In Weak Rivets, a Possible Key to Titanic’s Doom

NY Times ^ | April 15, 2008 | WILLIAM J. BROAD

[exit82]

Andy, great headlines!

Can you get Cheney and Rumsfeld in there, too?

[EternalVigilance]

Titanic’s Doom

Another McCain campaign story.

[Fresh Wind]

Oooooh. That’s cold!

[Wonder Warthog]

"I thought this had already been settled... "

It has. I read about this years ago.

[Pharmboy]

Thank you, Rosie (the Riveter??)

[Pharmboy]

And Halliburton must have been involvded in some way...

[KayEyeDoubleDee]

If so, one could make the argument that the assumption that stresses in the bow could be counted on to be low is a very bad assumption to make.

Well, like, yeah, if you go around driving into icebergs and mines.

Like, duh...

[andy58-in-nh]

DEMOCRATS CLAIM CHENEY PLANTED ICEBERG IN PATH OF SHIP: CONGRESS VOWS INVESTIGATION. RUMSFELD EXPECTED TO HAVE NO COMMENT ONCE BORN.

[Tallguy]

It would be interesting to see the details of the sinking of the Brittanic by the mine in 1916, to see if this damage also occured in the bow area, where it was assumed to be low-stress and iron rivets were used.

Actually there were some dives done recently on the Britanic. They were focusing on the expansion joints to see if the builder had modified them in the aftermath of the Titanic sinking. The idea was that a stress concentration due to an improperly designed expansion joint caused the ship to fracture (split in half) causing a rapid sinking before help could arrive.

[aculeus]

Keep-your-eyes open bump.

[org.whodat]

The think sunk, get over it already!

[Rinnwald]

The cracked hull theory is still relevent. Both forms of damage may have played a part, but without direct observation of the damaged areas, it will be impossible to tell which is prevalent.

I wrote my undergrad metallurgical engineering report on this subject in 1990, well before any analysis was made of actual Titanic steel. I tested scrap steel left over from a remodel of the Hiram Chittenden locks in Seattle. The locks date from 1912, and the steel, although American-made, was produced with a similar process to British steel at the time. My results showed an overwhelming increase in brittleness at freezing temperatures.

Eventual analysis of Titanic’s steel showed that the bad alloying elements were even worse than the samples I had worked with. Much worse.

Obviously, the iceberg and number of lifeboats were primary ingredients in the tragedy. The major element of the steel controversy is that the damage was probably light enough where steel quality would have made a difference. If Titanic could have stayed afloat approximately twice as long as she did after the collision, help would have arrived, lifting the death sentence on many of the 1,500 innocent lives lost that night.

[1Old Pro]

the faulty bulkheads and the lack of lifeboats doomed the 1500 people who died. The ship did not sink right away, and there was plenty of time for an orderly evacution had there been enough lifeboats.

Two facts, the ship was damaged by an iceberg. And the company was responsible for the massive deaths, not becuse of rivits, or any structual issues, simply because they lacked sufficient lifeboats.

[onedoug]

“I’ve built you a good ship, Rose. She’s all the lifeboat you need.”

[N. Theknow]

Hold onto your hat...Lindy made it too

Har Har.

Next you'll probably tell me that left-handed pitcher for the Red Sox became the greatest homerun hitter in baseball.

[Notary Sojac]

And the company was responsible....simply because they lacked sufficient lifeboats

Prior to the loss of Titanic no ship anywhere carried, or was required to carry, sufficient lifeboats for all passengers.

It was considered extremely unlikely that a ship would remain afloat long enough to launch all her boats, and that no other ships would be able to come to her rescue.

In fact, Titanic was a unique shipwreck in that she sank (1) in midocean with no other ships nearby; (2) in ideal weather conditions (good visibility, dead calm); and (3) almost three hours after the initial impact.

And (I think) there has not been a subsequent shipwreck of that kind. Empress of Ireland and Lusitania sank so fast that lifeboats were nearly irrelevant; Andrea Doria sank so slowly that ample assistance from other ships were available.

I have a hard time faulting the White Star Line for failing to have enough boats for a once in a century event. Building the ship with too small a rudder and proceeding at high speed into an ice area, that's a different story.

BTW, google SS Eastland for a story of how adding lifeboats actually killed almost a thousand passengers.

[xp38]

Not anymore but we won’t go into that. :)

[gridlock]

If you look at the pattern of failure, you have massive crushing at the bow, and another failure just below the first funnel. Now, the bow was probably total loss, no matter what, because the impact was just too great. However, it was the split farther back along the ship that was the fatal failure.

The first four tears would have flooded all of the compartments forward of watertight Bulkhead C. Now the legend has it that four compartments could be flooded before the ship sinks, so the ship would have survived if this had been the only flooding. However, a split between Bulkheads E and D flooded that section as well. This was enough to put the bow under the water, and down she went.

Now, the question is, if the bow had been stronger, would the tears further back, such as the one between Bulkheads E and D been better or worse? I think a fair argument could be made that the massive failure of the iron riveted section acted something like the crumple zones in a car protecting the occupants in a front-end collision, and cushioned the rest of the ship. In other words, the tears at the front of the ship would have been caused by crushing, but the tears further back would have been caused by buckling from the sudden deceleration. Any deformation that can lessen that deceleration will help protect the rest of the ship.

So one could argue, quite persuasively IMHO, that the use of stronger structures and steel rivets in the bow sections would have worsened the tearing further back, and the ship would have sunk even faster. There was no construction that could have prevented massive failure forward of Bulkhead C, but a stiffer structure in the bow could have made failures further back even worse.

Now, I am not going to pretend that the designers of the Titanic intentionally included crumple zones in the design, but that seems to be how things worked out at the end of the day. If the force of impact had been slightly less, the steel riveted seam between Bulkheads E and D might not have failed, in which case the ship would have performed magnificently, and we would be studying it in schools to this day as an example of ingenious design.

[1Old Pro]

I have a hard time faulting the White Star Line for failing to have enough boats for a once in a century event.

I've driven a car for 1/3 century without ever having an accident, yet I have to pay extra for insurance, air bags and other safety equipment that add to the cost. Chance favors those prepared.

[cherry]

the Titanic was built during the peak of lesser quality rivets, so says the article...

Britannic was not completed IIRC until some time later, after Titanic was sunk....

but its all a moot point