Sep 17, 2017 20:35
6 yrs ago
English term
set up
English
Tech/Engineering
Ships, Sailing, Maritime
LNG tanker damage
„Severe damage to bottom, ballast tanks, motors water damaged, bottom of containment system *set up*.”
Emphasis mine. This is an excerpt from „Ingleside Energy Center LNG Terminal and Pipeline Project: Environmental Impact Statement”, describing a incident that happened in 1979 at sea involving El Paso Paul Kayser Ship
Can it be that „set up” here means „solid, undamaged”? Or is there some other meaning that I am missing?
More on the incident:
Elsewhere in the same source - http://tinyurl.com/yc8h6uas
In another source - http://tinyurl.com/ybbvvdxe
Emphasis mine. This is an excerpt from „Ingleside Energy Center LNG Terminal and Pipeline Project: Environmental Impact Statement”, describing a incident that happened in 1979 at sea involving El Paso Paul Kayser Ship
Can it be that „set up” here means „solid, undamaged”? Or is there some other meaning that I am missing?
More on the incident:
Elsewhere in the same source - http://tinyurl.com/yc8h6uas
In another source - http://tinyurl.com/ybbvvdxe
Responses
| 4 -1 | le fond du système de sécurité a été déformé vers le haut |
Daryo
|
Responses
-1
5 hrs
English term (edited):
bottom of containment system set up
le fond du système de sécurité a été déformé vers le haut
le fond du système de sécurité [de la double coque] a été déformé vers le haut
the "containment system" is almost certainly a double hull - the inner one containing the cargo (LNG Liquefied natural gas), the outer hull designed to take the hit in case of collision and a empty space between them to avoid rupturing the inner hull when the outer hull gets deformed.
"Le GNL s'il arrive à s'échapper, à la suite d'une rupture de la coque, s'évapore et peut, à la moindre étincelle, s'enflammer si le mélange air-gaz se trouve dans les limites de combustion (proportion de GNL comprise entre 5 et 15 %). Le navire lui-même ne peut pas exploser, car le GNL qui reste à l'intérieur du navire privé de comburant ne peut pas s'enflammer.
Pour réduire ce risque, le méthanier est pourvu d'une double coque qui permet, en cas d'accident (échouage, collision), de limiter la probabilité qu'une cuve soit éventrée. La cuve elle-même comporte une double barrière remplie d'azote gazeux destiné à empêcher toute réaction avec l'oxygène atmosphérique. ..."
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Méthanier
bottom of containment system set up
=
the "bottom of containment system" [= the bottom of the outer hull] hit the sea bed and was pushed up beyond the limit of elastic deformation so stayed deformed (="set") in a position that is "up" from its initial shape.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 5 hrs (2017-09-18 02:19:14 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Table 4: Combined statistical data for LNG vessel accidents. Source: DNV Research.
...
Date = 1979
Ship name = El Paso Paul Kayser (b. 1975)
Activity = At sea
Injuries/fatalities = No
LNG spill = No
Description = Stranded. Severe damage to bottom, ballast tanks, motors water damaged, bottom of containment system set up.
Stranded in straits of Gibraltar. Was subsequently re-floated and towed to harbour to discharge cargo. Vessel was
dry-docked when survey revealed extensive damage.
Source = Houston Law Center, Colton, DNV report
http://www.safedor.org/resources/SAFEDOR-D-04.03.01-2005-10-...
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 3 days7 hrs (2017-09-21 03:40:16 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
"Was subsequently re-floated and towed to harbour to discharge cargo.
=>
"the content (LNG) did not escape from the tanks
=>
the only part that got deformed/damaged was the bottom of the whole ship which is also the bottom of the space between the outer and inner hull.
being hit from below, the outer hull can only bend "up".
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 14 days (2017-10-02 13:36:56 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
"déformé vers le haut" as confirmed by:
"The impact caused some upward movement of the inner hull supporting the membrane cargo containment system but the membrane remained intact and no cargo was lost."
http://www.giignl.org/sites/default/files/PUBLIC_AREA/Public...
"This was a membrane ship, so pushing up the outer hull undoubtedly pushed up the containment system as one of the MSC83/INF.3 sources says. But apparently the cargo tanks were not breached."
http://www.c4tx.org/ctx/job/cdb/cas_list/precis.php?id=19790...
Thanks to Björn Vrooman.
the "containment system" is almost certainly a double hull - the inner one containing the cargo (LNG Liquefied natural gas), the outer hull designed to take the hit in case of collision and a empty space between them to avoid rupturing the inner hull when the outer hull gets deformed.
"Le GNL s'il arrive à s'échapper, à la suite d'une rupture de la coque, s'évapore et peut, à la moindre étincelle, s'enflammer si le mélange air-gaz se trouve dans les limites de combustion (proportion de GNL comprise entre 5 et 15 %). Le navire lui-même ne peut pas exploser, car le GNL qui reste à l'intérieur du navire privé de comburant ne peut pas s'enflammer.
Pour réduire ce risque, le méthanier est pourvu d'une double coque qui permet, en cas d'accident (échouage, collision), de limiter la probabilité qu'une cuve soit éventrée. La cuve elle-même comporte une double barrière remplie d'azote gazeux destiné à empêcher toute réaction avec l'oxygène atmosphérique. ..."
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Méthanier
bottom of containment system set up
=
the "bottom of containment system" [= the bottom of the outer hull] hit the sea bed and was pushed up beyond the limit of elastic deformation so stayed deformed (="set") in a position that is "up" from its initial shape.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 5 hrs (2017-09-18 02:19:14 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Table 4: Combined statistical data for LNG vessel accidents. Source: DNV Research.
...
Date = 1979
Ship name = El Paso Paul Kayser (b. 1975)
Activity = At sea
Injuries/fatalities = No
LNG spill = No
Description = Stranded. Severe damage to bottom, ballast tanks, motors water damaged, bottom of containment system set up.
Stranded in straits of Gibraltar. Was subsequently re-floated and towed to harbour to discharge cargo. Vessel was
dry-docked when survey revealed extensive damage.
Source = Houston Law Center, Colton, DNV report
http://www.safedor.org/resources/SAFEDOR-D-04.03.01-2005-10-...
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 3 days7 hrs (2017-09-21 03:40:16 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
"Was subsequently re-floated and towed to harbour to discharge cargo.
=>
"the content (LNG) did not escape from the tanks
=>
the only part that got deformed/damaged was the bottom of the whole ship which is also the bottom of the space between the outer and inner hull.
being hit from below, the outer hull can only bend "up".
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 14 days (2017-10-02 13:36:56 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
"déformé vers le haut" as confirmed by:
"The impact caused some upward movement of the inner hull supporting the membrane cargo containment system but the membrane remained intact and no cargo was lost."
http://www.giignl.org/sites/default/files/PUBLIC_AREA/Public...
"This was a membrane ship, so pushing up the outer hull undoubtedly pushed up the containment system as one of the MSC83/INF.3 sources says. But apparently the cargo tanks were not breached."
http://www.c4tx.org/ctx/job/cdb/cas_list/precis.php?id=19790...
Thanks to Björn Vrooman.
Peer comment(s):
| neutral |
Charles Davis
: An English explanation is required, not a translation into French. But in any case, this assumes a strange and unidiomatic use of "set up", and some supporting examples would be required before this interpretation could be accepted.
34 mins
|
|
my mistake // the reality of how materials behave and ships end up scrapping the bottom of the sea and not sinking/spilling their load can't be ignored for the sake of assuming that the most usual meaning / parsing must always be the right one.
|
|
| neutral |
Helena Chavarria
: None of the references I've seen state that the bottom of the outer hull was 'pushed up beyond the limit of elastic deformation'. The secondary membrane was seriously damaged but the primary membrane was left intact.
7 hrs
|
|
pushed up beyond the limit of elastic deformation=>permanent damage or to rephrase it using the wording you expect: "seriously damaged"// basics of how metal react to applied force https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deformation_(engineering) etc
|
|
| disagree |
acetran
: with Helena
3 days 8 hrs
|
Discussion
“The El Paso Paul Kayser grounding accident caused major deformation to the hull, but the intervening barriers limited the membrane LNG tank deformation to around 1m, with no leak.“
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237610002_Consequen...
RE non-ENS: Some of the input for the NYC study came from DNV, or Det Norske Veritas, a Norwegian-based organization that has merged with Germanischer Lloyd. Of course, they’re a global corporation, also working for the Congressional Research Center, but it really isn’t uncommon to have non-ENS docs show up on .gov pages.
In German, you can say "auf einem Felsen aufsetzen" - so, "hit / touch a rock" and get stuck on it. In Norwegian, it could be "sette" = set / put, which may also work for raise.
I just don't know who created the original reports. Two of those are unavailable.
Best
"Lifted up" would have been a better choice of words, unless "set up" is normally used in damage reports.
"The impact caused some upward movement of the inner hull supporting the membrane cargo containment system but the membrane remained intact and no cargo was lost."
http://www.giignl.org/sites/default/files/PUBLIC_AREA/Public...
Likewise:
"This was a membrane ship, so pushing up the outer hull undoubtedly pushed up the containment system as one of the MSC83/INF.3 sources says. But apparently the cargo tanks were not breached."
http://www.c4tx.org/ctx/job/cdb/cas_list/precis.php?id=19790...
MSC83/INF.3 is a reference to the 2005 study. He may be referring to a source such as this one:
"Damage to hull and secondary membrane, deformation of primary membrane"
http://www.lipower.org/pdfs/company/papers/broadwater/broadw...
Now, the "Kayser" was a "double membrane tanker," type Gaz: http://www.tugmasters.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/1legal-...
Cf
http://www.liquefiedgascarrier.com/LNG-vessel-construction.h...
Even in AmE, it all seems unusual in this context (to think of "raise/elevate"), but it's as good a guess as any.
Best
http://129.116.232.161/energyecon/lng/documents/CEE_Sistemas...
That will only add to the confusion, I'm afraid. It says: "Daños severos al fondo, tanques del balasto, daños por agua a los motores, y sistema de
contención."
Maybe Helena or Charles can make sense of this, but it seems as if "set up" is missing entirely; it could point to damage (not severe damage), although I don't understand the comma before "y."
Maybe magdadh and herbalchemist are correct about righting the ship, since something like this can be found here:
"The Outer Hull only is Breached
Once the LNG cargo is discharged the ship can be brought upright by ballasting the remaining inner hull tanks."
http://novascotia.ca/nse/ea/bearHeadLNGTerminal/Appendix_C.p...
Of course, they talk about "explosions," so I don't know.
Best wishes and have a great weekend from tomorrow
https://www.marad.dot.gov/wp-content/uploads/pdf/DWP_--_LNG_...
Unfortunately, it doesn't say any more than the others, although it does indicate where the data is from. Tried to search for it, but came up empty. So unless someone has a document called "Lloyd’s Register’s Risk Assessment Review of the Marine Transportation of Liquefied Natural Gas, STD Report #3000-1-2, September 1992" handy, I don't see how this could be brought to a conclusion.
For "set up" to be a noun refering to "damage," you would have to assume that the writer was more than just "inconsistent." See part in bold:
"Severe damage to bottom, ballast tanks, motors water damaged, bottom of containment system set up."
The first two types of damage can be easily confirmed by other websites; the third is understandable, but it wouldn't make any sense if it were still part of the same list, i.e., "damage to motors water damaged"...That leaves item 4, which would need its own verb.
[...]
Similar to what magdadh proposed, a US meaning of "set up" is "set upright": https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/set-up
However, there are many other possible meanings. IMO The writing is too broken and inconsistent to determine which one.
Based on the sources I understand that the ship's (outer) plating got ripped, while its inner bottom and the tank inside it maintained their integrity; "bottom" in my sentence seems to refer to the bottom part of the outer hull.
Other description of the damage: "it appears that the side shell was pushed inside the double bottom space" (page 36 of http://www.issc2015.org/images/issc2009/DAMAGE ASSESSMENT AF... ).
Also, as follows from fig 5.10 on page 84 of "LNG Risk Based Safety: Modeling and Consequence Analysis" ( https://books.google.pl/books?id=XsOt-ANP0VEC&printsec=front... ), the bottom of the containment bulged slightly, which I think is what "set up" points to.
you seem to be assuming that most safety systems are so crap that it's unusual when, for a change, they work as intended? The case of the Titanic is not a general case ...