Quality of steel in Titanic's hull

Mar 9, 2018
74
3
8
'Put under pressure to do so'? You're sounding very much like a conspiracy theorist! By the way, Tom hasn't been employed by H&W for years.



This has been addressed previously. I think the issue for you is the answer doesn't support your theory.

Best wishes


Mark.
Mark I acknowledged that I was going on a limb with that first paragraph. Can you show me and concerns to the second highlight about the raising of the bulkheads please? I am always in the pursuit of knowledge and if you can reference me to somewhere that explains it I'll be more than happy to read it.

Thank you
 
Jan 5, 2001
2,299
97
178
that is why I'm asking if it is possible for someone to run a scenario on the 1913 Olympic to the exact same scenario that happened to Titanic and see what the ship would do under a simulation as has been done numerous times for Titanic. I think it would only be fair to put this to rest don't you agree?
There's no question about that, Travis.

Unless they doubled her strength, which they didn't, Olympic would have broken up too.

It also stands to reason that the Britannic did not break up and that was a result of their strengthening and heavy modifications.
A more logical explanation is that Britannic did not sink in precisely the same way as Titanic or in the same conditions, nor did she experience stresses over the same length of time. Note that she largely capsized while sinking, too.

Best wishes

Mark.
 
Mar 9, 2018
74
3
8
I am a firm believer in The Pursuit Of Truth and I also know from my own experiences that certain details that could be a Smoking Gun have been covered up in the past and not just in regards to the Titanic.

When I asked for the literature about the bulkheads on the Olympics in the Britannic I wasn't saying that to be snarky or sarcastic but to be honest I have never heard of why they were raised outside of to increase safety. I would love to read any information pertaining to that design change that explains why they did what they did.
 
Mar 9, 2018
74
3
8
Britannic sunk completely different from Titanic. The break up on Titanic started most likely in the double bottom (the so called bottom up theory).
Yes the Britannic sank quite differently in that it sank in 1/3 the time so the stresses on the hull would not be there in the same fashion as the Titanic that I am not disputing. If there were stress is put on the Hall of the Britannic then the wreck would mummify that so to speak.

The Titanic break up started at the Double bottom because the double bottom was built more like a foundation to a house then it was to a ship and the way the structure was attached to the top of it hence the further addition of the double bottom up the sides along the rectangular portion of the hall in the raising of those for critical bulkheads and it seems kind of odd that one of the bulkhead that was raised also happens to be right where the Titanic broke.

I find that interesting to say the least but if there is documentation out there that shows that those refits were anything but strengthening exercises I want to read them.

In response to Marc you do not need to double the rigidity in the strength of the hull to prevent a fracture. According to the paper I read the Halls stresses did not double the capacity as much as exceed the capacity. By further strengthening the hall through bulkheads extending to the strength deck and the double bottom being raised up the girders to the waterline does give the cheel a more homogeneous design and it gives it more strength overall reducing flexing and fluctuating of the hull.

I still feel strongly that someone should take the 1913 Olympic and put it into the same situation that the Titanic faced the night she sank.
 

Kyle Naber

Member
Oct 5, 2016
914
373
73
18
I'd still put my money on the Olympic breaking up. Perhaps the maximum peak stress might be a higher angle, but I still think that an unsuported weight as massive as 1/3 of a ship would be enough to break itself apart.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ajmal Dar
Mar 9, 2018
74
3
8
I'd still put my money on the Olympic breaking up. Perhaps the maximum peak stress might be a higher angle, but I still think that an unsuported weight as massive as 1/3 of a ship would be enough to break itself apart.
It is becoming common knowledge that The Break-Up did not happen at a steep angle hence why I would like to subject the Olympics post refit to the same conditions as Titanic and see what happens. I don't think it would unless the stern rose to the comical heights as Illustrated in James Cameron's movie
 
Mar 9, 2018
74
3
8
I am still trying to find information regarding Olympics 1913 safety recess and I am having a hard time finding anything that is in Depth on the internet.

Assistance would be appreciated!
 

Kyle Naber

Member
Oct 5, 2016
914
373
73
18
It is becoming common knowledge that The Break-Up did not happen at a steep angle hence why I would like to subject the Olympics post refit to the same conditions as Titanic and see what happens. I don't think it would unless the stern rose to the comical heights as Illustrated in James Cameron's movie
Titanic’s angle of breakup was not necessarily that shallow. There are reports of people sliding down the deck before the break, hearing a huge rumbling noise before the break, (interior objects shifting around) and the following “...she almost stood up perpendicular, and her lights went dim, and she presently broke clean in two...” Of course, the “near perpendicular” was an exaggeration, but in my opinion, Roger’s 11 degree angle breakup theory was a bit ridiculous.
 
Mar 9, 2018
74
3
8
Titanic’s angle of breakup was not necessarily that shallow. There are reports of people sliding down the deck before the break, hearing a huge rumbling noise before the break, (interior objects shifting around) and the following “...she almost stood up perpendicular, and her lights went dim, and she presently broke clean in two...” Of course, the “near perpendicular” was an exaggeration, but in my opinion, Roger’s 11 degree angle breakup theory was a bit ridiculous.
They slid down the deck from this list not the angle of the stern and the CERN only rose after the break not before.

In any event I did find a portion to what I was looking for on encyclopedia titanica and regards to the Olympics in her skin Edition and that it was not a structural Integrity design but merely a buoyancy preservation design that also happens to be able to be utilized for oil storage later. Would that one question out of the way now I still need to know if the five bulkheads raised to the strength deck were for merely just safety or for strengthening the hull to make it less flexible... possibly help keep the ships from breaking up during a sinking.

If anyone wishes to contribute Source material to my quest I would appreciate it. I do not want to read opinion articles or words from those who have done the reading already and have written books, I want to read the source material.
 

B-rad

Member
Jul 1, 2015
479
109
53
37
Tacoma, WA
If Harland & Wolff did not raise the bulkheads to add strength to ensure the ship wouldn't break, then there would be no source material, unless for whatever reason someone randomly stated something like, "...and yeah, so we only raised the bulkheads for flooding scenarios, not to strengthen the ship to make sure it doesn't break like the Titanic."

In other words, you may be asking for proof that doesn't exist, because it was never conceived. But, I will look, as I love a challenge!
 
Jan 5, 2001
2,299
97
178
I’m a k, not a c. :)

The issue was that Titanic broke up after experiencing stresses more than twice what she was designed to cope with in the most severe North Atlantic Storm. The detail of the break-up is an enormous subject but this is the key issue. The argument of conspiracy theorists seems somewhat absurd, on the basis that they think Olympic should have been designed to sink intact. When you say ‘I am a firm believer in The Pursuit Of Truth’ then, intentionally or not, this is the classic language of conspiracy theorists.

I’d suggest anyone who hasn’t done so reads Sam Halpern’s article, ‘Why A Low Angle Break’ as well as my own paper ‘Titanic: Allegations & Evidence’ on my website.

As it happens, we know that officials from both Harland & Wolff and the White Star Line stated publicly (and, more importantly, PRIVATELY) that the purpose of the changes was to improve Olympic’s watertight subdivision. The details of the changes support that.

Travis rightly alluded earlier to the structural design of the inner skin, which is something I covered in my paper. It was not designed to impart substantial strength to the hull girder and, as far as possible, it was a freestanding inboard structure. The reason was that, if the outer hull was pierced, then the inner skin needed to be separate to provide the watertight protection intended. Moreover, it served its purpose of watertight protection in 1918 when Olympic was torpedoed: the outer hull was pierced and the inner skin prevented the water entering the boiler rooms adjacent.

Best wishes

Mark.
 
Last edited:
A

Aaron_2016

Guest
Anyways here is the image that I would like you to dissect for me and also would it be possible to run the 1913 Olympic through the same conditions of Titanic and see how she would behave?........
It is a fascinating project and it is strange that a simulation testing the Olympic and Britannic's modifications have not been made because it might prove that the company were aware the Titanic had broken in two and were taking steps to correct the possible faults that led to her breaking apart. Looking at the decks plans it certainly appears that the bulkheads were raised exactly where she broke open and I understand the expansion joints on the Britannic were modified to carry more stress. One has to wonder why, and why no more Olympic class ships were ever constructed. Who knows what was agreed and said behind closed doors.

Lightoller believed the forward expansion had opened and he hypothesised that the forward funnel fell because the guy wires were pulled out when the expansion opened. I wonder if the ship was slowly bending on the surface during the evacuation? The wireless operator said he could not hear the signals coming from the Carpathia because of the noise of steam and the air escaping through the forward expansion joint. Perhaps she was bending and slowly buckling open a few inches, cm, or mm, which created a whistling sound outside the wireless room during the evacuation.

Charles Joughin was in his cabin right where the Titanic broke in two. He saw water enter his cabin and he had no idea where it came from. Perhaps she was buckling open just a crack here and there which helped her flood down in the middle with the added weight of water pouring in the open portholes. He saw two men trying to close the watertight door outside his room near the engine room. I understand that was the same bulkhead that was elevated on the Olympic. Perhaps the company were aware that the weight of the engines, coupled with a strong list to port, and the bending of the hull was enough to break open the ship. They may have envisioned this scenario before the disaster and believed it was so incredible to believe (like striking an iceberg) that they never prepared or modified the ship to survive such a scenario. Although that said, she would still go down regardless of breaking apart, although it is unknown if the break up accelerated her sinking, or bought her a little more time.


.
 
Jan 5, 2001
2,299
97
178
I see all sorts of questionable assumptions being made here. It illustrates only too well the need to be guided by what the evidence shows us.

I’d suggest some of the comments are based on a misunderstanding of expansion joints and their role. The available evidence is that the routine improvements to Britannic’s configuration were part of hundreds of routine improvements already in the works *before* the Titanic disaster, as the shipbuilder learnt lessons from each ship they constructed and supplemented theoretical marine engineering with practical knowledge. I’ve covered this at length previously.

We know that Titanic's expansion joints were very much a 'red herring', as we say in the UK, in terms of the debate about her breaking up. The simple reality is that her hull would have failed whether she was fitted with expansion joints (in any configuration) or not.

We know precisely why ‘no more “Olympic” class ships were ever constructed, and that answer lies in the White Star Line’s post-war commercial requirements combined with their strained financial situation rather than any conspiracy theory that they were deliberately built not strong enough.

Best wishes

Mark.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael H. Standart
Mar 9, 2018
74
3
8
At least my analysis of the breakup has not made any mention of the expansion joint playing a part. :)

My hypothesis is based upon a multiple structural failure and that the ship broke up in more than just one location.

I am also working with an engineer who can also render 3D models and help me with my hypothesis of the break-up which will then lead to the damage the Titanic actually took.

Our analysis will be a working backwards theory that will ignore so-called impact damage excuse used by other analyses to explain away certain deformations on the bow and stern sections. We will also be using Survivor account to to verify our findings as we go. We may also find out that many prior assumptions were made on area engineering principal instead real-time engineering principles.

I am doing this because while I feel many of the experts are getting closer they are ignoring the overall picture because they are too stuck on their formal training and experiences on welded ships versus riveted ships. I am not finding fault in their work but I am finding issue with some of the assumptions they make at the beginning of the disaster.

The biggest point of Divergence for me is the 5 compartment flooding scenario. That scenario was invented by Edward Wilding to fill in the gaps of the testimony that the British Board of Trade hearing didn't like from certain people. Wilding originally made up a flooding chart based strictly on the observations of the crew and then how to work out a scenario which would cause the shift to founder. In the same testimony which was on day 19 he also stipulated that the ship sank at a very shallow angle and was subjected to no more stresses then an Atlantic storm giving credence to the claim that the ship sank intact. He also postulated that the stairwell to the fireman's passage was punctured from the side by a jutting piece of iceberg that was able to not only puncture the side of the skin but then another three feat to puncture that water tight stair well casing.

We know that he was wrong about that based on the sonar images that were taken beneath the mud. We also know that when he was commenting purely on the evidence provided he was correct but then he started the error when he based the rest of his testimony off of his flooding Dynamics which insisted that none of the bulkheads failed and water was able to flow over the tops until the ships foundered.

If there is anyone who doubts what I just said then reread his testimony and you will see it for yourself. Knowing that fact it changes everything about the damage taken and the result of that damage on the structural Integrity of the rest of the ship. Another point of Interest is Glen Wilding also testified the extra bracing being added to the Titanic to prevent panting which means it must have been a concern on the Olympic prior to going to sea. Edward Wilding did his job. He went in as a material Witness to defend the Integrity of his company and the ship they designed and built. He perpetuated the 6 compartments flooding scenario and the fact the ship went down in one piece.

Parks Stevenson and David G Brown penned a white paper on the grounding of the Titanic on an iceberg shelf. What they did not report on what's how that affected the structural Integrity in the engineering of the keel and the sides and strength deck.

As I stated before I feel the Titanic suffered a successive engineering failure because of that grounding and the wreck on the bottom of the ocean proves it if you look at the rec as a child so what happened on the surface.

There is a picture of one of the reciprocating engines sticking halfway out of the mud. If that engine landed on a hard surface then it should have crumpled itself but instead it is sticking halfway out of the ground which lends evidence to my theory that the mud cushions the Titanic's impact for the wreck to be preserved as it appeared just under the surface and while she was sinking.

I hope that my theory is given adequate appraisal and not immediately dismissed by the community-at-large. It could be a groundbreaking discovery in the making which would bring together many theories that would also be substantiated by Survivor accounts.

I think the worst thing about those hearings when it concerns Edward Wilding is that the courts allowed him to postulate what he thinks happened and then they turned around and took it as fact. That has served as an injustice to the survivors and to countless Titanic historians over the years because it has laid the groundwork for false appraisal of the sinking.
 
Last edited:
Jan 5, 2001
2,299
97
178
Another point of Interest is Glen Wilding also testified the extra bracing being added to the Titanic to prevent panting which means it must have been a concern on the Olympic prior to going to sea.
What Harland & Wolff did - before EITHER Olympic or Titanic entered service - was arrange their structural design so that: 'At the forward end [the bow] the framing and plating was strengthened with a view to preventing panting, and damage when meeting thin harbour ice'.

The false claims on the subject in the Matsen book and elsewhere have been addressed previously.

Best wishes

Mark.
 
Mar 9, 2018
74
3
8
I read that testimony by Wilding and we shall see during my investigation if that is the case. When I was speaking with my engineer friend he mentioned the same thing so so far it seems you are correct.

I am excited to see how this project carries through. Thank you for reinforcing that premise. As we investigate the reverse engineering of the wreck I will post our findings here for your review.

Your insight and polite discourse is refreshing and your knowledge is vast. I wonder if we what find may educate you as well. I have always wanted to have a discourse with a respected author on this subject. For me it is amazing.

Is there any reason that Parks and David stopped writing here? Has interest in the professional community died down concerning Titanic?

Travis
 
Mar 9, 2018
74
3
8
Maybe they stopped coming here because if the number of amateurs (myself included as I am just now going to source material; IE reading the testimonies at the hearings which I find more enlightening than the final results btw. That has also lead me to get a feel for the people involved, getting to know through their words their motivations when amswering questions or asking.)

On that note I get the impression that the Board of Trade was all to happy to omit certain evidence in favor of professional opinion, IE Wilding, in determining from beginning to end what happened then using cherry picked survivor testimony to back up their findings.

That is where I got the impression from Wilding concerning the panting situation he brought up. It seemed to fit in line with the rest of his expert opinion that the Titanic took punching damage (disproven as sonar has shown no holes in the starboard side that would be big enough to allow a chunk of ice to penetrate 3 feet deeper to penetrate the watertight well of the staircase just ahead ofbthe fireman's passage) that the damage was done through a glancing blow at all (See sonar review) That the ship took on water initially in 5 compartments then proceeded to sink by water rising over one bulkhead into rhe next until she sank (He based his entire sinking testimony on conditions drawn up to make the ship founder when eye witness testimony revealed that not enough compartments were taking on water to founder Titanic) He said the ship would not be stressed anymore than designed stress during an Atlantic Storm (See actual wreck to prove that testimony wrong) or that Bulkhead E could have collapsed (Refuting Barret's testimony in that regard while fully accepting his Boiler Room 6 flooding explanation.)

So as you can see I have been reading up on the meat and potatoes of the inquiries and I am beginning to feel they were a white wash to make the builders, the company (IE Smith's decisions) and the Board of Trade look good.

That all seems to fall apart the moment you see the ship in two halves, complete with a missing middle section, where one is pretty much destoryed while the other is very well preserved. This is where I get my hypothesis that somebody knew something behind closed doors and didn't want it getting out.

I will not try to ascertain who for that is immaterial, but it does deserve consideration to how the ship sank and broke up, hence my reverse engineering study. I think if we dismiss the impact damage theory the Titanic Wreck sheds the exact nature of the sinking and from there it will be possible to accurately deduce what kind of damage would have led to her current state.

Sorry for the long reply but I hope you see where my reasoning comes from and it makes imperical sense :)

While I am incorrect in the panting portion it does not dampen the study as a whole, just a position that may have to be struck from the list of potential flaws that afflicted these ships. There is other evidence to prove that the Olympic Class ships/design were more fragile than intended/admitted.

There will be no discussion of weak steel or rivets for the wreck proves they were not a weakness. Not in the least bit! In fact they were too strong and did too well to keep the ship together as it was trying to tear itself apart.

My hypothesis overall is that the ships over all design relied on too many proven principals and supposed facts from prior builds to be adequately scrutinized given the dimensions of the ship, IE the keel being stronger than it was and the ability of the ship to absorb grounding damage without causing overall structural damage to the backbone of the ship.

Travis
 
Last edited:

Mark Baber

Moderator
Member
Dec 29, 2000
6,092
169
223
Moderator's hat on:
Maybe they stopped coming here because if the number of amateurs
People come and go for all sorts of reasons, and it's not fair to speculate as to why, especially when that speculation casts aspersions on others. Please desist.

Moderator's hat off.