Mar 18, 2008
2,652
1,153
248
Germany
I was watching a video and the results found is that the vessel broke at low trim angle,

Actually the low angle break is nothing new, same was stated in the SNAME report from 1998 placing the trim at 15°.


along an oblique crack from aft to forward, that developed first in an area between funnel 3 & 4 and abaft the after expansion joint. They found that the «V» structure missing from the wreck was detached from the forward section as the vessel plunged in a violent rotation toward the abyss. No mention of the list that certainly played a role in the fracture.

All the structure parts were found and numerically assembled back.

Yes the wreckage clearly show that the expansion joint had no part in it (it even did not go into the main hull) as it is often claimed and also disproves the one "show" (Missing Pieces & Achilles Heel) claiming the so called "V" break. The so called 2 tower debris (consisting of several decks with the base of the 3rd funnel & engine room uptake) would not "exist" in that way if the "V" break had taken place.
 
Oct 28, 2000
3,242
550
388
The simulations are fiction. The truth lies in the iron on the bottom. Combine that with hard science about stability and trim in damaged ships. While
Your at it, study how other ships of similar steel and construction broke up and/or sank. Finally compare the real facts and real science to the witnesses. You should find the stuff on TV and YouTube almost laughable.

For example, Cap'n Jim has neatly described how the waterplane changes as bow trims down. Most simulations and hypotheses ignore this. So they show a hull creating too little buoyancy to float. Huh?

Titanic first listed tostarboard. Then it went into almost a death roll to labor (port). Why? Does anyone really believe water flowed uphill in Scotland Road? Where did water in Joughin's cabin come from?

Why did those two pieces of double bottom break in compression,but get pulled out in tension? How did the frames and she'll plating get pulled off of those pieces so clesnly? Why is break between those pieces directly in way of aft expansion joint? And why is that V-shape of decks, shell, and barbershop missing directly above? Why did so many people see prow resurface momentarily?

As the ship sank it hogged. (Bent in a shallow arc high in center. The strength deck was then under tension. This bending put the bottom in compression. What happened to the sides of the hull?

The answers are out there, but not in video entertainments.

David G. Brown
 
Mar 18, 2008
2,652
1,153
248
Germany
Yes Mr. Brown, the truth is out there but not in your flaw theories which time and again have proofed wrong but you always came up with the same claims.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Harland Duzen

Member
Jan 14, 2017
1,594
722
188
I hope in the future, a TV show / Wealthy Titanic enthusaist / other will build a 1:12 Scale model of the Titanic with the same materials, widths, Floor plans, measurements, and forces the original ship experienced and then sink it in a large pool.

This would then allow us to see how water flowed though the ship and how she might have bended, move, broke. Virtual Simulations and scientific tests are all well and good, but they often only look at one weakness and ignore the multiple factors in the ship demise (water pressure, weight, weakened bulkheads etc).

Look at the 1997 film, where they discovered that the grand-staircase was likely ripped out the hull by buoancy , something a computer simulation might never have found out.

Also note that the 1998 TV Documentary, ''Titanic Secrets Revealed'' showed by using a basic scale model that the idea of opening the bulkhead doors would have resulted in the ship capsizing with horrific results (however they did make it flawed by pouring water from above instead of adding accurate damage holes to the model).

How reference, here's a 1:10 Exterior model in someone's yard.

ship-space.jpg
 
Last edited:
Mar 18, 2008
2,652
1,153
248
Germany
Look at the 1997 film, where they discovered that the grand-staircase was likely ripped out the hull by buoancy , something a computer simulation might never have found out.

The staircase was a movie set (it was made wider and not even close how the stairs were made fast in the original ship).
There has been a lot of talk comparing it with how they broke away in the set and that this "must have" happened to the original staircase and that it left the ship though the dome (even there has never been any proof for that claim) which is not what happened.
 

Harland Duzen

Member
Jan 14, 2017
1,594
722
188
True it was made wider, but wouldn't they have built the staircase with the same structure?

and the original, was still made of wood. The Grand Staircase went one of two ways:

1) upwards by buoyancy and force from the sinking ship pushing it out. and leaving to float or erode away

2) downwards by impact with the bottom of the seafloor and collapsing into the wreck to be eroded away.
 
Mar 18, 2008
2,652
1,153
248
Germany
The movie set did not had the steel foundations which are still visible in the wreck today (between C & D Deck).

The staircase wreckage find its way aft though the break are. The remains of the D Deck candelabra definitely show this (also no signs of staircase remains in the wreck).
 
A

Aaron_2016

Guest
Yes Mr. Brown, the truth is out there but not in your flaw theories which time and again have proofed wrong but you always came up with the same claims.


Exactly what do you hope to gain by insulting the man? You don't agree with his opinion. We get it. So, what theories do you actually support?



Ships do hog, and I believe David's theory does certainly make sense. Ships have even been known to break owing to their length. People tend to ignore the sheer length of the ship. Almost 900 feet long. When evidence was presented that the ship broke in two, the company probably thought it was her length. Survivors said the bow seemed to break off. Imagine pulling a Christmas cracker.


I spoke to an ex-sailor in my town who described how long cargo freighters needed to be flexible and if they were too rigid they would be in danger of breaking in two. Perhaps the flooding Titanic became too rigid and the strain of the stern wanted to keel over to port was enough to break the ship? He described how oil tankers would fracture and break in two and the role of the ballast tanks and uneven quantities of oil in the oil tanks would endanger the ship of breaking.



Here is my understanding of the ship breaking in two. Simulations show the bow almost entirely flooded and pulling the stern up before the ship breaks. Now where is the evidence to even support that the decks were flooded to do that? Submerged decks are certainly not evidence of flooded decks. We have evidence from survivors who were in boiler rooms 4 and 5 and when they left their stations and went onto the boat deck they got into boats 13 and 15 which they believed were the last boats to go. This gives us an idea of how little the ship had actually 'flooded' down below. Joughin was still in his cabin way down on E-deck at 1.30am. According to Rowe this is when the starboard collapsible was being lowered and the sea was reaching the promenade deck. Again, no evidence of the lower decks actually being flooded. Pearsey was in the same collapsible boat and did not see any downward tilt at all at that time, but did notice the port list.

Joughin saw the water leaving the Scotland road corridor and the water moved over to the port side as she listed more to port. He saw men about to close the watertight door outside his room which was above the engine room and meanwhile Boxhall was trying to row down the port side around the stern and he said there was great difficulty owing to the suction. Survivors said portholes were open, and particularly how the ones on E-deck were left open.

One can easily see that the water may have been rushing into the ship much further aft on the port side. The Titanic could survive with 4 compartments flooded. The theory was that it would pull her head down until E-deck was submerged and the sea would flood that deck and spill down into the next compartment, but we have no evidence that it did. Clearly something made the ship break in two long before the bow was flooded sufficiently to point it down and descend.

I believe the weight of water rushed into the area where she broke in two (likely by open portholes or burst unsupported walls) and the weight of water and the engines caused her to buckle added with the strain of the port list and she broke in two. The actual process of breaking could have taken 10 - 20 minutes as this was the estimated time of the two explosions. Some survivors may have seen the break start while others may have seen it completing 20 minutes later. The actual initiation of the break and the final separation could have taken a considerable time. The flooding involved and the new breaches in the hull would then allow the bow to finally flood and go down.



ship1port.PNG




My guess is. The Titanic may have flooded in the bow first and the water travelled aft or spilt into the portholes aft. The air in the middle holds would compress and the uneven weights at both ends would cause the ship to break. Survivors described how sparks, smoke and coal were shooting out of the funnels when she appeared to explode and then break. Lightoller and Gracie were blown upwards by an enormous expel of air, and survivors described a wave that washed them off the boat deck and washed everyone out of the collapsible boat, and how mountains of water came 'out of the ship' as the bow took a sudden plunge after the explosion. As Joughin was in his cabin on E-deck not long before that, one can assume that the lower decks were still not flooded when the bow took a sudden plunge.



.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mar 18, 2008
2,652
1,153
248
Germany
Exactly what do you hope to gain by insulting the man? You don't agree with his opinion. We get it. So, what theories do you actually support?

Sorry I seem to have overseen that this here is about THEORIES and not about what happened.

Regarding your "theory", we already had it in another forum. Why do we have to repeat everything over and over again in different post?
And sorry for my ignorance but first you stated it is your theory and then you came up with that survivors said so. What is your point?

We have evidence from survivors who were in boiler rooms 4 and 5 and when they left their stations and went onto the boat deck they got into boats 13 and 15 which they believed were the last boats to go. This gives us an idea of how little the ship had actually 'flooded' down below.

Really? And why did the stokers left BR No. 4. Was it not the water which rose to high?
 

Georges Guay

Member
Feb 26, 2017
722
161
88
fractu10.png

If one of the explosion sounds is attributed to the transverse hull rupture, I would advance that the break was «abrupt» along a crack spreading at something like the speed of sound. The vessel held her hog, deck's structural members subjected to tensile stress while the bottom structure was under compressive stress, until her maximum peak stress was reached, to vanish instantly at the same time as the explosion sound lasted. Then the forward section pivoted in the area of the stiff double bottom longitudinal structure (keel, center & lateral girders). The water resistance to sinkage (T) coupled with the gravity (G) produced a forward motion (R) that ripped apart double bottom sections from their tank side brackets, until the longitudinal structures was stretched to fracture.
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
6,661
1,395
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
The hull below C deck was a 'girder', it's main strength members being the sheer strake of shell plating running round the hull at C deck and the plate keel. As Georges point out there would be a bending moment. The fulcrum of the bend would be at the forward end of the engine room where the keel met the surface of the sea. This point would be in compression and the sheer strake on each side of C deckwould be in tension. However, before here was a structure failure, the bending action would cause a deformity in the weaker parts of the hull plating, particularly in way of large void spaces such as the forward end of the main engine room. This would cause the shell plating in that area to bulge out on each side. (Try bending an empty milk carton and watch what happens to the sides in way of the bend.) This would cause failure in the shell plating rivets which in turn would allow a sudden influx of sea water to enter the engine room. (The engine room is flooding). This sudden load of very heavy sea water abaft the point of flotation would cause bodily sinking and at the same time attempt to rotate the bow back toward the surface. The bow would be prevented from rising due to the water above it and the initial bending moment would be aggravated to the point whereby the cheer strake area under the greatest stress would break. Thereafter, the fracturing would be free to make for the weakest point in the superstructure.. the aft expansion joint. That's how the pole from outside the barber's shot on deck C was able to escape to the surface and be seen by passenger Major Peuchin. There was an ornate stairway beside the Barber's Shop. It too would have been torn free to float among the passengers in the water.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Georges Guay

Member
Feb 26, 2017
722
161
88
4.2. Types of construction

4.2.1. Transverse framing (Titanic)

The floors, frames and beams form rings spaced closely together. Longitudinal strength is provided by the keel, centre girder, side girders, deck girders, the entire bottom, deck and side shell plating, and the tank top. Transverse framing ensures good cross sectional strength to handle overall stresses, vertical loads, rolling and dry docking. However, on very long ships, «sheer» stresses can cause deformations between the rings.

4.2.2. Longitudinal framing

The rings are formed of floors, deck beams and web frames that replace the frames. These rings are farther apart than in transverse framing. The longitudinal reinforcement members are deck girders, girders, the keel and a large number of deck, bottom and side longitudinals. The longitudinals are slender but there are very many of them.

Under bending stress, a longitudinal framing would act an empty milk carton (deformity/no bang) whereas a transverse framing would rather act as an empty milk bottle (crack/bang). Possible?
 
A

Aaron_2016

Guest
Looking at other shipwrecks for comparisons. The passenger ship Orama was sunk and photographed by the German navy, it appears she took on a heavy list to port, but when her stern submerged and flooded the list to port eased away completely. Her bow rose higher but instead of canting heavily to port it went straight up and stood upwards like a column.



Orama1.PNG


Orama2.PNG


If the Titanic had remained intact would her port list ease away just the same, as her bow flooded completely and her stern rose up? Also curious to know what Jack Thayer meant when he said one of the funnels "seemed to be lifted off". It appears the forward funnel of the Orama fell upwards instead of down as the ship went down. Is that what "lifted off" means?


.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
6,661
1,395
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
4.2. Types of construction

4.2.1. Transverse framing (Titanic) Traditional ship's "ribs".

4.2.2. Longitudinal framing
Isherwood system.


Under bending stress, a longitudinal framing would act an empty milk carton (deformity/no bang) whereas a transverse framing would rather act as an empty milk bottle (crack/bang). Possible?

Yes, Georges if there were no associated strength members to distribute the load. Had Titanic been constructed according to the Isherwood principals, we would now be talking about an intact wreck on the sea bed.
The Transverse framing system is augmented by transverse decks, a forward and aft collision bulkhead and a minimum number of full width WT Bulkeads. In addition, the bottom is further strengthened by deep floors and double bottoms, to mention the main bits. However. to my mind, Titanic had a very singular fault that seems to have escaped the attention of historians.
There is no transverse, longitudinal or even vertical continuity of strength at Frame No. minus 44. This is located at the forward end of the first LP cylinder of the main engines. There is a void space from the the main engines bed plate reaching up for almost 40 feet to the First Class galley. Continuing up ward and forward of this to A Deck, there is little or no strength since the space is occupied by large, transverse hallways and stairways.
At frame No. Minus 30 in way of WT Bulkhead "K", the double bottom reduces in height from the fore end of the main engines bed plate. If that WT Bulkhead was compromised, it would set- up the start for the catastrophe by allowing fractures to propagate upward through the aforementioned void spaces.
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
6,661
1,395
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
Now i can answer you, Ioannis.

You are correct when you say the expansion joint played no part in the initial hull failure. However, once the sheer strake failed, any fractures would take the lines of least resistance and one of these would have been in the direction of the aft expansion joint which was situated just abaft of Funnel No 3. When this opened up, the section of ship, including funnel No.4 would seem to cant backward, exactly as Trimmer Dillon described.

You queried the position of the bits on the sea floor.

The major amount of debris including dishes and cutlery from the restaurants and dining rooms, bits of DBs and boilers from BR 1 are proximate to the stern section. In contrast, there is very little in the way of comparable debris at the site of the bow section. Since most of that debris came from the bow section and it was on its way down before the stern section then the location of the the major area of debris and the stern section itself seem to indicate that the origin waas equidistant and to the east of the two major sections
titanic-debris-field-990c.jpg
. See here:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Georges Guay

Member
Feb 26, 2017
722
161
88
We are dealing here with inferior 1912 steel, which the lack of cleanliness (slag, sulfides, silicates) had a deleterious effect on the mechanical properties. So if the Sheer Strake of a Transverse Framing construction fails next to the maximum allowable bending moment … you better warm up your life jacket!!!

fai90010.png

The low notch toughness of the RMS Titanic steel of 4 joules (3 ft-lbs.) at the temperature of the sea water (-2 °C) at the time of the collision with the iceberg means that the steel would have been prone to brittle fracture. Certainly brittle fracture of the steel hull plate contributed to the sinking of the ship. The low manganese: sulfur ratio of 7:1 for the 1996 RMS Titanic steel will allow the formation of iron sulfide or mixed iron-manganese sulfides in preference to the formation of manganese sulfides. Iron sulfides tend to be less plastic and more brittle than manganese sulfides. In order to have only manganese sulfide present, the Mn:S ratio must be at least 20:1. The modern steel used in this study has a Mn:S ratio of 39:1, hence yielding a high notch toughness and the low ductile-brittle transition temperature.
 
Mar 18, 2008
2,652
1,153
248
Germany
The major amount of debris including dishes and cutlery from the restaurants and dining rooms, bits of DBs and boilers from BR 1 are proximate to the stern section. In contrast, there is very little in the way of comparable debris at the site of the bow section. Since most of that debris came from the bow section and it was on its way down before the stern section then the location of the the major area of debris and the stern section itself seem to indicate that the origin waas equidistant and to the east of the two major sectionsView attachment 2695 . See here:

Actually the debris concentrated at the stern is from the stern - the stern was rotating and even turned and spilt most of its content out, the galley is exactly the part which fits between bow and stern section and the remains (a large piece of deck) are close by the stern. The bow section had no much debris to loose, most of it which came out from the break (at the aft end of the bow) is close to it.

Your white lines are not right as also the position of the white "unbroken" ship.
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
6,661
1,395
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
The low notch toughness of the RMS Titanic steel of 4 joules (3 ft-lbs.) at the temperature of the sea water (-2 °C) at the time of the collision with the iceberg means that the steel would have been prone to brittle fracture. Certainly brittle fracture of the steel hull plate contributed to the sinking of the ship. The low manganese: sulfur ratio of 7:1 for the 1996 RMS Titanic steel will allow the formation of iron sulfide or mixed iron-manganese sulfides in preference to the formation of manganese sulfides. Iron sulfides tend to be less plastic and more brittle than manganese sulfides. In order to have only manganese sulfide present, the Mn:S ratio must be at least 20:1. The modern steel used in this study has a Mn:S ratio of 39:1, hence yielding a high notch toughness and the low ductile-brittle transition temperature.


Not really, Georges. I have seen this brittle steel argument before. Forgive me for saying so, but it just doesn't hold water.

The sea water was not -2 C. We do not known what the water temperature was at the time of collision. If it was anything, it would have been 32 F for about a foot under the surface since it would have been fresh melt water from the iceberg. I don't think it was even that since melt water disappears close to the berg itself and titanic stopped to the west of it.
Additionally, Titanic would have been travelling through relatively warmer water up until she hit the iceberg. The rivets and shell plating would have been warmed from the inside. The relatively low conductivity of the longitudinally thick revets would have ensured they retained temperatures above that of freezing.
Apart from the foregoing, Titanic's sister ship, Olympic lasted a very long time with so called inferior rivets.
 

Chris cameron

Member
Jul 4, 2016
102
46
73
Not really, Georges. I have seen this brittle steel argument before. Forgive me for saying so, but it just doesn't hold water.

The sea water was not -2 C. We do not known what the water temperature was at the time of collision. If it was anything, it would have been 32 F for about a foot under the surface since it would have been fresh melt water from the iceberg. I don't think it was even that since melt water disappears close to the berg itself and titanic stopped to the west of it.
Additionally, Titanic would have been travelling through relatively warmer water up until she hit the iceberg. The rivets and shell plating would have been warmed from the inside. The relatively low conductivity of the longitudinally thick revets would have ensured they retained temperatures above that of freezing.
Apart from the foregoing, Titanic's sister ship, Olympic lasted a very long time with so called inferior rivets.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I recall watching a documentary that entertained the notion of steel weakness. They actually tested the steel and the results showed that the ships steel was not only of decent quality but preformed better than they had theorized.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Harland Duzen

Member
Jan 14, 2017
1,594
722
188
Correct me if I am wrong, but I recall watching a documentary that entertained the notion of steel weakness. They actually tested the steel and the results showed that the ships steel was not only of decent quality but preformed better than they had theorized.

It was ''Titanic: Mystery Solved'' (2012) by Nat Geo.
 

Similar threads

Similar threads