Bottom-up stress fracture


Seungho Kang

Member
Mar 5, 2019
48
12
38
South Korea
Hi there,

Recently while looking at the filming of the breakup sequence of the 1997 movie Titanic, I've noticed that before the model broke in two, the plates at the bottom part of the ship started to fall apart.
(below)
mengot1.png


mengot2.png

I also saw the ones that were in the movie--since they were the same footage but more up close--and found that not only was that specific plate that broke out, it was a good part of the bottom half of the model of the Titanic that was bulging outwards.

Even during the breakup, this part still acted up on the breakup, as the compression increases, but later eased out by the forced top-down breakup mechanicsm.
mengot3.png

This bulging out motion was also mentioned in Roy Mengot's theory, in which he said:
Near the keel, the sides are forced to bow or bulge outward.

So, would bottom-up stress cause most or some influence on the breakup scenario?

I would imagine a breakup sequence where the bottom half of the ship up to E-deck would have compression stress acting upon it, while the top half initially up to B-deck but later lower to D-deck would experience being pulling apart.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Kyle Naber

Member
Oct 5, 2016
1,091
575
188
20
It’s likely that the uppermost decks would have separated simultaneously to the lower deck compression and bulging. There were reports of “two explosions” as the stern settled, and those were probably the two areas of the break commencing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Seungho Kang

Member
Mar 5, 2019
48
12
38
South Korea
If that’s the case, would the galley deck section be the area where the breaks met?
That piece mightve acted like a hinge, rather than the double bottom or b-deck being a hinge
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Kyle Naber

Member
Oct 5, 2016
1,091
575
188
20
I lean on the side of the double bottom pulling the stern down. While it buckled and bent during the break, I think it was still the last connection.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Jul 5, 2016
53
35
48
28
Wasn't in Mengot's theory that the double bottom would had been too rigid to bend in the way as though it was the hinge keeping the stern and bow together? In which case, the double bottom would have snapped like a stick.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

Kyle Naber

Member
Oct 5, 2016
1,091
575
188
20
Eye witnesses saw the broken end of the stern pop up from the water as the whole section settled back. This was an indication that a break had occurred.

(See an animation of this here (10:49 mark))

Senator FLETCHER: What do you mean by saying she snapped in two?
Mr. BULEY: She parted in two.
Senator FLETCHER: How do you know that?
Mr. BULEY: Because we could see the afterpart afloat, and there was no forepart to it. I think she must have parted where the bunkers were. She parted at the last, because the afterpart of her settled out of the water horizontally after the other part went down. First of all you could see her propellers and everything. Her rudder was clear out of the water. You could hear the rush of the machinery, and she parted in two, and the afterpart settled down again, and we thought the afterpart would float altogether.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The two main theories for this event are the double bottom theory (or the banana peel theory) and the middle deck theory (a bottom-up break configuration).

The banana peel theory suggests that the double bottom was able to flex during the break, allowing for some buckling in this area while the structure mainly broke from top to bottom. The stern then settles completely back. The double bottom would then begin to pull the stern under as the heavy bow is forced downwards and then completely tears away when the stern had achieved an un-returnable angle.

If the double bottom was indeed too rigid to bend in any capacity, it would immediately fracture, leaving a few middle decks to serve as the lasting connection of bow and stern. However, if the break had behaved like a paper towel roll, we never would see the broken end of the stern swing back up. The stern would not be able to compensate for the heavy bow on its way back down to an even keel, and the break would remain mostly concealed.

It makes me wonder if the double bottom WAS too rigid, maybe the break was more of a clean and sudden cut? I definitely haven’t studied how each area of the ship would respond to the break specifically, but I don’t see how it’s possible for the broken end of the stern to bob up as reported if there were connecting decks attached to each end. In my opinion, either the keel was able to bend and allow the stern to fully settle back and display the severance, or there really weren’t any lasting connections, and the stern sort of fell off completely, turned over, and sank on its own without being pulled down by the bow.

I hope that’s clear enough!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Mike Bull2019

Member
Oct 8, 2019
106
96
73
UK
I have trouble with accepting that the bow just hung there underwater for a period; I agree with Mengot that the bottom failed upwards- which is proven out by the edges of the sections as seen today- and the rest just failed catastrophically in quick succession. I just don't think it is possible that the stern came back and sat horizontally while there was a flooded bow section supposedly hanging on to it!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Kyle Naber

Member
Oct 5, 2016
1,091
575
188
20
I just don't think it is possible that the stern came back and sat horizontally while there was a flooded bow section supposedly hanging on to it!

I see where you’re coming from. If the bow was still attached as the stern settled back, it seems as if it would immediately begin to go back down again (without being stationary for a minute) due to the bow’s complete loss of buoyancy. But we know some survivors claimed that they thought the stern would float all-together. It seems to me that the stern completely broke off and bobbed by itself for a minute or two before turning over and going down.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Mdaw

Member
Apr 10, 2020
14
2
3
If that’s the case, would the galley deck section be the area where the breaks met?
That piece mightve acted like a hinge, rather than the double bottom or b-deck being a hinge
I have had the same idea. It couldn’t have been the point where the bow was pulling on the stern however t could answer why the aft tower section came apart. I feel that the hinge effect where the compression and tension joints meet really sums up a lot of witness accounts of how the ship reacted. It’s really hard to explain in words and I have failed elsewhere in explaining. I am working on a few drawings to explain how the axial loads would work with the stern “sitting” on the aft bow section as the stern fell back to near even keel. (Gravity and pressure are fun to explain lol). As the stern did come back down the decking would have separated from the bow section and as the bow fell away the hull and plating would tear and peel the stern open allowing for the rapid flooding of the stern. As she then again started to stand up, rotate and go through her own throws of death as she went down.
 

Mdaw

Member
Apr 10, 2020
14
2
3
Eye witnesses saw the broken end of the stern pop up from the water as the whole section settled back. This was an indication that a break had occurred.

(See an animation of this here (10:49 mark))

Senator FLETCHER: What do you mean by saying she snapped in two?
Mr. BULEY: She parted in two.
Senator FLETCHER: How do you know that?
Mr. BULEY: Because we could see the afterpart afloat, and there was no forepart to it. I think she must have parted where the bunkers were. She parted at the last, because the afterpart of her settled out of the water horizontally after the other part went down. First of all you could see her propellers and everything. Her rudder was clear out of the water. You could hear the rush of the machinery, and she parted in two, and the afterpart settled down again, and we thought the afterpart would float altogether.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The two main theories for this event are the double bottom theory (or the banana peel theory) and the middle deck theory (a bottom-up break configuration).

The banana peel theory suggests that the double bottom was able to flex during the break, allowing for some buckling in this area while the structure mainly broke from top to bottom. The stern then settles completely back. The double bottom would then begin to pull the stern under as the heavy bow is forced downwards and then completely tears away when the stern had achieved an un-returnable angle.

If the double bottom was indeed too rigid to bend in any capacity, it would immediately fracture, leaving a few middle decks to serve as the lasting connection of bow and stern. However, if the break had behaved like a paper towel roll, we never would see the broken end of the stern swing back up. The stern would not be able to compensate for the heavy bow on its way back down to an even keel, and the break would remain mostly concealed.

It makes me wonder if the double bottom WAS too rigid, maybe the break was more of a clean and sudden cut? I definitely haven’t studied how each area of the ship would respond to the break specifically, but I don’t see how it’s possible for the broken end of the stern to bob up as reported if there were connecting decks attached to each end. In my opinion, either the keel was able to bend and allow the stern to fully settle back and display the severance, or there really weren’t any lasting connections, and the stern sort of fell off completely, turned over, and sank on its own without being pulled down by the bow.

I hope that’s clear enough!
This !!! Lol. Our discussion on the other thread, this is what I was trying to explain lol. Keel snaps fast and clean, decking folds compresses, bow pulls on stern as bow falls forward and away and the two fully separate.
It’s funny that I find you explaining what I was trying to explain else where. Ha ha ha. The bow full of water would have been near 60-90,000 tonnes. The keel never would have the strength to hold onto that weight. It would either rip the keel out of the stern (which we know it’s didn’t as no one found 200+feet of keel attached to the bow) or it would have snapped the Keel plate near instantly. Where as if the keel and another deck closer to the fulcrum (where the compression and tension fractures meet) held even momentarily the bow would pull on the stern and anything still attached and stretch and pull any attaching pieces apart.
I am working on some drawings to help me explain this better or completely talk myself out of it lol. We’ll see what happens as I put it to paper and try to illustrate the changing axial loads as she tore apart.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Seungho Kang

Member
Mar 5, 2019
48
12
38
South Korea
Here, this is the continued thread from "V-break theory"

I've also thought about this breakup scenario starting from last year, and I've been tweaking it from time to time.

I think Roy Mengot's theory is accurate, but what he did not realize was that people saw the ship break, and some even saw machinery coming out of the break area.
I personally think the machinery they saw was one of the tower debris(forward or aft tower)
I also noticed that the shell plating also had a clean break on the forward and aft of the 3rd funnel point, but later the cracks radiate horizontally around E or F deck.

This is what I think how events elapsed, starting from 2:15:
- Water reaches the starboard side superstructure, which eases out the port list but doesn't eliminate it.
- The 1st funnel falls to the starboard side
- Boiler room 4 floods and sinking rapidly increases.
- The forward GSC floods.
- The coal dust ignition causes the 2nd funnel to fall to the starboard side.
- Stress concentrates on top of the superstructure(front of 3rd funnel) and the double bottom(the weaker part would be right in front of the engines)
- Rigid double bottom fails first, making b-deck the neutral axis for a little moment.
- The coal bunker, rather shoving up on the decks, it destroys itself because of the sudden breaking of the keel, which later provides a “cushion” for the decks above it.
- As the stern settles back, it has no port list, while the bow has one. This list difference between bow and stern creates a “vague spot”. Since ships don't flex, the vague spot later develops into the forward and aft towers, along with the 2nd class smoking room.
- As the double bottom compresses and loses all of its strength, decks c, d, e, and f compresses(but doesn't fail), which finally pulls apart b deck
(Notice that the stern hasn't fully settled back yet)
- As the b-deck starboard doublers fail, the bow droops down starboard side first, causing a starboard list.
- The top-down cracks start from the front of the 3rd funnel uptake on b-deck and break decks c, d instantly as b-deck fails The cracks radiate and stop around the galley deck section, because of its wider uptake area.
- As the bow dips down and pulls down the stern the cracks on the galley would start to radiate laterally backwards and reach bulkhead K.
- Since now the galley deck is pulled down and partially ripped away from the decks above, the forward tower falls down by gravity.
- The forward tower bumps into the bow, which would then finally separate itself from the stern.
- The stern now has its aft tower hanging at the port side, which causes the stern to have a port list.
- The aft tower breaks away at or near the surface.
- The stern goes vertical, bobs up, and sinks.

Here's what Roy Mengot has to say on the galley deck sections(E-deck):
The fact that it exists becomes more evident when we examine F-Deck. E-Deck does feature structural differences from the decks above it. First, the funnel uptake lengthens as the stack is split going down to #1 and #2 boiler rooms. E-Deck has a number of steel walls down the port side that housed crew members. The stewards referred to them as "Glory Holes".

I think because of this widened vertical funnel uptake, the top-down cracks would've stopped momentarily at around F or E-deck, in which at the bottom of F-deck, the bottom-up fracture will meet.

Here's a quote on the F-deck part of the galley section.
A look at F-deck aft of the #2 funnel makes it clear why this 'Galley Deck' section would form. The uptake casing becomes very broad and is heavily supported by a large number of additional steel walls for the galley. Not all of these walls are highlighted in red.
 
Last edited:

Seungho Kang

Member
Mar 5, 2019
48
12
38
South Korea
So basically Tl;DR: My theory is that the galley decks were the strongest and was the neutral axis during the breakup. Shell plating fracture lines, the location/proximity of the galley deck section, and the location of the forward tower(would've broke away early in the breakup) proves it. This is also what makes Roy Mengot's theory's mechanics meet survivor testimonies.
the "Banana peel" effect would've acted on the galley decks by the bow pulling down on it, causing the breaking of the forward tower, which creates the aft clean break(aft of the 3rd funnel) that we see today.
 

Matthew Quayle

Entertainer
Member
Dec 27, 2019
14
9
13
Australia
If the bow was still attached as the stern settled back, it seems as if it would immediately begin to go back down again (without being stationary for a minute) due to the bow’s complete loss of buoyancy.
As the ship broke, the main stern section had a lot of momentum going downward, as the buoyancy of the stern overpowered the gravitational force, it would have bobbed back up for a moment before beginning to sink. The force pushing her up out of the water would have been tremendous, and would have delayed the sinking motion for about 15 seconds as she settled into the water. Perhaps even longer, although not much longer. I think that witnessing that would make it feel like time slowed down, and 20 seconds would be enough to make people think "maybe there's a chance-!" before it started to plane away.

In addition, if very large objects fill with water quickly, and their buoyancy vanishes, they sort of sit in a kind of cartoony "oh, there's no ground under me?" moment, before accelerating away. You see this in a lot of sinking boats where the final plunge occurs not in one fluid motion, but in dropping phase followed by a pause, then a bit more, then another pause, until it finally goes under.
 

ShinGoji

Member
Aug 31, 2020
8
4
3
17
Philippines
Eye witnesses saw the broken end of the stern pop up from the water as the whole section settled back. This was an indication that a break had occurred.

(See an animation of this here (10:49 mark))

Senator FLETCHER: What do you mean by saying she snapped in two?
Mr. BULEY: She parted in two.
Senator FLETCHER: How do you know that?
Mr. BULEY: Because we could see the afterpart afloat, and there was no forepart to it. I think she must have parted where the bunkers were. She parted at the last, because the afterpart of her settled out of the water horizontally after the other part went down. First of all you could see her propellers and everything. Her rudder was clear out of the water. You could hear the rush of the machinery, and she parted in two, and the afterpart settled down again, and we thought the afterpart would float altogether.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The two main theories for this event are the double bottom theory (or the banana peel theory) and the middle deck theory (a bottom-up break configuration).

The banana peel theory suggests that the double bottom was able to flex during the break, allowing for some buckling in this area while the structure mainly broke from top to bottom. The stern then settles completely back. The double bottom would then begin to pull the stern under as the heavy bow is forced downwards and then completely tears away when the stern had achieved an un-returnable angle.

If the double bottom was indeed too rigid to bend in any capacity, it would immediately fracture, leaving a few middle decks to serve as the lasting connection of bow and stern. However, if the break had behaved like a paper towel roll, we never would see the broken end of the stern swing back up. The stern would not be able to compensate for the heavy bow on its way back down to an even keel, and the break would remain mostly concealed.

It makes me wonder if the double bottom WAS too rigid, maybe the break was more of a clean and sudden cut? I definitely haven’t studied how each area of the ship would respond to the break specifically, but I don’t see how it’s possible for the broken end of the stern to bob up as reported if there were connecting decks attached to each end. In my opinion, either the keel was able to bend and allow the stern to fully settle back and display the severance, or there really weren’t any lasting connections, and the stern sort of fell off completely, turned over, and sank on its own without being pulled down by the bow.

I hope that’s clear enough!


(i know this is a very late reply, sorry)

i created a personal thought or theory on the sinking of the ship by using roy mengot's bottom-up failure but here it shows that the titanic when it caused a bottom up failure. it broke the top section.
 

Matthew Quayle

Entertainer
Member
Dec 27, 2019
14
9
13
Australia
(i know this is a very late reply, sorry)

i created a personal thought or theory on the sinking of the ship by using roy mengot's bottom-up failure but here it shows that the titanic when it caused a bottom up failure. it broke the top section.
Here's the deal, man: There are a lot of people interested in the Titanic. A personal theory isn't worth much unless it has evidence backing it up. Roy Mengot's theory generates a lot of discussion because it answers many of the questions that have tormented the scientific community surrounding the disaster, and does it using some key pieces of evidence like debris placements on the ocean floor and basic explanations of the physical components of the breakup. If he'd just said "I just feel like it happened that way," it would not have gained any traction at all.

Even the most laughable Titanic break-up theories endeavor to answer questions. For example, Roger Long's theory that the ship broke slowly, explaining the condition of the double bottom and the steep incline of the aft end of the bow section. It's a ridiculous theory and has been debunked many times, but at least it's attempting to improve our understanding of the disaster. A random video you made does not do that. It's entertaining, but not relevant to this or any discussion.

Your enthusiasm is important to the community, but you need to come up with some evidence backing up your theory before it can be considered.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

ShinGoji

Member
Aug 31, 2020
8
4
3
17
Philippines
Here's the deal, man: There are a lot of people interested in the Titanic. A personal theory isn't worth much unless it has evidence backing it up. Roy Mengot's theory generates a lot of discussion because it answers many of the questions that have tormented the scientific community surrounding the disaster, and does it using some key pieces of evidence like debris placements on the ocean floor and basic explanations of the physical components of the breakup. If he'd just said "I just feel like it happened that way," it would not have gained any traction at all.

Even the most laughable Titanic break-up theories endeavor to answer questions. For example, Roger Long's theory that the ship broke slowly, explaining the condition of the double bottom and the steep incline of the aft end of the bow section. It's a ridiculous theory and has been debunked many times, but at least it's attempting to improve our understanding of the disaster. A random video you made does not do that. It's entertaining, but not relevant to this or any discussion.

Your enthusiasm is important to the community, but you need to come up with some evidence backing up your theory before it can be considered.


Okay! Sure ^^ the theory I made is still not final i am still researching on things like the testimonies and the survivor accounts and still studying about the ship. especially on the sinking part as it should be supported by sciences and physics and evidences that we see today in the ocean floor.

anyways thanks for the reply ^^
 

Kyle Naber

Member
Oct 5, 2016
1,091
575
188
20
(i know this is a very late reply, sorry)

i created a personal thought or theory on the sinking of the ship by using roy mengot's bottom-up failure but here it shows that the titanic when it caused a bottom up failure. it broke the top section.

Nice animation! It is an interesting thought that the ship may have broken into three sections as it sank- especially on the surface. You’re 100% right that the bottom-up failure also breaks the top decks near-simultaneously. But it’s generally accepted that the keel and downward most decks were forced upwards initially.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

ShinGoji

Member
Aug 31, 2020
8
4
3
17
Philippines
Nice animation! It is an interesting thought that the ship may have broken into three sections as it sank- especially on the surface. You’re 100% right that the bottom-up failure also breaks the top decks near-simultaneously. But it’s generally accepted that the keel and downward most decks were forced upwards initially.

Yes, I also agree that they were forced upwards, I am still currently studying and trying to understand it and once I fully do I will apply it to my theory/ thought on Roy Mengot's Theory. if I have time I'll do another animation with the interiors ^^
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

ShinGoji

Member
Aug 31, 2020
8
4
3
17
Philippines
Nice animation! It is an interesting thought that the ship may have broken into three sections as it sank- especially on the surface. You’re 100% right that the bottom-up failure also breaks the top decks near-simultaneously. But it’s generally accepted that the keel and downward most decks were forced upwards initially.


correct me if you find any mistakes i have ^o^
what do you think about this? i gathered some data i found and research around the web.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Cam Houseman

Member
Jul 14, 2020
1,814
305
148
16
Maryland, USA
My only thing is, I agree with the top-down break up. Most documentaries/shows/simulations show the top down break. Does this mean most historians believe it was she broke in two at the top first? For example, In "Titanic: the Final Word with James Cameron" they show this.
 

Similar threads

Similar threads