

Join Eng-Tips® Today!

Join your peers on the Internet's largest technical engineering professional community.
It's easy to join and it's free.

Here's Why Members Love Eng-Tips Forums:

Register now while it's still free!

Already a member? Close this window and log in.

Join Us             Close