# Did The Builders of the "Titanic" Use Inferior Steel? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [January 6, 2011, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-builders-of-the-titanic-use-inferior-steel/566603 "2011-01-06T13:54:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2011, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-builders-of-the-titanic-use-inferior-steel/566603/1 "2011-01-06T13:54:07Z")
I was watching one of those interminable “Titanic” documentaries, and the latest theory of the sinking us that the collision with the iceberg cracked the (brittle) hull plates, causing the massive leaks that sank the ship. Recently, someone found some rivets that came from the batch used to construct the ship, and subjected them to metallurgical testing-the tests found that the rivets were of very low-quality steel, and very weak. My question: knowing that the White Star Line (controlled by J.P. Morgan) was a notoriously cheap outfit, is there any evidence that they pressured the shipbuilder (Harland & Wolf) to go cheap on the materials? Granted, steelmaking was not a refined science in 1909, and there was considerable variation from batch to batch. Would the Tiatanic have survived if her builders had used the best quality steel (rivets and plates) available in 1909? Did the official board of inquiry (held after the sinking) ever touch on this? Incidentally, the White Star Line went into a big decline after WW1, and eventually merged with Cunard (its old rival)-was it a poorly run busines? Or was the failure the result of the big decline in immigration to N. America 9that began after the war)? ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2011, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-builders-of-the-titanic-use-inferior-steel/566603/2 "2011-01-06T14:32:30Z")
[_ScienceDaily_, 1997](http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1997/12/971227000141.htm): > [@](#): > > ScienceDaily (Dec. 27, 1997) — ROLLA, Mo. – Recent tests of steel from the Titanic reveal that the metal was much more brittle than modern steel but the best available at the time, a metallurgical engineering professor at the University of Missouri-Rolla says in a paper to be published in the January 1998 issue of Journal of Metals. [Undergraduate Engineering Review](http://www.writing.eng.vt.edu/uer/bassett.html): > [@](#): > > Although most of the steel used for shipbuilding in the early 1900s had a relatively high sulphur content, the Titanic’s steel was high even for the times [Hill, 1996]. From The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society’s [_JOM_ article](http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/9801/felkins-9801.html): [The Steel](http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/9801/Felkins-9801.html#ToC5) and [Conclusions](http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/9801/Felkins-9801.html#ToC13): > [@](#): > > The steel used in constructing the _RMS Titanic_ was probably the best plain carbon ship plate available in the period of 1909 to 1911, but it would not be acceptable at the present time for any construction purposes and particularly not for ship construction. Whether a ship constructed of modern steel would have suffered as much damage as the _Titanic_ in a similar accident seems problematic. Navigational aides exist now that did not exist in 1912; hence, icebergs would be sighted at a much greater distance, allowing more time for evasive action. If the _Titanic_ had not collided with the iceberg, it could have had a career of more than 20 years as the _Olympic_ had. It was built of similar steel, in the same shipyard, and from the same design. The only difference was a big iceberg. . ---
**Author:** ![Philster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/13edae/32.png) [@Philster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Philster)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2011, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-builders-of-the-titanic-use-inferior-steel/566603/3 "2011-01-06T15:21:44Z")
I think the issue is rivet quality. A ‘‘Must Read’’ before continuing thread: [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/15/science/15titanic.html](http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/15/science/15titanic.html) . ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2011, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-builders-of-the-titanic-use-inferior-steel/566603/4 "2011-01-06T15:40:52Z")
From what I’ve heard, the rivets were more of a factor than the plates. ---
**Author:** ![Schnitte](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/schnitte/32/9033_2.png) [@Schnitte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Schnitte)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2011, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-builders-of-the-titanic-use-inferior-steel/566603/5 "2011-01-06T15:48:40Z")
Interesting question, to which I take the liberty of adding a related one: One of the issues with the Titanic were their waterproof compartments. The ship had regular watertight steel walls running across the hull regularly to divide the ship in a number of compartments along its length. The idea was that if there was a leak, only a limited number of compartments would be flooded, allowing the ship to remain afloat. The problem was that the watertight divides didn’t go all the way up - because the iceberg tore up the hull over an extended length, several compartments were flooded at once, and the ship went down so deep that the water reached the end of the divides and spilled over to the next compartment, going on all the way to the rear. I understand that these watertight compartments were not state of the art in 1912 and ships were not required or expected to have them, but still to me this seems like a major, and obvious, engineering flaw. How was that seen at the time - did people accuse the designers of the ship of having had a good idea but then executing it poorly or only half-heartedly? ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2011, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-builders-of-the-titanic-use-inferior-steel/566603/6 "2011-01-06T16:05:43Z")
> [@Schnitte](#): > > I understand that these watertight compartments were not state of the art in 1912 and ships were not required or expected to have them, but still to me this seems like a major, and obvious, engineering flaw. How was that seen at the time - did people accuse the designers of the ship of having had a good idea but then executing it poorly or only half-heartedly? It was not considered acceptable for passengers on a liner to have to ascend and descend stairs in order to get past a bulkhead. Also, passenger liners have large open areas that are unsuited to watertight bulkheads. Below decks in the non-passenger areas such inconveniences were not an issue, so the bulkheads were in place there. The issue was addressed in [‘Lord Mersey’s report’](http://www.anesi.com/mersey1.htm): > [@](#): > > _ **Water-tight Sub-division** _ > > 1. That the newly appointed Bulkhead Committee should enquire and report, among other matters, on the desirability and practicability of providing ships with \*(a)\*a double skin carried up above the water line; or , as an alternative, with \*(b)\*a longitudinal, vertical, watertight bulkhead on each side of the ship, extending as far forward and aft as convenient; or, \*(c)\*with a combination of _(a)_ and _(b)_. Any one of the three _(a)_, _(b)_, and _(c)_ to be in addition to watertight transverse bulkheads. > > 2. That the Committee should also enquire and report as to the desirability and practicability of fitting ships with _(a)_ a deck or decks at a convenient distance or distances above the waterline which shall be watertight throughout a part or all of the ship’s breadth; and should, in this connection, report upon suitable means by which the necessary openings to such deck or decks should be made watertight, whether by watertight doors, or watertight trunks, or by any other and what means. > > 3. That the Committee should consider and report generally on the practicability of protection given by sub-division; the object being to ensure that the ship shall remain afloat with the greatest practicable proportion of her length in free communication with the sea. > > \ ---
**Author:** ![Philster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/13edae/32.png) [@Philster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Philster)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2011, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-builders-of-the-titanic-use-inferior-steel/566603/7 "2011-01-06T16:21:19Z")
Page through the photo set in the NY Times article, which includes pics and descriptions of the iron rivets, black-smithed test rivets and test joints under stress. [http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2008/04/14/science/041308Titanic\_11.html](http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2008/04/14/science/041308Titanic_11.html) Important highlight: Don’t miss the part of the article I posted earlier that notes that plate separation (gashes) happens to end right where higher quality steel rivets started to be used in place of the iron ones on the bow. . ---
**Author:** ![N9IWP](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/n9iwp/32/3154_2.png) [@N9IWP](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/N9IWP)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2011, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-builders-of-the-titanic-use-inferior-steel/566603/8 "2011-01-06T18:18:24Z")
Note that Titanic’s sister ship the Brittanic had better bulkheads and still sank. (though a lot more survived) > **[HMHS Britannic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMHS_Britannic)** > > HMHS Britannic (/brɪˈtænɪk/) was the third and final vessel of the White Star Line's Olympic class of steamships and the second White Star ship to bear the name Britannic. She was the youngest sister of the RMS Olympic and the RMS Titanic and was intended to enter service as a transatlantic passenger liner. She was operated as a hospital ship from 1915 until her sinking near the Greek island of Kea, in the Aegean Sea, in November 1916. At the time she was the largest hospital ship in the world... Brian