Hi, this was Sunday morning at my friends place, he told me his recollection of a program he watched on TV, it was about the sinking of the “Titanic” the theory presented was that he ship Builders were using inferior materials when riveting the parts together and this resulting in the massive damage injured to the Hull.
Anyway, what we were wondering was as how were all those Millions? of “Holes” being drilled into the panels, beams, bulkheads and so fort, we were imagining or assuming that this metal parts must have been “very” massive, big sized and as much as we know(very little)the exactness of those holes was critical.
What tools were used and how were they powered?
Thanks
I saw a program recently that covered this topic, but not in depth. It was about Titanic, Olympic and Britannic.
Basically, it said the ships were cold riveted, and the rivets themselves were made of inferior metal to the plates of the ship. When the collision came, they popped when a lot of stress was put on them.
Is this the cause? I have no idea.
The Britannic sank without this being given as a cause.
Here’s a picture of a recovered hull plate from the Titanic, and another of the same plate as it was being recovered, for perspective.
According to this, the rivets were hydraulically pressed or squeezed after being heated to austenite temperature ranges. How the holes were made in the plates and girders is not given.
IIRC, many of the Britannic’s lower portholes were left open for ventilation (contrary to standing orders to leave them closed in order to preserve watertight integrity). This exacerbated flooding after she began to settle and list after hitting the mine.
I’m not sure what “cold riveted” means, or if it applies — at Harland & Wolff the rivets were heated, placed in the hole, then “bashed” by a man with a maul.
The “inferior metals” theory pops up a lot, but it usually compares 1912 steel to modern standards. In fact, the steel in the Olympic class liner hulls was the best they could get at the time. That said, the metal used for the rivets is much more questionable.
As for the Britannic, it was torpedoed or struck a mine — most probably the latter. A major factor in its sinking seems to have been that the lower-deck portholes were all open to air out the wards (it was being used as a hospital ship), so it was doomed as soon as it developed any kind of list.
ETA: Beaten to the punch in re the Britannic by ExTank. Curse my slow typing!
The Titanic was built by skilled workers with the same quality materials that every other shipbuilder used.
The rivet theory is spurious, given the forces exerted on on the hull by the iceberg, if the rivet heads didn’t pop off the rivets would have just stretched , the result being the same, a ingress of water getting in between the plates .
Had the plates been welded rather than riveted, I don’t know, maybe they would have held fast, saving the ship.
Says in your link that the rivet holes were cold-punched prior to riveting. Steel rivets were driven everywhere the hydraulic riveter could reach, while wrought iron rivets were driven by hand in less accessible areas.
The steel was the best they could get in such quantities at the time, but they did economize on the holes – reamed holes would have been less prone to cracking, but was far more expensive, and thought unnecessary for a passenger liner.
Yeah, I forgot to edit that back out after finding the Q&A link. :smack:
Read a very interesting book recently on this still very fascinating subject. The authors stated that one of the causes of the dramatic loss of life was that the expansion joints in the superstructure (placed there to allow the hull to flex without damaging this structure) were designed so that there was relatively sharp point at the bottom of these joints. These caused a large increase in stress at this point, and therefore resulted in the hull breaking at a relatively low angle as the bow sagged down into the water and the stern rose up.
The upshot of this was that the ship sank several hours earlier than it should have if the hull would have remained intact; possibly remaining afloat long enough for the Carpathia to have arrived at the scene.
This was in a recently published book from the library, and I don’t remember the exact title. They also said that the builders, Harlan and Wolff, realized this after the sinking, and revised these joints on the *Britannic *so they did not cause the stress increase. Of course, the Brittanic sunk from other causes, so this did no good.
The authors also went into detail about the efforts of Harlan and Wolff to keep this fact a deep secret.
IIRC the rivet theory is based on the idea that fewer rivets would have sheared if the steel used was higher quality. But ExTank’s Q&A link indicates the same kind of steel was used on the Queen Mary, and it was not inferior at the time.
Some welding was apparently done as well. The Liberty ships in WWII were welded, and cracked welds were blamed for some of these ships sinking.
I still believe hitting the iceberg was the cause of the Titanic sinking. But I guess that doesn’t contribute to selling CT-like books on the subject.
Naval History magazine, which is pretty respected in the field, had an article on this two or three years ago. The author was convinced that poor rivet quality and the extreme coldness of the water were definitely contributing factors to the Titanic’s loss.
:rolleyes: Oh c’mon! Who here believes that running a 50,000+ ton ship into an iceberg at 20+ knots could possibly cause anything to go wrong?
You might be refering to Dr. Tim Foeke’s Metallurgy of the R.M.S. Titanic from the NIST.
He cites the Felkins-Leighy-Jankovich study from UM-Rolla I cited above.
Indeed, or endless Satellite Channel Documentaries on The “Mystery” Of The Sinking Of The Titanic.
There is no friggin’ Mystery, it is THE most investigated disaster of all time.
The controversy comes in because, pre-crash, everyone believed the Titanic should have been able to survive an accident like that. If you rephrase the question as “Why didn’t it not sink?” there’s a lot more to talk about. But there’s also an awkward double-negative and your publicist won’t have that on the cover of a book.
Pre-crash beliefs were just wrong, more a result of marketing than engineering claims. Had the warnings of icebergs been received on the bridge, they would have changed course, not counted on the ‘unsinkability’ of the ship. After the incident, the Olympic was heavily refitted, and maritime safety regulations enhanced for all ships. Much of the concept of mystery continued because the evidence was inaccessible, leading to various nonsense including supernatural explanations. Once the wreck was found and examined, it confirmed the original theory, hitting the iceberg put a hole in it, and the bulkhead system was inadequate to keep it afloat.
ETA: You don’t need a double negative. The book could be called “Why did it sink?”
The ship was not designed to survive the damage it took; six compartments were exposed to the sea, which was beyond its design limitations. With the six forward compartments flooding the ship was absolutely guaranteed to sink.
I had a teacher that was on a completely welded ship that began to crack in half. They took the two bow anchors and dragged them aft. Took the stearn anchor and draged it forward then put tensiion on all anchors until the ship could reach port and be put in a dry dock.
I was on a T 2 tanker that had several cuts made along the lenght of the hull, and then a but strap riveted acrossed the cut. This was done to stop any cracking.
My friend Mel, who’s read extensively about the Titanic and even gives speeches about it, read this thread and replied:
“Thanks for this riveting account (didn’t want to disappoint you.) As far as I know the holes were simply drilled. There were drills and electricity at that time. The rivet story has yet to be proved as has been the quality of the steel. Neither compares to quality today but both were good for that day. Most people severely underestimate the power of a massive iceberg (like an iron mountain) in looking for reasons other than a collison for the sinking.”
I think your friend is spot on. If the ship that sank was not the Titanic no one would really care too much. Similarly with the Britannic, the program dwelt on why it sank. Well it was a 1912 design liner that hit a mine. If the battleships of the day sink after hitting a mine, why wouldn’t a liner?