Hot metal and cold waterWhat reaction


Status
Not open for further replies.
D

diana handley

Guest
As i'm no scientist.Can some one help.If you get hot metal and cold water.Would it make the metal weak?. Would this cause the metal to split easy?.Did this have anytHing to do with the Titanic sinking
 
Jul 9, 2000
58,662
872
563
Easley South Carolina
>>Did this have anytHing to do with the Titanic sinking<<

No. Not really. The steel used in Titanic was the best available at the time. While samples that were recovered and tested showed some low ductility and fracture resistance in cold water, this really played no role in the sinking. Had the ship been made with an all welded hull, it might have been a problem, but with riveted hulls, and cracks that form and propegate go no further then the individual plate.

One website you might want to ckeck out would be http://marconigraph.com/

Since this website is set up in a frameset type of a format, once the homepage downloads, click on "Titanic" on the left, then on "Sparks Titanic FAQs." After that, click on "Page 3 - Steel" for a discussion of this.

A couple of others you may find useful are

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/9801/Felkins-9801.html
and
http://www.metallurgy.nist.gov/webpages/TFoecke/titanic/titanic.html

Hope this helps.
 

Matthew Lips

Member
Mar 8, 2001
304
12
183
Not only was Titanic constructed of the best steel available, she was brand new. I am also no expert, but whenever the matter of "brittle steel" is raised in a book or TV documentary, I have to chuckle.

If that is why Titanic sank, then every other ship on the North Atlantic route would have had a very short life, too. Presumably, Olympic was made of the same stuff - and she was still afloat after a quarter of a century.

Not to mention Mauretania, etc etc etc. And as for ships used in even colder waters, like polar expeditions for instance, well, it speaks for itself really!
 
Jul 9, 2000
58,662
872
563
Easley South Carolina
>>Olympic was made of the same stuff - and she was still afloat after a quarter of a century.<<

She was.

Same steel, same source, (Dalzell and D. Colvilles & Co.) same chemistry, and that was the standard for the most part for just about all shipbuilding steels at the time. Steel of the identical chemistry is used in the the Queen Mary's hull and from the same mill. It's not inferior quality steel that's killing her, it's the City of Long Beach and a number of incompetant contractors who have come and gone who are doing that.
 
Feb 24, 2004
907
3
183
There was a lot of speculation a while back to the effect: Cold steel + Cold water = Brittle steel. Forget that, okay?

Inside, the Titanic was quite warm, what with its b'jillion boilers, heavy machinery and steam pipes running every which way. Granted, the ocean is a LOT bigger than the Titanic was, so the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is at work ultimately. But what effect, if any, would the internal warmth of the ship have had on those hull plates? I mean, as far as countering the outside water temperature.

Roy
 
D

diana handley

Guest
Thanks Michael H. Standart
I read the page you said read but id realy didnt answer the question.
All it said was that some of the plates found at the Titanic wreck site showed a relatively low ductility in some, but not all the plates were the same.
And thanks to the other people who gave me answers
We know she was built of the same steel as the other ships'
How ever the other ships didnt have a bunker on fire and they didnt hit an ice berg.
 
May 3, 2005
2,599
289
278
>>It's not inferior quality steel that's killing her, it's the City of Long Beach <<

Same goes for the Battleship Texas and the City of Houston. USS Texas was badly corroding and went into the shipyard for a lengthy repair of same.
 

T. Eric Brown

Member
Jun 5, 2005
137
2
183
The steel itself has been recovered from the wreck, test and despite 90 years of rust and decay, was surprisingly strong. That steel was very good. What about the rivets? I've heard the cold could made them brittle and that caused them to pop when the ship hit the iceberg.
 
Jul 9, 2000
58,662
872
563
Easley South Carolina
>>I've heard the cold could made them brittle and that caused them to pop when the ship hit the iceberg.<<

Uhhh...noooo...that wasn't even the propostion that was made. The claim made was that the rivets were faulty due to a little too much slag being mixed in with the iron. This was based on analysis of rivets recovered from the wreck in which this in fact turned out to be the case. What nobody was interested in mentioning was that the test samples amounted to only 33 rivets recovered from the debris field, and with no way of knowing where any of them came from. Between that and the fact that Titanic had over 3,000,000 rivets used in her construction, the sampling is useless from a forensics point of view.

A point that nobody pushing this theory bothered to mention is that most of those 3,000,000 rivets are still in the hull, right where the builders left them. This includes the general area known to have been in contact with the ice.

Finally, and most telling, I don't care if the rivet is made out of battleship armour...if you run 52,000 tonnes of ship into an iceberg at between 21 and 22 knots, you will get popped and sheered rivets.
 
D

diana handley

Guest
Hi again Micheal. I have now read all the pages you said, and they didnt answer my question.It said it had done cold water tests on the metal and that some of the metal was brittle not all .But it dont look like they have done a test where the metal is hot on one side and ice cold on the other...You see i have my own idea on the sinkng of the Titanic..The fire in the bunker caused the metal to expand on the inside, this making the metal thiner as it expanded..on the out side with the cold water making it brittle..hits the ice berg..
and bingo...no more Titanic..

To all others who have answered my question i thank you for your help

As for the Olympic and other ships being made of the same metal, may be they were but they never hit an ice burg
 
Jul 9, 2000
58,662
872
563
Easley South Carolina
>>The fire in the bunker caused the metal to expand on the inside, this making the metal thiner as it expanded..on the out side with the cold water making it brittle..hits the ice berg.. <<

The fire might have been a factor but not for those reasons. By the time of the accident, the fire was long out, having been extinguished the day before, and the metal sufficiently cooled that the engineers were able to cover up the signs by coating the metal with oil!

Also, the fire was in a bunker and had no real effect on the shell plating of the hull. The effect, if any at all, would have been by weakening the bulkhead which formed the boundary for the watertight sections so that it failed prematurely.

>>As for the Olympic and other ships being made of the same metal, may be they were but they never hit an ice burg<<

Not entirely accurate I'm afraid. You can see a comprehensive list of iceberg collision events current up to the year 2001 at http://www.icedata.ca/icedb/ice/bergs2_01e.html

Not all of these ships sank, some of them did and most used steel to much the same formula and refining standards. The problem wasn't really that the steel was bad, but that the Titanic's hull was subjected to way more insult and injury then the ship could realistically survive. Size increased, but the strength of the hull did not increase proportionately to the size of the ship.

Bluntly, if you run up to 50,000 long tonnes of mass into a solid or nearly solid object at around 21 to 22 knots, lots of things are going to break. There's really nothing all that extraordinary about that.
 
D

diana handley

Guest
Hi Michael
Thanks for your help.
I guess it would be like driving a car in to a brick wall.You just wouldn't stand a chance.
so much for my theory
 
Jul 9, 2000
58,662
872
563
Easley South Carolina
>>I guess it would be like driving a car in to a brick wall.You just wouldn't stand a chance.<<

Yeah...that's about it after a fashion. Getting into a shoving match with something that's going nowhere when you try to, and is four to eight times your mass is a losing proposition and always has been. Bear in mind that damage done by the fire may have been an aggravating factor in the matter of possible bulkhead failure, but it was the collision with the iceberg that set everything in motion. Absent that single factor, and we just wouldn't be having these discussions.
 

Derek Gullon

Member
Aug 12, 2006
25
0
81
Thanks Michael, I was about to mention the universal factor that was being missed here... the afore-mentioned Iceberg. The most effective example of hot steel meets cold water is evident in the sinking of the Titanic though... however not a cause thereof.

The example to which I am referring is the reported explosions shortly after she split and the forecastle sunk.. sudden and violent shrinking.

Though I grant you this is an extreme example the principle still applies, once you heat and abruptly cool metal, any metal, ('least as far as I'm aware) it shrinks, and looses a margin of it's temper. As to how much of an effect the fire in the bunker would have had on the hull integrity of the ship? Minimal, best example would be the myriad of ships that took hits in WW2 and didn't sink.. now I grant you they didn't hit an iceberg but the did get hit with torps
 

Jason D. Tiller

Moderator
Member
Aug 20, 2000
8,239
29
398
Niagara Falls, Ontario
Here we go again:

quote:

PORTLAND, Oregon - An Oregon Health & Science University technology transfer specialist has been at the center of a burst of international media attention in recent weeks centering on new evidence she helped uncover suggesting that substandard rivets may have been as much at fault as the iceberg in the sinking of the RMS Titanic.

For the rest of the story, click here.​
 
Mar 22, 2003
6,487
1,758
383
Chicago, IL, USA
www.titanicology.com
Thanks for posting Jason. What bothers me about this type of research is not the results of their study on rivets but on the sweeping conclusions they then come to regarding how that led to the great loss of life.
quote:

"The Titanic may have stayed afloat long enough for most if not all of the passengers to be rescued had it not been for the popping of faulty rivets causing the ship's hull to "unzip" after impact with the ice, according to a new analysis...Since the nearest rescue ship, the Carpathia, was only two hours away, keeping the ship afloat an additional 2-3 hours would have allowed those forced to stay behind on the sinking ship to have been shuttled to safety, and many more passengers might have survived," wrote McCarty and Foecke in their book.

The suggestion that the ship could have stayed afloat 2-3 hours longer than it did if only the rivets were twice as strong is an irresponsible statement unless it can be shown that the initial damage in equivalent square feet of opening would have been at least half as much as what actually ocurred. Also any suggestion that the ship would have lasted an additional 2-3 hours if it did not break in two is unsupportable. Anybody who has looked into the last 45 minutes of the floating condition of the ship will quickly realize that there began an increased loss in longitudinal stability shortly after 1:30 AM, and by 2 AM that loss of stability accelerated. In other words the ship was going down even if it did not break in two and nothing could have prevented that. The ship was doomed 6 seconds after initial impact, and Andrews for one knew that when he discovered that the damage extended across the first 5 WT compartments. With only 1700 tons/hr pumping capacity, they were lucky the ship had lasted as long as it did; a tribute to Andrews, Bell and others.​
 

Jason D. Tiller

Moderator
Member
Aug 20, 2000
8,239
29
398
Niagara Falls, Ontario
You're welcome, Samuel.

quote:

What bothers me about this type of research is not the results of their study on rivets but on the sweeping conclusions they then come to regarding how that led to the great loss of life.

Same here. There are several holes in their conclusions and they don't add up. As you said, she was doomed after the impact with the iceberg and there was absolutely nothing anyone or anything could have done to save her.

quote:

With only 1700 tons/hr pumping capacity, they were lucky the ship had lasted as long as it did; a tribute to Andrews, Bell and others.

I completely agree with you. They did the best they could with what they had.​
 
Jul 9, 2000
58,662
872
563
Easley South Carolina
The article's insinuation that the 1500+ people still trapped on the liner could have been shuttled over to the Carpathia given and extra two to three hours also ignores reality. This is an evolution that would have taken the rest of the night and gone on into the afternoon.

Given the media's habit of distorting things or simply making sweeping statements out of the whole context of what was actually said, I'd like to hear what Tim Foecke have to say about this. This guy doesn't do slipshod research by any stretch of the imagination. My concern is on slipshod reporting.
 

Jason D. Tiller

Moderator
Member
Aug 20, 2000
8,239
29
398
Niagara Falls, Ontario
quote:

Given the media's habit of distorting things or simply making sweeping statements out of the whole context of what was actually said, I'd like to hear what Tim Foecke have to say about this.

That's a good point, Mike and it's something I forgot to mention. It would be interesting to hear what Tim has to say, so hopefully he'll pop in and comment.​
 

Grant Carman

Member
Jun 19, 2006
348
1
121
Michael

Whenever I read articles about Titanic, 2 thoughts come to mind.

1 Monday morning quarterbacks will NEVER be wrong in their eyes, and

2 It's always coulda woulda shoulda.

My limited understanding is that she sank that quickly because the bulkheads didn't go up high enough, and caused an overflow problem, similar to filling an ice cube tray.

Had Brittanic been in the same boat, she probably would have survived, as her bulkheads went all the way up. But Brittanic sank because her portholes were open on the side of the ship she listed towards.

What's your opinion? Is my "cifer'n" correct? (think Jethro)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Similar threads