Wednesday, 2 November 2016

INITIAL REACTION AND COMPARISON WITH SS WARATAH.

The Argus, Melbourne, Friday 31 March, 1911.

CAPSIZE IMPROBABLE.
BRISBANE, Thursday - In view of the
widespread statements that the Yongala
"turned turtle," Mr. Wareham flatly 
contradicted the possibility, and pointed 
out that the steamer had been running 
on the coast in the interstate trade for 
eight years - five years running between 
Sydney and Fremantle. Consequently she 
crossed the Australian Bight every four weeks, 
often with less than 100 tons of cargo and not 
more than 200 or 300 tons of coal. She never 
gave owners, master, crew, or passengers any
cause for uneasiness on account of her 
behaviour. It was unreasonable to suppose
that the Yongala, which left Brisbane with
2,000 tons weight in her bottom and only 5
tons of cargo on deck, could turn turtle.


This initial reaction from a representative of the owners is interesting. The scene was set for the Inquiry to come; under no circumstances was Yongala to be presented as a tender steamer which could have turned turtle in a cyclone. But the rumours were there as soon as one week after the disaster. Yongala did indeed have a good track record, particularly across the Bight. 

However, Mr. Wareham failed to mention that she carried 164 tons of pig iron ballast to compensate for minimal cargo and coal during these runs. The distance between Fremantle and Adelaide is 1720 n miles. Yongala consumed, on average, 60 tons of coal per day. Cruising at a modest 12 knots she would have taken 6 days = 360 tons of coal. Mr. Wareham already as early as 31 March, was prone to exaggeration in favour of dispelling the rumours and exaggerating Yongala's capabilities. 

He protested too much! 

It is known from the Inquiry that Yongala departed Brisbane with 11 tons on deck. Again, Mr. Wareham attempted to underplay the top heavy component by reducing this figure to 5 tons. It is interesting to note that Yongala had a jerky recovery when steaming in ballast with the 164 tons of pig iron (forward). The pig iron lowered the centre of gravity, raising GM, and with it the righting force recovering from a list. It appears that a concentrated focus of specific gravity lowest down in the ship had a remarkable effect on the righting powers of the steamer.

This reminds me of the Waratah. Captain Ilbery, finally on the last voyage, had sorted out Waratah's inherently tender condition by adding 1,500 tons of lead concentrates in a lower hold at 11 cubic feet to the ton, 8 ft. high. This produced a stable steamer with a GM of 1.9 ft.. However, the increased righting force, as in the case of Yongala, produced a jerky recovery which had passengers falling on the promenade deck during the voyage from Adelaide to Durban.  

Yongala, I believe that the absence of the pig iron had a significant impact on tenderness and being 34% full in terms of cargo dead weight, and a prominent funnel, made Yongala tender and vulnerable to turning turtle in a gale. 

The West Australian, 13 April, 1912.

STABILITY OF SHIPS AND
LAWS OF STORMS. 
- To the Editor.

"Sir, now I that the missing Koombana
may certainly be listed as lost, like the
Waratah and Yongala, the travelling public
might very well be interested in studying
for themselves the simple proposition of 
stability in ships. This proposition lies buried
in scientific jargon as far as the man in the
Street is concerned, and can easily be 
demonstrated in ordinary language. 

It is a long time since Archimedes proved. 
that a floating body is exactly the same 
weight as the water it displaces. A steamer, 
with whatever cargo or ballast she may 
have in her, is exactly the same weight as 
the water she displaces. The water she 
displaces is what would fill the cavity her 
weight and shape impose below the water 
line or surface of the water. Exactly in the 
centre of this cavity, in which the floating 
ship fits lies the vessel's centre of buoyancy, 
and through this centre there acts an upward 
pressure from the sea in its endeavour to 
become level against the weight of the ship. 

When a steamer is floating upright, this 
centre of buoyancy lies midships in a 
vertical line or plane, dividing the vessel 
in two. If one thinks of  a partition being 
built from stem to stern amidships from 
the keel upward, then in this partition lies 
the centre of buoyancy when the steamer 
stands upright, and it lies nearly half-way 
between the keel. and the water line. 

The water line is a imaginary line or plane 
joining, from side to side through the vessel 
the  surfaces of the surrounding sea. Not any
of the painted lines on the hull often alluded
to as the "water line." When a steamer
heels over; that is lists or rolls from side to
side part of her hull comes out above the
level of the sea on one side and another part
sinks further in on the other side. When
this happens the centre of buoyancy changes
position in the hull while always retaining
its position about the centre of whatever
portion of the hull is immersed. Thus, as
she rolls to starboard, it leaves the assumed
partition amidships, moving to starboard,
returning to partition, and then towards
port as she rolls from starboard, through
upright, and then to port.

As before explained, there is always an
upward pressure from the ocean in a 
straight line perpendicular to its level
surface through this moving centre of 
buoyancy and that line always passes 
through a given point in the midships 
partition above it. This point is termed 
the "meta centre" by experts and it will 
readily be imagined that the centre of 
buoyancy swings from side to side like 
a pendulum suspended from it, when
the vessel is rolling at sea.

There is now the centre of gravity, which
everyone nowadays understands is simply
the centre of weight to be considered as it
must readily be realised that a vessel's
centre of gravity depends upon the amount 
of cargo or ballast she may be carrying and
how such is stowed or disposed in her holds.
But once the cargo or ballast is placed, stowed,
or, disposed in the vessel, the centre of 
gravity remains constant, and does not
shift (unless the cargo shifts), like the centre
of buoyancy. If the vessel be stowed properly 
it will be found somewhere in the assumed 
midships partition and at a point below meta 
centre point. The pressure from the weight of 
the ship is always in the direction of an assumed 
plumb line hanging from the centre of gravity point, 
and as the vessel rolls at sea this plumb line or 
direction of pressure swings from side to side
in harmony with the line of buoyancy, exactly 
coinciding when the vessel is upright, and parallel, 
with an increasing distance between them as the 
vessel rolls to one side. 

The degree of stability- that is safety from capsizing 
- depends on the distance of the meta centre above 
the centre of gravity. This distance is termed the meta 
centric height. (GM). The force downward from the
centre of gravity is exactly equal to the force 
upward exerted by the ocean endeavouring to 
get level; and these two forces tend to right the ship 
when the undulations of the sea swing her away
from the upright. The greater the metacentric 
height which is the same as saying the greater 
the safety from capsizing, the more uncomfortable 
the vessel to travel on. The more leverage the forces 
of buoyancy and gravity have the more quickly 
they can right the vessel swaying on the undulating 
surface. Too great safety from capsizing brings about 
other dangers. Sailing vessels with heavy dead-weight 
cargoes have been known to lose their masts and 
strain their hulls to such an extent, in so rolling, their
masts out, that they have sprung a leak and
foundered. 


Iron and such like heavy cargoes have often to 
be stowed in narrow trunkways or on platforms
especially built in the ship to keep her centre
of gravity higher when loaded. When we hear
people say that such and such a vessel is a 
grand seaboat, etc., etc., such a vessel may 
have been very unsafe on that particular voyage, 
her very unsafety contributing to the comfortable 
travelling. 

It may be taken for granted there is very little
difference in modern cargo vessels when
carrying complete cargoes that nearly fill
them. With like loading they may safely
be expected to behave much the same in
similar storms. The common design for such
vessels provides a breadth equal to about
twice the moulded depth below the main
deck,and as there are no passengers
carried there is very little superstructure
above the main deck. When we consider
passenger steamers, however, the tendency
to build additional decks and keep the 
passengers' accommodation all above the main
deck is most noticeable. Everyone prefers a
nice airy cabin to the stuffy ones which were
once the vogue, and all below the main deck.
Here it is an open question whether we are 
not sacrificing safety for comfort and carrying 
capacity. 

The fact that we have had the Waratah,
Yongala, and Koombana mysteries in these 
latitudes during the last three years is sufficient 
excuse for the public requiring some practical
and expert investigation made on their behalf. 
In the case of the Waratah it seems abundantly 
clear, from the evidence given at the Law Courts 
that this vessel was not considered to have 
sufficient ballasting powers when sailing without 
cargo, to counteract the weight of superstructure
supplying the passenger accommodation. She
was to some extent in the same predicament as 
our famous sailing clippers of last century, which 
needed nearly half a cargo of ballast to go seeking 
for cargoes from one port to another. 

When the Waratah was lost she had nearly a 
full cargo on board and whatever her degree 
of stability was when empty, had surely nothing 
to do with her degree of stability when loaded. 
Yet, as far as  the writer can learn, there was 
little or no evidence forthcoming as to the weight 
and disposal of the cargo she had when lost.

In the case of the Koombana there is
considerable food for reflection. She was
probably carrying less than 500 tons of
cargo and:appears to have been engulfed
in the centre of a "willy-willy." It the opinion 
of the writer that the Koombana in light trim 
was not fit to encounter a hurricane centre.
The writer has been caught near a cyclone 
centre off Mauritius in a sailing vessel, and 
remembering how that vessel, although in 
ideal load and trim was.smothered under 
almost bare poles with bulwarks under water 
and hatch comings awash, he cannot conceive 
it possible for a steamer like the Koombana 
in light trim, exposing such an area of 
superstructure to such a force of wind, to live 
through it.

The question is, 'Is it a legitimate risk to send
such a vessel in such a trim into hurricane
latitudes in hurricane seasons?" 

It must be remembered that the law of
storms is getting on towards being an exact
science, with barometers to provide indications
of approach; and with means to indicate the 
vessel's position from the centre and to show 
from collected data the most probable path of 
the centre, a good steamer with an experienced 
and expert master should easily avoid being 
caught. It is a matter of vigilance and judgment
just as is the case with a pedestrian avoiding
motor cars. These remarks are applicable.
to cyclones, typhoons, and other well
known and studied storms, but have we
done our duty with regard.to the Nor'-West
"willy-willy" ?? Is there a published hand
book with information; instructions; and
suggestions as is the case in other 
hurricane parts of the,world for the
safety of mariners. If not, is it not a work 
worth taking in hand at once?

'Yours; etc.,

LONGSHOREMAN.'

Fremantle, April.



SS Yongala


  
SS Waratah - Port Adelaide.

3 comments:

  1. I think that is the first time you've used the phrase 'inherently top heavy'.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yes Mole :) Top heaviness could be manipulated, but the design starting point remained a problem.

    ReplyDelete