Titanic's rivets weak

[dhermann1]

Yeah, I saw that. Very interesting. But I don't know. My rivets are weak, and I'm still afloat . . .

 

[Feraud]

Yeah, I saw that. Very interesting. But I don't know. My rivets are weak, and I'm still afloat . . .

Yes but when is the last time you bumped an iceberg.

 

[scotrace]

Didn't they also discover that the standard steel of the time, used in the hull plates, was of poor quality that was unlikely to hold up under the duress of much damage?

 

[MrBern]

Shot of sister ship Olympic's collision, suggesting cheapo rivets popped here as well.

 

[MrBern]

blacksmith test

To test the theory of weak rivets on the Titanic, Chris Topp, a blacksmith in Yorkshire, England, recreated one of the Titanic's double-riveted hull joints.

Stresses similar to what the Titanic experienced in its collision with the iceberg were applied to the joint, and the top of one of the rivets popped off, at a load only 60 percent of what a good quality rivet should have withstood.

 

[CaddyKid21]

The rivets had large amounts of slag (impurities) in then which was one reason, the second was that the temperature of the water made the steel very brittle, so it was a bad combo. So it was the rivets that caused the downfall.

Surprisingly, if she want head on into the iceberg, she would be fine. If you think about it, its almost a good thing The titanic sank, because she would've been scrapped later. She wouldn't be so famous if it weren't for the sinking.

Im a Titanic dork....

 

[Tomasso]

If you think about it, its almost a good thing The titanic sank

Well, there are at least 1,517 souls who would take issue with you on that.

 

[LocktownDog]

Surprisingly, if she want head on into the iceberg, she would be fine. If you think about it, its almost a good thing The titanic sank, because she would've been scrapped later. She wouldn't be so famous if it weren't for the sinking.

Im a Titanic dork....

Yep. A head-on strike would most likely have saved her. Not only was the strength of the keel more than enough to handle it, but the bulkheads were built with such a strike in mind. The fact that the berg slashed open the hull and breached more than one bulkhead was the death blow.

Richard

 

[Johnny B]

Oh Expletive removed Quick- radio the guys at Liverpool! We gotta let them know the Titanic may be unfit for ocean travel before they let that thing out of the docks!

Thank God countless scientists spent countless hours researching what may have been a very dangerous flaw and prevented us from an embarassing display of hubris all over the Atlantic. She's sure to be unsinkable now!

 

[dhermann1]

HMS Hood

I seem to recall something about HMS Hood, which took about the same number of people to the bottom, was built of the same steel, with some of the same structural flaws. Her keel was over stressed with excessive armor, and she had a slight weak spot amidships, where the explosives were stored right next to the torpedo tubes, and oh, yes, there was something about getting hit with a high explosive shell. But there were some similarities, too.
BTW, do kids still sing that old song "Oh they built the ship Titanic. . ."?
It occurs to me that when I first heard that song (maybe 1955?), the sinking of the Titanic was more recent than the date of my first hearing the song is to the present day. Yike.
Another thought: Like the Hindenburg disaster, there is a lot of evidence now that the builder of each of these doomed vessels knew a lot more about the causes of the disasters at the time than they ever let on.

 

[Diamondback]

Actually, almost every ship built at that time and for quite a while after using the same techniques has a "fatal flaw" weakpoint, right at the center of the keel--right where Titanic, Lusitania, and many others broke in half on the way down. For this very reason, the preferred technique for torpedoing a surface-ship is to set the torp under that midpoint, so hydrostatic pressure and force of the explosion'll "break the ship's back". Those neat WWII sub-movie scenes where you see the bow and stern of an enemy ship rise out of the water after it breaks in half? That's exactly what's at work there.

I know, we're talking about a civilian ship and an accident rather than a warship and enemy fire, but damage is damage, design flaws are design flaws, and inferior materials are inferior materials, and any one of those will make you just as much shrimp-food either way.

 

[SamMarlowPI]

Well, there are at least 1,517 souls who would take issue with you on that.

DiCaprio and Winslet wouldn't be as famous either...:whistling

 

[CaddyKid21]

Well, there are at least 1,517 souls who would take issue with you on that.

Well, i said almost. But yes, the greatest maritime tragedy of the 21st century, all of the 1,517 souls who perish, may they not be forgotten. Same that goes with the 712 who survived.

 

[Vintage Betty]

The rivets had large amounts of slag (impurities) in then which was one reason, the second was that the temperature of the water made the steel very brittle, so it was a bad combo. So it was the rivets that caused the downfall.

Surprisingly, if she want head on into the iceberg, she would be fine. If you think about it, its almost a good thing The titanic sank, because she would've been scrapped later. She wouldn't be so famous if it weren't for the sinking.

Im a Titanic dork....

Wasn't there also a study done regarding the amount of slag a number of years ago? I vaguely remember an article or tv program about the high amount of slag due to the enormous amounts of corruption. It was much higher slag than normal for the shipbuilders at the time due to the enormous budget of the Titanic.

Vintage Betty

 

[Wiseguy A]

As a sidebar . . .

Here is something about the last meal on the Titanic

http://cookingmonster.com/2008/04/09/the-last-meal-on-the-hms-titanic/

 

[Vintage Betty]

fftopic: Back at ya.

VB

 

[cookie]

When in doubt.....

Titanic required 3 million rivets.
Scientists found after studying 48 rivets, that many were not of quality.

The quantity of rivets required seems to have led the company down a path of cut corners possibly contributing to the sinking.

Not to mention that they were still using iron rivets, even tho steel rivets are stronger.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/15/science/15titanic.html

Life's like that...when in doubt after some colossal cockup...follow the money trail...

 

[Mike in Seattle]

But that's one of the misconceptions - that there was this huge, wide gash down the ship or a giant hole with the ocean just gushing in. The total area opened by the iceberg was under 12 square feet. That's equivalent of a hole 3' x 4', however, it was spread 75-100' down the side of the boat, opening one or two more watertight compartments to flooding than the ship could have withstood without sinking. As someone else mentioned - had they hit the iceberg head-on, the shipped would've limped into port without sinking. If the officer on duty hadn't turned to port AND had the motors switch to reverse, so the ship sort of fishtailed into the berg...if the captain and/or Ismay (head of the shipping line) hadn't been so intent on setting a new speed record on the maiden voyage and had heeded ice warnings, and on & on. So many things worked together in almost perfect harmony that night 96 years ago to send the Titanic to the bottom of the North Atlantic.

 

[Mojito]

Great to see so much interest in this subject - Tim Foecke has been working on this theory for years. I won't venture an opinion until I've had a chance to read the book and have spoken to colleagues who specialise in marine forensics (my research area is the deck crew - I know enough about the technical side to inform my research and to assist others in their work, but it's not my specialty), but he is very well thought of in Titanic research circles and so far his ideas have had a very good response from the technical researchers whose opinions I also respect (Rivetcounters, if you must know the nickname...!). The book has caused quite a stir, as you can imagine.

Have a look at his website for more information on this topic:

http://www.metallurgy.nist.gov/webpages/TFoecke/titanic/titanic.html

The "brittle steel" theory has lost favour with those who specialise in the Olympic class - indeed, it never enjoyed much to begin with. Foecke himself is one who argues against it. There is a higher slag content than metal produced today, but the manufacturing process was such that you'd see a similar level in any merchant ship of the day. Under normal operating circumstances - and many abnormal ones - these ships were perfectly sound. It is worth remembering that the Olympic herself enjoyed a long and successful career - she was retired and scrapped in 1935 primarily for economic reasons after Cunard-White Star Line merger, and at the time of her demise had earned the nickname "Old Reliable". During World War I, she successfully rammed and sank a u-boat. I'd say the Olympic class were more unfortunate than poorly built, but of course that's looking at practices of the day.

One reason researchers become frustrated every time someone talks about building an operating replica Titanic is because - just to conform to current industry standards - there would have to be major modifications in her basic design, so much so that it would cease to even look like the original vessel in any but the most superficial way.

I'm not personally an advocate of the idea that she should have rammed the iceberg head on - even back in 1912, Joseph Conrad was scathing about what he called this "new school of seamanship" advocating that ships be aimed fair and true at obstacles. Advocates of the idea that it was the "correct" route to take have pointed to the example of another ship surviving a head on iceberg collision, but this does not take into account the significantly greater tonnage and speed of the Titanic. The truth is, we don't know what would have happened had William Murdoch aimed her straight on - one marine forensics analyist I know suggested that the impact might have caused the forward expansion joint to buckle, opening her to the sea. This same area was breached on the third sister ship Britannic when she struck a mine in WWI, and the result was that she sank faster than the Titanic.

At any rate, Murdoch - the OoW - didn't have the luxury of hindsight and years of discussion and speculating (the end of which is that we still can't agree on the "right" course today). At the very least, striking head on would have crumpled the bow for a couple of hundred feet, immediately killing the crew and steerage passengers quartered there in the tens and possibly hundreds. Imagine trying to explain at the Board of Trade inquiry that he made no effort to avoid the collision! She simply wasn't designed to run into a massive, solid object at a speed of over 20 knots.

The figures on lost and saved have always been a subject of controversy (and the subject of numbers of lost probably always will be), but painstaking work by several researchers has reached the statistic of 2,208 on board, with 712 surviving and 1496 perishing.

 

[dhermann1]

Well, i said almost. But yes, the greatest maritime tragedy of the 21st century, all of the 1,517 souls who perish, may they not be forgotten. Same that goes with the 712 who survived.

I assume you mean 20th century. But there was one much worse. At the end of WW II the liner Wilhelm Gustloff was torpedoed by a Russian sub in the Baltic. It is estimated that between 6,000 and 7,000 people perished. The ship was packed with refugees desperate to escape the advancing Russian forces. For some foolish reason, the captain did not turn off his running lights, and thus made his ship a sitting duck.
Here is a listing of the greatest maritime disasters of the century. For all its fame, Titanic is well down on the list.
http://www.shipwreckregistry.com/index6.htm