Could Titanic's double bottom have been torn open by the iceberg

[Michael H. Standart]

>>the ship had been wripped open along her side, then i think that the ship would have listed to one side like the lusitania and would have reached the ocean floor on her side<<

Quite right, she would have been. The sort of injury the Titanic would have suffered in a sideswipe would have sliced her open from stem to stern and sent he plunging to the bottom in minutes, not hours. A minor correction however, the ship would not have reached the bottom on her side. In waters that deep, unless the hull completely disintigrates for some reason, a flooded solid hull always rights itself on the way down and lands in an upright position.

On matters of evidence, you have some very compelling evidence in the form of the wreck itself. The wreck shows no evidence of the 300 foot gash (Which BTW, was not what the inquiries said was there.) that the media contrived and which has been entrenched in the Titanic mythos ever since. What's there are the split seams, popped rivits and buckled plates that was expected in the first place. Some of that damage beyond any real question is from impact with the bottom, but some would also be from the iceberg.

 

[Paul Lee]

Quote:
In waters that deep, unless the hull completely disintigrates for some reason, a flooded solid hull always rights itself on the way down and lands in an upright position.
Unquote

Unlike the HMS Hood, for instance.

Paul

 

[Michael H. Standart]

And the HMS Hood suffered from an enormous main battary magazine explosion. In the wake of that, there wasn't much in the way of any recognizable hull section left to settle to the bottom.

 

[Jesse D O'Neill]

Parks

Thanks For The Info. I Look Forward to reading Your Book when it Comes out. I Wish You Good Luck W/ Book and Any Other Future Projects.

 

[Sandy McLendon]

Hi:

As a newbie here who has not yet passed his finals for Rivet Counting 101 ;-) , I expect to take a lot of heat for what I'm about to say. But here goes, anyway:

I personally have a lot of trouble with the idea that Titanic's double bottom was breached by an underwater shelf of the iceberg. The reason is that the "12-square-foot" theory was arrived at just after the sinking, and around 12 square feet of breaches have indeed been found by modern equipment.

The fact that we can't see the bottom of the ship does not mean a great deal to me, for this reason: when the "12-square-foot" figure was first discussed at the British inquiry, the figure was the result of mathematical calculation. The dimensions of each compartment were known; simple math would yield the volume of each, in cubic feet. The rate of flooding was known, meaning the time from the iceberg was struck until a compartment filled. With those figures in hand, it was then possible to work backwards and figure what size breach was needed to fill such a volume in the time recorded. You need a certain rate of water entry to fill X amount of space in X amount of time. "What size hole would permit that amount of water to enter in that length of time?" is the question that the mathematics applied in 1912 attempted to answer.

With those things in mind, it seems to me that the available data rather strongly militate against a major breach of the double bottom. We have accounted for hull breaches that match the data: if there was a larger breach, then it seems reasonable to assume that Titanic would have filled- and sunk- even faster than the appalling rapidity with which she did fill and sink.

I have no doubt that someone here will find a major flaw in my reasoning, but I've never understood how anyone came to suspect that more damage might have been done than just the buckled hull plates and popped rivets. One thing most people forget about a ship: the sea wants in. It takes very little for her to get her way in the matter.

 

[Mark Robert Hopkins]

Not to contradict your reasoning, Sandy, but to expound on it: Is it possible that both the side and the bottom could have been affected? If we consider that there was an unseen shelve directly below the surface of the water, it's also reasonable to presume that a jut in the side of the portion of the 'berg above the water did some scraping as well. Minor damage at both locations could have accounted for the expedited rate of water inflow. Further, if this had been the case, it could explain why the ship didn't fall on its side, as the damage in the side alone would not have been that extensive. This would also make sense regarding the sinking of BR #4 (or was it 5?), which was do to water coming up through the deckplates underneath, not through the forward bulkhead. Isn't there a space between the deck/floor of the tanktop and the keel, and opening big enough for water to flow along the bottom, between the keel and the tanktop deck? Water in the bow could have come in through both the tanktop deck (rising through the deckplates) and the lower starboard side. The water rising from the keel could have prevented the ship from ever rolling over on its side, either at the surface or underwater. My point: The opening of the hull was due to minor or moderate damage in various places as opposed to just one.

 

[Michael H. Standart]

>>The reason is that the "12-square-foot" theory was arrived at just after the sinking, and around 12 square feet of breaches have indeed been found by modern equipment. <<

I would point out that the 12 square foot theory was arrived at by quite a bit of number crunching and no small amount of speculation on the part of Edward Wilding. The information he had was anything but complete and he knew it. As to the 12 square feet being found, I would have to ask "As differentiated from what?" The sidescan sonar imaging that was done revealed damage on the port side as well as the starboard and there's just no way to tell the damage from impact with the bottom from that which was done by the berg.

>>I have no doubt that someone here will find a major flaw in my reasoning, but I've never understood how anyone came to suspect that more damage might have been done than just the buckled hull plates and popped rivets<<

Ever seen grounding damage? Even by way of photos? I have. The QE2 took quite a bit of bottom damage from striking a glancing blow on some rocks off of Martha's Vineyard. The ship barely broke stride and few if any of the passengers and even the crew was aware of what had just happened. The flooded sections in the double bottom were found by sounding the ship and it was serious enough that it took several months in drydock to make things right.

>>With those things in mind, it seems to me that the available data rather strongly militate against a major breach of the double bottom.<<

As a matter of fact, it doesn't, if only because it doesn't speak to data which is unavailable and perhaps unknowable at the present time. There may well not have been a breach in the double bottom which pentrated into the inner hull, but it's not really necessery either. Signifigent damage to the double bottom can lead to other problems, such as compromising the strength of the hull girder, this in turn leading to progressive structural failure. That's all you need to do the ship in.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

The fireman's tunnel just aft of bulkhead B was compromised as a result of the collision. There are many reasons why this would have happened, but it does point out that the damage to the double bottom was not trivial as the closest that this tunnel came to the hull plate at the base of the spiral staircase was a little over 3 ft. The stresses on the bottom of the ship in tones per square foot at the point of grounding would be very high since the underwater area of the berg on which the ship grounded on could not have been very large. The total square footage of openings in the double bottom could well have far exceeded 12 square feet in the exterior hull plating beneath the vessel. The calculations of Wilding and others gave the equivalent total composite opening beyond the double bottom space that allowed water to enter the various compartments of the ship.

The famous 12 sq ft is the result of calculations based on assumed flooding rates after the collision. From various descriptions given, it was deduced that the ship took on 16,000 tons of water in 40 minutes. Furthermore, it was assumed by Wilding and others, that the hull damage was done a level 25 feet below the waterline along the ship's starboard side based on a single data point observation of damage in Stokehold #10 coming from 2 feet over the stokehold plates at that particular location. The flooding rate inputs were only as good as the reliability of the sources from which it came and the assumptions made thereafter. And there are some good questions as to the accuracy of the input data, especially that concerning flooding in the boiler rooms. However, if one takes the above numbers as valid input, then it can be shown that it would take an equivalent hole of about 12 sq ft to flood a composite rectangular compartment with a floodable volume of 560,000 cu. ft. (16,000 tons of water) to the waterline in 40 minutes. When I worked out this calculation about a year ago I got precisely 11.7 sq. ft. using the above number inputs.

 

[Sandy McLendon]

Michael and Sam:

Thanks for your observations. I do understand that Wilding was working from a set of assumptions that may or may not have been valid. However, I still cling to my own, possibly simple-minded, feeling that bigger area of breach = faster sinking than actually occurred. Has anyone done a computer model that tests Wilding's work and does contrast and comparison with other theories?

Some computer whiz has a golden opportunity here, LOL. If someone came up with consumer-friendly software that permitted the user to change various parametres, I think it would sell like hotcakes. You could change the size and location of hull breaches to see what effect they had. You could specify that a particular watertight door or bulkhead would hold, or fail- that sort of thing. It might make for some very interesting simulations.

 

[Michael H. Standart]

>>I still cling to my own, possibly simple-minded, feeling that bigger area of breach = faster sinking than actually occurred.<<

Not necesserily. The Olympic had one very large hole punched into her side by the HMS Hawke and survived. It's not always how big the openings are but where they are. If you have one big opening in a limited area, such as what happened to the Olympic, the ship would survive. Spread the openings out over a wide area and several compartments and the ship sinks.

>>Has anyone done a computer model that tests Wilding's work and does contrast and comparison with other theories? <<

The only computer modeling I'm aware of was the Gibbs and Cox finite point stress analysis which was done to attempt to explain why the ship broke up. The problem with this as well as any other such modeling is that the results are only as valid as the underlying assumptions. If the assumptions are bogus, so is the model.

Wilding and his people may not have had computers, but they did have slide rules and very good mathamatical skills so don't sell them short. They did the best they could with the information they had, which they knew was incomplete. The rest of what they accomplished qualifies as "Best Guess."

 

[Samuel Halpern]

Sandy asked: Has anyone done a computer model that tests Wilding's work.

A few references for you to look at.

1) http://www.rina.org.uk/showpubl.pl?id=3359&n=565
2) https://www.sname.org/AM2001/titanic.pdf

 

[Sandy McLendon]

Michael:

I think my initial assertion that bigger hole = faster sinking was unclear; you have my apologies.

If we proceed from the assumption that the first five compartments were breached, with a total area of approximately twelve square feet, we get an average breached area of approximately 2.4 square feet per compartment.

All I meant to say was if the breached area per compartment were increased to an average of say, 4.5 square feet, with all other factors remaining equal, it would seem reasonable to assume that Titanic would have sunk even faster than she did. It is undoubtedly true that the placement of the breaches were a major factor in the disaster; had a breach of equal area occurred, but spread over fewer compartments, Titanic might be a floating hotel today (hey, I can dream, can't I?).

 

[Paul Lee]

If I can remember my physics correctly, the basic equations, with no fiddle factors are:

g*h = 0.5*v*v
where g = acceleration due to gravity
h = depth below waterline
v = velocity of water inflow

and

dm/dt = p*A*(square root of ( 2*g*h))
where dm/dt = rate of water flow
p = density of water
A = area of hole

Cheers

Paul


http://www.badpsychics.co.uk

 

[Sandy McLendon]

Samuel and Paul:

Thanks for the additional info and links!

 

[Mark Robert Hopkins]

>>It's not always how big the openings are but where they are.<<

Michael, this is a given. Of course if the opening is above the waterline, the water isn't going to automatically rush in. I think that was clear by Sandy's inference, which wasn't specified because it didn't have to be, since the reactions brought on by the location of the hole is an obvious conclusion.

We also have to remember that Wilding wasn't there, nor had he ever seen the damage first-hand, so his assertions are speculative (based on educated assumptions, but still speculative). The "12-square-feet" assessment was, at best, a generalization based on those assumptions. Therefore, should we take this generalization as fact? The "12-square-feet" 'disacovered' by the sonar and infrared equipment used in 1995(?) made observations and took measurements after the fact, so that information is not totally reliable either, considering that, as has been stated rips and tears and buckles, even on the port bow, had occurred due to the sinking and the impact on the bottom. That suggests to me that the "12-square-feet" assessment is not conclusive at best, as there are too many factors and variables that render such a measurement incongruous.

Another consideration is not the size of the opening(s), but how the ship flooded, meaning how the water was distributed once it was inside the hull. The inner structure of the ship has a lot to do with this as well.

There was also movement. After contact with the 'berg, the ship continued moving forward for some distance, which, I've heard, quickens the rate of inflowing water.

Again, I assert the possibility that there were openings in more than one location, which affected the interior distribution of water and the speed of inflow and the character/nature of the sinking (but, it seems, that everybody has ignored it??). Michael will expectedly correct me on this, but 12-square feet, in one place, isn't a large enough opening to allow the ship to sink in a mere 2 hours and 20 minutes - movement, interior structure of the ship, specific location of the opening, and water distribution aside. As ascertained by the tests done through the mud, there were several openings along the hull, which concluded, through research and eyewitness testimony, that water flowed in at compartment #3 as well as BR #6, as well as, possibly, a few other places in between (distribution), so it's confirmed that there must have been more than one opening at 12-square feet. But because those 'side' openings were considerably small, it's not too unreasonable to presume that the water inflow which expedited the break and sinking was caused by various small to medium-sized openings along the side as well as the bottom. Therefore, the rapid sinking of the ship wasn't necessarily due to a 'large, gapping' hole or "300-hundred-foot-gash." The "larger-the-hole-the-quicker-the-sinking" is not a 'must' by all means, although a gaping hole beneath the water would expedite the sinking in comparison to a single small opening in the same place.

--Mark