PDA

View Full Version : The Mechanics of Grana's loss


Ian McColgin
05-28-2005, 10:40 AM
We saw the clue yesterday morning at low tide. With only about a foot of water over the foredeck it was clear there was no chain. It had all stripped out.

I had a good chat with the professional crew of a large yacht that weathered Tuesday night not far from Grana. The wind never got above 50 kt but it was very strange with lots of up and down gusting and veering back and forth through about thirty degrees. There was a surprisingly large (about 3') very steep all whitecaps very closely spaced (less than 15' crest to crest) wind driven chop that also reflected back off the breakwater.

That boat had port and starboard bow anchors out on all chain and ran their engine to keep some strain off and stay pointed to the wind as it shifted. They chafed through three snubbers - two one side and one the other - in the course of the night. The wind was high enough and the water (about 20') shoal enough that the chain could not develop a very deep cantery. When a snubber was broken and the yacht lay on straight chain, they experienced very severe jolt impacts and the chain straightened in gusts and waves.

Grana had a 65# CQR and a 45# CQR in series - 45# to crown of 65# - on 150' all chain. The snubber was a husky 1" nylon double braid, thimbled eye for the chain hook. It ran through a block under the end of the bow sprit, over a roller fairlead with high well rounded stainless guides on each side on the port side of the bowsprit about half way back, and then to a stemhead cleat.

The chain led over a roller fairlead on the starboard side of the bowsprit past and under a vertically mounted stemhead cleat and back to the gypsy on the windlass. The purpose of passing the chain under this cleat was to limit its possible motion and keep the chain from hopping out of the gypsy. It's a tight fit getting the chain under there as the links have to be twisted just a bit, but once under the chain leads fairly straight back to the gypsy and can be trimmed or eased at will. The chain had just enough slack that a strain came on the windlass only when the snubber was at full stretch.

The snubber was chafed through about half way along the bowsprit where it passed over the fairlead on the port side. The block at the end of the bowsprit was gone.

It appears that the block broke first. This brought some chafe strain on the snubber as the boat veered back and forth. Some chafe would come from the bobstay as she veered on starboard tack and some on the side of the roller fairlead, both tacks. What's left of the snubber shows it failed at the roller fairlead.

At this point the direct strain of the chain would cause impact jolts, often a cause of an anchor breaking out and dragging. It seems the anchors held just fine but, with the shallow cantery, the impacts were sending waves of energy up the chain. If you lay a line along the deck and then rapidly raise and lower one end, you can make the same effect of a wave traveling along the line lifting up a little hump as it travels.

The vertically mounted cleat always in the past kept this wave from traveling to the gypsy.

It appears the fatal failure happened at the cleat. I'd never imagined it possible but it must be that Grana heeled way over on a port tack at a time when the chain went slack and the chain found a way to slip down and starboard under the cleat's lower ear.

Once the chain freed itself from under the cleat, it was unrestrained from hopping right out of the gypsy. It would then pay out to the bitter end, which was secured below with just enough line to get out the hawsehole. That restraining line then chafed through and Grana was free to drift onto the rocks.

Clearly, the restraint of the cleat was the key failure. A better rig would be a positive chain lock or shackle ahead of the gypsy that's strong enough to take the full strain. I had not arranged one because the cleat had worked so well to date in some very severe conditions and had the huge advantage of allowing anchor scope adjustment without complexities.

Should I have a future with an all chain rode, I will have some sort of bolt down postitive chain lock.

Donn
05-28-2005, 11:06 AM
I was hoping you'd report on this. What kind of block held the snubber?

L.W. Baxter
05-28-2005, 01:39 PM
That's a fine exposition on a grim topic.

When an experienced sailor loses a boat like this, it reminds a fellow like me to take nothing for granted on the water. Thanks Ian.

Bruce Hooke
05-28-2005, 04:48 PM
Thanks for the report. Those short steep 3' seas must have been hell on the ground tackle. I've been on board a small boat at anchor when the winds were gusting to 60 knots (per reports from neighboring boats with anemometers), but thank God there was very little fetch for waves to build up. If there had been, things could easily have turned out very differently...

Scott Rosen
05-29-2005, 08:35 AM
Thank you for the report.

You've highlighted the problem with chain in a very strong blow. The catenary becomes so shallow that it loses its ability to absorb any shock. Do you think a nylon rode, which stretches even when the catenary is gone, would have helped absorb the shock?

Nylon has its own problems with chafe.

Ian McColgin
05-29-2005, 08:49 AM
Nylon is subject to chafe. Some experts are now advocating dacron or other modern products as chafe is more of a problem than a little thumping, so long as it's less than hard thud like chain or cable.

An all chain rode really needs a nice snubber to counter the banging. Truely, the longer the better. I've run snubbers well back on the boat to give some length that can accomodate some reas stretch. My latest snubber had one of those nifty very heavy rubber shock abosorbers rigged to give about a foot of stretch before the load came fully on the part of the snubber wound around the rubber. This was out near the eye and chain hook so that all the movement was well clear of the boat.

To secure the chain itself, in the event of snubber failure, I now see the need for a permanently mounted chain shackle - the sort with the oval pin designed to fit in a chain link - if a deck mounted chain lock is for some reason not an option. The constant inconvenience of having to open and close such a unit is certainly less than the one-time inconvenience I am now facing.

rbgarr
05-29-2005, 10:19 AM
Ian-

I can't imagine how your heart must have jumped into your throat when you first saw that Grana wasn't where you'd anchored. The memories of Hurricane Bob must have rushed back in on you and I imagine you haven't been sleeping well.

IIRC there was an article in Practical Sailor a number of months (perhaps years) ago which examined the problems of chafe, short seas, strong winds and swinging strains. If I can find it in my files when I'm settled in Maine, I'll send it to you.

Until then, best of luck to you.

Dave

PeterSibley
05-29-2005, 05:39 PM
Ian ,thank you for sharing your analysis...I'm going to read it and reread it,
regards,
Peter

Dave Hadfield
05-31-2005, 07:17 AM
Gee, Ian, I've hardly touched the computer this month. I had no idea about Grana. MOST sorry to hear about it. My most profound condolences.

And chilling, since in a few days I'm moving Drake onto a mooring for the first time (though only for 2 weeks)....

Alan D. Hyde
06-01-2005, 03:49 PM
Under the conditions you describe, wouldn't lowering a sentinel about halfway down the rode give you a little better caternary?

Alan

Ian McColgin
06-02-2005, 06:44 AM
A sentinal is always nice though all chain is normally so heavy that it's not really much additional help. In shallow water with lots of scope, the cantery is just too small for much of anything to do much good, short of an engin block fo the sentinel.

Had the loss been as I described, a sentinel would not have happened. However, I was totally wrong. I still don't think a sentinel would have helped, my reconstruction was based on a glaring error -

Once we had her up a bit we found that the anchor chain was still secure and the anchors, once the chain was pulled up to verticle, are so well set that the zodiac with a 150 hp outboard could not worry them up.

That series system of anchors has held a straight pull with big waves on sand in winds of 65 kt and a straight pull in mud but no waves winds over 90 kt. What apparently happened was that the wind was veering enough and rapidly enough that in combination with Grana's tendency to tack when anchored anyway, the movement was causing the anchors to reset back and forth, looseing some ground each time. It was only about 150', maybe 200', to the breakwater.

This is the only time I've seen where she would have been better off with two anchors V'd out. If they did not tangle, which in all that movement they might well have.

I do not know for sure if even the mooring would have held. That soft mud might have let her slide some. Last fall in a northerly the moorimg moved a good 100' over night and it was due to be moved back this spring.

Now I believe that the only way to have ridden out those conditions would have been to have a working engin and apply enough power to at least keep her from veering too much, as the crew of the maxi ketch anchored near by actually did. And even so, they lost three snubbers and had a very wild night.

In the event, I was tota

Matt J.
06-02-2005, 12:33 PM
Ian,
Sorry for today's news. Internet's fluky today, so I just got to this thread. Regarding your anchors.

I hope this isn't appropriate to ask...

The 2 CQR in series under extreme conditions: once the forward nearest the boat) begins to pull and plow... wouldn't it's furrow / plow line be what the second/rear/further anchor would follow in? That is, while having the second/rear anchor attached greatly increases the effectiveness of the first/forward anchor, would the first anchor similarly greatly reduce the effectiveness of the second - under extreme conditions?

Kinda like a catamaran - incredible stability until there's almost none... incredible power, until there is none (?).

Just trying to learn from your experience. redface.gif

Ian McColgin
06-02-2005, 05:55 PM
Actually, the second sets more deeply than the first and multiplies it's effectivness. Objective tests with strain guages have shown that two in series is stronger than the same two on seperate rodes. There is no discernable difference in seperating them by any distance and resetting is faster if they are close.

However, it could be that in veering conditions such as we had, a bit of distance between the anchors would have let the further out one stay pretty much in one place while only the closer had to break and reset much. I'm not sure of that and may yet figure a way to test for it.

If that's the case, putting some space between the anchors if you can count on the wind at least not fully reversing, at least staying in the same quadrent, might help. I'd developed keeping them close for hurricanes where the wind can 180 and bridled anchors would then tangle either to foul and drag or chafe a rode.

Some days you make the wrong call.