What caused the Simshar explosion?
The preliminary report into the Simshar tragedy has failed to establish exactly what caused the explosion which sank the craft and killed all its crew but one.
Dr Ann Fenech said in a report tabled in Parliament this evening that it was extremely difficult to come up with a logical cause for the explosion if one accepted all that the survivor, Simon Bugeja, said about the LPG gas being stored on the roof of the bridge and about there not being any flammable gas or fuel inside the engine room.
Expert Alfred Vella was not able to advise what could have possibly caused an explosion in those circumstances. Given that the witness saw smoke coming out of the engine room, one had to assume that at the time, some material must have already been on fire, and emitting the smoke, Dr Fenech argued.
That said, the fire and smoke already present in the engine room could not have been that great, otherwise Simon Bugeja would not have been able to go to the engine room to disconnect the fuel pipes. According to Mr Bugeja, the explosion took place immediately afterwards.
"Prof Vella concludes by stating that the only way that he can explain how the explosion could have happened is by disregarding what the witness said about the LPG tanks being on the bridge. In his opinion, it is likely that the source of the explosive material would have been a leak from the LPG being carried on board the vessel in a place which would have allowed the accumulation of the gas, which then exploded the moment an ignition source came near it.
"An alternative to this is that the engine room had containers with flammable liquid which in the heat of the existing fire emitting the black smoke, melted and the flammable liquid escaped. That caused the first explosion. That was followed by a fire which was severe enough to heat the gas tanks on the roof of the bridge, which then exploded, causing the second, large explosion which threw them all into the water."
This, Dr Fenech said, would be consistent with Simon Bugeja's second account of how the explosion took place.
The full report can be seen at:
http://doi.gov.mt/EN/press_releases/2009/06/pr1118a.pdf
See also:
2 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
J. M Buhagiar
Jul 1st 2009, 03:38
Page 127 of report says "and-given-SB-second-version-of-how-there-was-ONE-First-Explosion-and-then-a-SECOND-explosion" reminds me of one important detail.
I have marine diesels and read a lot to improve Knowledge & Safety. Diesels should ALL have exhaust temperature guages cause all you need is 1) a leak + 2) the engine overheats and you have a Potentialy Dangerous Situation.
"Two Explosions" reminds me of an Important Detail.
Between 1990 and 2001, 143 cases of crankcase explosions were reported to Lloyds. 122 were four stroke marine diesel engines.
Hot Oil lives in the engine crankcase but oil/air concentration is too weak for the LARGE oil droplets to ignite.
If however a mechanical fault develops, metal friction easily creates a hot spot of 200Deg and-more. The LARGE droplets vaporise. When these reach a cooler part of the engine, they condense to a white mist. The droplets are much smaller now and as soon as they reach the hot spot, they will ignite and an explosion occurs. The exposion could be small or violent, but is often sustainable.
Problem now is that much more air and oxygen enter the engine crank case, a more powerfull flamable mixture is developed and a second more powerful explosion occurs.
I kept this; www.marinediesels.co.uk
Peter Bonnici
Jun 30th 2009, 23:24
Did the inquiry learn what the scope of storing LPG was on the boat? Did the engine run on diesel or LPG? Is it normal to carry such ignitable materials on board a boat? Did Bugeja prove the presence of LPG tanks on the boat?