Implications of flooding of BR4

Samuel Halpern

Samuel Halpern

Member
As it was, Sam believes that a small spur of the iceberg uninvolved in the earlier part of the collision opened up a tiny seam in the double bottom under BR4 as it passed and the resultant slow but steady flooding became obvious around 01:10 am and was bad enough to overcome local pumping efforts.
Just to correct what you wrote Arun, I believe that the flooding in BR 4 occurred from the side by a small opened seam that was above the tank top of the double bottom thereby allowing water to flow into the area between the tank top and stokehold plates.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tim Aldrich, Stephen Carey, Roger Southern and 3 others
Stephen Carey

Stephen Carey

Member
If BR 4 had flooded at the same rate as the rest- Titanic would have sunk with less then a bow-down attitude. That being the case, the water plane would have been longer and consequently - the possibility of her main strength members breaking less possible. This would have been because less of the hull would have been unsupported by the sea. i.e. - she may have sunk intact.
For what it is worth , a hole in the bottom shell plating would not have flooded BR4.
Titanic was virtually flat bottomed.
In way of Boiler Room 4, the bottom was double. The space between the outer and inner bottom was about 4' 6" deep and and transverse framed by deep floors at 3 ft intervals. If as suggested , ice acted upward on the outer bottom, it would have done so long before it was directly under Boiler Room 4.
If for some reason it did not do so until it was under BR 4, it would simply have sprung a few rivets in the seams between the frames and water would have entered the WT Double Bottom space below the inner bottom.
On the other hand, the water seen in BR4 must have gained access to the space between the inner bottom and the boiler room floor plates. It could only do so above the margin plate of the bilges, through the ship side or by over-topping WT bulkhead "F". Excuse sketch:
View attachment 77466
I have also had those thoughts re the DB as the tanks are WT and the only way for water ingress - assuming the tank top was undamaged - would be through the sounding pipes under outside water pressure, which would be evident as they project above the plates. Perhaps the berg clipped the hull just at the margin plate as you say. I doubt it had much effect on the rate of sinking - she was on her way...
 
Stephen Carey

Stephen Carey

Member
Hm, so more like the 2012 Mini Series low angle?


A small theory. What if when Shephard broke his leg, they ever closed the manhole up. So when Br. 5 flooded, the water went down that manhole and aft into Boiler Room No. 4 where others were opened, and simply travelled upwards?
That wasn't a manhole Cam, it was an access plate to get under the floor plates on to the tank top, and ships are still like that today. Often valves were under the floor plates in ships I sailed in in the 60s; they were a pain, and it took the Japanese to poke them through the plates so you could get at them!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cam Houseman
Cam Houseman

Cam Houseman

Member
That wasn't a manhole Cam, it was an access plate to get under the floor plates on to the tank top, and ships are still like that today. Often valves were under the floor plates in ships I sailed in in the 60s; they were a pain, and it took the Japanese to poke them through the plates so you could get at them!
Gotcha, thank you!

I wonder when Double bottomed ships were first thought of, and were "used in the field."
 
Steven Christian

Steven Christian

Member
Gotcha, thank you!

I wonder when Double bottomed ships were first thought of, and were "used in the field."
According to the article below the first was the Great Eastern. Whether thats true or not I don't know. Archaeologists know that humans have been using for boats for at least 6000 years maybe longer. One would think in all that time somebody before didn't try it out. But who knows? What I did find surprising looking this up was that double hulls weren't required for oil tankers until after 1990 because of the Alaska disaster. You can make what you will of the article below. Cheers.
 
Arun Vajpey

Arun Vajpey

Member
Just to correct what you wrote Arun, I believe that the flooding in BR 4 occurred from the side by a small opened seam that was above the tank top of the double bottom thereby allowing water to flow into the area between the tank top and stokehold plates.
Thank you Sam for making that clear. Just out of interest, if that spur had opened up that same seam lower so that the water flowed into the space between the two layers of the double bottom instead of between the DB and the stokehold plates, what could have been the consequences? (Assuming the same rate of flooding)
 
Jim Currie

Jim Currie

Senior Member
In fact, Leonardo da Vinci made a model suggesting the use of double bottoms on a ship. have a photo of it somewhere and will post it when I find it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cam Houseman
Arun Vajpey

Arun Vajpey

Member
Leonardo da Vinci made a model suggesting the use of double bottoms on a ship
Did he not also draw a model of something that could have been a crude prototype of a helicopter?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cam Houseman
Samuel Halpern

Samuel Halpern

Member
Just out of interest, if that spur had opened up that same seam lower so that the water flowed into the space between the two layers of the double bottom instead of between the DB and the stokehold plates, what could have been the consequences? (Assuming the same rate of flooding)
The wing tanks would have filled with water, or perhaps nothing at all if they were already filled. See:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Arun Vajpey
Jim Currie

Jim Currie

Senior Member
Did he not also draw a model of something that could have been a crude prototype of a helicopter?
He sure did... and a submarine and diving suit and, and, and, and........ A very smart thinker. If you ever get, as I did, a chance to see his original notebooks... take it. A man well ahead f his times.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Arun Vajpey
Jim Currie

Jim Currie

Senior Member
The wing tanks would have filled with water, or perhaps nothing at all if they were already filled. See:
A ship's DB tanks are completely water-tight, otherwise, it would defeat the purpose of having a DB in the first place.
Only if the outer bottom plating below the bottom edge of the margin Plate at the tank side is breached, will the sea enter any DB tank space. The margin plate is the short, sloping plate forming the sides of the DB tank. See my post No.7.

Titanic did not have proper "wing tanks", Sam.. just a cellular double bottom.
I presume you meant the outer Wt space in the DB formed by the keel or an intermediate Wt longitudinal floor and the margin plate? If so then only if the bottom external shell was breached could that space be flooded.
By the way, if a below sea level space already has liquid in it that liquid will be at a maximum pressure equal to its depth within the space or a little more if the tank is pressed up within the sounding and ventilation pipes.
Consequently, (high pressure) seawater entering at the bottom would displace the contents upward through the tank ventilation and sounding pipes until it equalized with the sea.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cam Houseman, Arun Vajpey and Samuel Halpern
Samuel Halpern

Samuel Halpern

Member
Titanic did not have proper "wing tanks", Sam.. just a cellular double bottom.
I presume you meant the outer Wt space in the DB formed by the keel or an intermediate Wt longitudinal floor and the margin plate?
The H&W Drawing Office Notebook referred to that space as wing tanks. I did not make that up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cam Houseman
Jim Currie

Jim Currie

Senior Member
The H&W Drawing Office Notebook referred to that space as wing tanks. I did not make that up.
Not saying you did, Sam, just pointing out the ship-building terms to demonstrate the differentiation. In fact, onboard the ship they would have been termed by number or as port or starboard relative to the keel. The only tanks I can see that might have been described a wing tanks were the 3 each side FW Tanks at the stern between WT bulkheads "M" and "N".
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cam Houseman and Stephen Carey
Stephen Carey

Stephen Carey

Member
Gotcha, thank you!

I wonder when Double bottomed ships were first thought of, and were "used in the field."
Pretty early on, for the storage of boiler water, oil fuel etc. They are there because they are the main keel of the ship, with the secondary usage for liquid storage. In the machinery spaces they are known as the tanktop, on which the engines are mounted.
The bilge wells today as then were let in to the DB and made water tight. The bilge suction has a valve at floor plate level (Japanese ships!) whereas ships I sailed on built in the 50s had them hidden under the plates covered in crap... Bilge wells today are around 3m maximum to allow a satisfactory suction. Any more and you'd have to use a submersible pump. All to do with gravity!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cam Houseman
Cam Houseman

Cam Houseman

Member
Did he not also draw a model of something that could have been a crude prototype of a helicopter?
In my opinion Da Vinci was born too far early, lol.
Pretty early on, for the storage of boiler water, oil fuel etc. They are there because they are the main keel of the ship, with the secondary usage for liquid storage. In the machinery spaces they are known as the tanktop, on which the engines are mounted.
The bilge wells today as then were let in to the DB and made water tight. The bilge suction has a valve at floor plate level (Japanese ships!) whereas ships I sailed on built in the 50s had them hidden under the plates covered in crap... Bilge wells today are around 3m maximum to allow a satisfactory suction. Any more and you'd have to use a submersible pump. All to do with gravity!
Fascinating! I heard they used the Double Skin on Olympic to store Oil, but I don't know if that's true or not. Cool that DBs are still used today, too!
 
Top