BB-55 at low tide

Agreed, and if you cant cofferdam her then pick a moorning site that has a sweep of tidal current under the hull and as Rusty mentions enough depth at minimum. I know they planned on taking her out awhile back, I hope they still do plan in the future. Shes a good looking ship.:)
 
Dreadnought said:
Agreed, and if you cant cofferdam her then pick a moorning site that has a sweep of tidal current under the hull and as Rusty mentions enough depth at minimum. I know they planned on taking her out awhile back, I hope they still do plan in the future. Shes a good looking ship.:)
Click to expand...

She is a fine looking ship but I think the descision has been made due to the fact that the bottom may be in such poor condition that the cost and danger of moving her may exceed the funds that could be allocated to bring her back up to specs.
 
The I would strongly recommend the inicatives that others have taken to offset the costs. Selling bonds and collecting donations. It takes time but it has paid off in a few cases. Every penny helps.;)
 
It sounds like they are doing the same as they did with the Alabama. Having seen the pix of it, there is no way that the bottom of that ship was repaired correctly.
 
RustyBattleship said:
Which has been a question asked of me on several memorial ships. Do not let the bottom of the ship touch the bottom of the bay, river, etc.

To do so, even if it includes dredging, pick a mooring site so the bottom has at least 4-feet of clearance at extreme low-low tide. Therefore, anything that might go wrong (such as a rusted out rivet popping open a hole) a diver can still get under the ship safely to plug the hole.

Also, there are methods of hull scrubbing that can be done by divers using rotary brushes to clear off sea growth. And a succesfull paint has been developed to apply under water. Our divers at LBNSY did that to the Missouri and it held up quite well until her dry docking in Bremerton for inactivation.
Click to expand...
Rusty....good to know there are methods of doing work underwater.

However, my question is this: Are these methods the BEST way to do hull work on a ship that hasn't been out of the water in almost 60 years? I understand it worked well on the Missouri....but I'd guess at that point she had been maintained much better and more frequently than BB55 has, so was in better condition to start with.

Looking at the pics of the cofferdam around Alabama, I just don't see how they can get to the bottom of the hull to do anything, much less actually repair it if needed. Am I missing something?
 
Pacfanweb said:
Looking at the pics of the cofferdam around Alabama, I just don't see how they can get to the bottom of the hull to do anything, much less actually repair it if needed. Am I missing something?
Click to expand...

I haven't seen the cofferdam proposals or pictures of either the North Carolina, Alabama or Texas. Please link them to me.

However I think an old graving dock (dry dock) has been made available for Texas. They can set her down on double high blocks to allow people (of normal height) to walk underneath without bending over and suing the museum for causing their sacro-iliac to pop out.
 
DaveinCoalinga said:
Rusty-

Page 10-14 on this PDF show some of the work.

http://www.piledrivers.org/files/uploads/E73211F1-C32A-48B1-9C6D-1847BDB977B8.pdf
Click to expand...

Thanks for the link. That confirms just what I was thinking of how they would build such a cofferdam - using interlocking steel beams driven very deep into the mud.

Replacing bottom plating will have to be done a narrow section at a time by actually tunneling under the ship.

As I've said before, museum brass hats that don't really know anything about ships (and abrasive sand plus metal decomposing minerals) think they are saving money just by settling the ship on an even keel in the mud. This makes it nice and level for tourists and deletes the need for most mooring lines.

But sitting in the mud prevents any and all hull maintenance which will eventually lead to a very expensive dry docking. And in Alabama's case, a very expensive and dangerous cofferdam construction.
 
Here's the latest description of what they are planning:

Work will begin in October on enclosing the starboard bow of the ship in a small cofferdam.

A feasibility/cost study will be performed at that time to determine how much money will be needed to repair the entire hull in this way.

The commission then has the option of enclosing the entire ship in four walls, like work that was done on the USS Alabama in Mobile, Ala., in 2002. Or workers could repair the steel hull in 40-foot sections, as money becomes available from the group's fundraising campaign.

After repairs are made around the “wind/water line,” where wave movement and wind cause the most deterioration, Bragg said he would like to float the ship and paint the lowermost portions of the hull, using new underwater “paint pelting” technology and underwater welding. Some steel plates may need replacement, and the work calls for the removal of about 1.5 million gallons of contaminated oily water from the ship's tanks.

Bragg said pumping the 36,000-ton, 729-foot steel ship out of the mud and using tugs to move it almost 400 miles to Virginia would cost about $30 million. He expects the cofferdam solution to cost $12 million to $14 million.
Click to expand...
 
IMO, Mud only accelerates the process of hull deterioration no doubt and no matter where it happens the result is the very same.

Wow, Im surprised they really didnt give her a top to bottom clean and sealing against oil seapage, bunker "C" as she used to burn was very thick for fuel oil. So the residue can make a mountain out of a mole hill.

Apparently the man has a plan, very simular to Alabama's current state.
 
Last edited:
Dreadnought said:
IMO, Mud only accelerates the process of hull deterioration no doubt and no matter where it happens the result is the very same.

Wow, Im surprised they really didnt give her a top to bottom clean and sealing against oil seapage, bunker "C" as she used to burn was very thick for fuel oil. So the residue can make a mountain out of a mole hill.

Apparently the man has a plan, very simular to Alabama's current state.
Click to expand...

And guess who will direct the plan: EPA and OSHA. They will probably require the fuel tanks to be steamed out as on the Texas. But Philadelphia Resins has a coating that then can be put on the inside (and even outside) of the shell plating. As long as abrasive silt does not rub against the ship, it should last for generations.

But then again, we could also get lucky if the tanks remain sealed and the agencies may issue a waiver in that case. However, if any shell plating has to be replaced and it is part of a fuel tank, we got a problem. :(

You cannot just weld extra plating over a deteriorated area. There will always be a thin gap between the plates that will continue to corrode both of them. Plus the heat of the welding could ignite any fuel residue in the tanks thus requiring steam cleaning.

At least the three Iowa class BB's in museum status are not only free floating but in their 1980's reactivation all bunker oil was steamed out and the tanks repainted and sealed to accept Navy Distillate.

But I'm still worried about Missouri's last dry docking. According to the photos I saw, standard Navy Haze Gray paint was used below the boot top. I haven't received any information yet if it was treated as the red or blue anti-fouling paint to prevent sea critters from dining on the paint and exposing the steel.

Yes, that's another thing to consider besides shell repair. Use the right kind of paint.:rolleyes:

Hey! I have an idea. :eek: Hire 1,000 welders that are good at overhead welding, bring in a train load of 25-20 welding rods and clad the entire hull below waterline with the stainless steel welds. :)):))
 
I think anytime the project leader announces it will cost half as much to repair you have to assume that corners are being cut.

My opinion, for what it is worth, is that they have decided the moving her is to expensive, and if the bottom of the hull is as bad as everyone thinks, moving her may be to great a risk to justify.

I believe the decision is also based on the fact she will never be recalled to active duty, and at least from what is visable is presentable and will continue to draw people and $$$.

I remember when the Massachusetts went in for her dry docking, besides replacing steel and fabricating new sea chests, they stressed that the hull below the surface would be coated in "red hand epoxy" and that it would both seal and preserve the ship better than the standard paint.

I wonder if they used that on the Missouri then painted over it.

Rusty would know more about this than me, again, only conjecture on my part.
 
Pictures of BB-60

Pictures of BB-60

RustyBattleship said:
Thanks for the link. That confirms just what I was thinking of how they would build such a cofferdam - using interlocking steel beams driven very deep into the mud.

Replacing bottom plating will have to be done a narrow section at a time by actually tunneling under the ship.


:confused:

A confused land lubber writes..... The cofferdam used is straight forward and the aerial pictures illustrate the concept quite nicely.

But.... the interpertation of replacing the corroded steel hull using this technique is confusing. As BB-60 is resting on the mud and tunneling is required to gain access, how does one "crib up" to prevent stress points as the micro tunneling progresses?

Is the cofferdam to be once again flooded to refloat BB-60? Then the process ( turbidity screens ) will prevent sediment for contacting the hull in the future?

Second question.... are other museum ships still holding bunker oil? I.e. Showboat, Mammie, the DD's & DE's across the nation.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Second question.... are other museum ships still holding bunker oil? I.e. Showboat, Mammie, the DD's & DE's across the nation.

If the were museumed before mid 1980's chances are they were/are Bunker "C" fuel. They shouldnt be holding any oil at all and should have had a modest cleaning prior to their donation. The Iowas were all converted from Bunker "C" to DFM during their 80's reactivation.
 
Dreadnought said:
Second question.... are other museum ships still holding bunker oil? I.e. Showboat, Mammie, the DD's & DE's across the nation.

If the were museumed before mid 1980's chances are they were/are Bunker "C" fuel. They shouldnt be holding any oil at all and should have had a modest cleaning prior to their donation. The Iowas were all converted from Bunker "C" to DFM during their 80's reactivation.
Click to expand...

I know they removed what was left on Mammie before they moved her to ensure that she floated at high tide, then cleaned out her tanks in dry dock.
 
Just looked as some of the pics of BB-60's hull in that .PDF. The damage from corrosion looked severe. I suppose anyone in the 80s who ever fantasized about re-activating her would have been in for a rude shock.

What must the Olympia look like after all these years?
 
tmasi said:
Just looked as some of the pics of BB-60's hull in that .PDF. The damage from corrosion looked severe. I suppose anyone in the 80s who ever fantasized about re-activating her would have been in for a rude shock.
Click to expand...
I don't know, that was over 25 years ago....they were all certainly in better shape than they are now. If 'Bama looked like that back then, she'd have been half gone by now with no repairs.
 
What they need to do is build a cofferdam around it, fill it with more water, float the ship off the mud, do some basic underwater repairs so it won't leak, then get it out to a dry dock and fix it the right way.

DO IT RIGHT THE FIRST TIME!!
 
For Blidgepump (I assume you mean BILGE pump).

You wrote: But.... the interpertation of replacing the corroded steel hull using this technique is confusing. As BB-60 is resting on the mud and tunneling is required to gain access, how does one "crib up" to prevent stress points as the micro tunneling progresses?

Is the cofferdam to be once again flooded to refloat BB-60? Then the process ( turbidity screens ) will prevent sediment for contacting the hull in the future?

As I could see in some of the photos of that link, they did dig out enough mud to do repairs on the Bilge Strake which is one of the main hull stringers for strength (Keel, Bilge strake, Stringer strake and Shear strake). To tunnel underneath, putting in miners type of shoring on the sides would of course be necessary. But as the ship is now, that is the only way you can get to the areas needing repair.

But as Michigan Guy said to put it into a dry dock and emphasized it by saying, "Do it the right way the first time" is precisely correct. The only way to properly repair the steel hull of any ship is in a dry dock. Then the best way to keep it preserved is to never let it touch the bottom of the mooring site (leaving 4-feet minimum clearance at extreme low-low tide for diver inspections if needed).

And if you have a watertight cofferdam around it (actually dikes or quays), fill it with FRESH water. Any seepage from the salt water outside can be neutralized by doing recycling of the fresh water to filter out the sea water minerals and critters.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top