Quality of steel in Titanic's hull

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!
 

Harland Duzen

Member
Jan 14, 2017
1,479
514
123
You don't know how Internally enraged I get when:

A) documentary or someone will show footage of the Lusitania or Olympic departing New York and then expect me (and other Titanic experts) to not notice this!

B) Titanic is illsturtated with RED Funnels or The Lusitania or Maruetania is incorrectly named as Titanic

C) See examples in attachments below:

(Insert enraged screaming) :mad:

Back To Topic (and quickly)!

Screen Shot 2017-07-29 at 09.14.24.png


Screen Shot 2017-07-29 at 09.23.40.png
 
Last edited:

A. Gabriel

Member
Jun 13, 2018
139
29
28
Philippines
Question, what are we to make of the results of the Charpy impact/V-notch tests that show Titanic's steel had an obscenely high ductile-brittle transition temperature of 32 deg.C (90 deg.F), which implied the ship's steel was brittle even at the usual temperatures of the North Atlantic?

There is also the matter of the article here, which pins the blame on bad rivets rather than weak hull steel. Quite a lot of conflicting and contradictory information out there on the quality of Titanic's materials!
 

Kyle Naber

Member
Oct 5, 2016
881
367
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
458
106
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.


.
 

Doug Criner

Member
Dec 2, 2009
384
25
58
USA
I believe that some of the failures in Titanic's hull were brittle rather than ductile. This can be verified by examining the recovered failure surfaces themselves - no need to perform modern Charpy impact tests on surviving steel from Titanic or other steel samples from that era. If the steel failures had been ductile, certainly the failures would have been less. Elementary.

Now, that doesn't show that the steel or rivets were defective by standards at the time. Although a very early, experimental Charpy test was first developed around 1900, it was a long time after that, in the 1930s, before the test became standardized and began to become incorporated in steel standards, such as by ASTM.

President George Washington, toward his death, was treated by deliberately bleeding, which was an accepted medical practice at the time and based on certain theories of disease. His treatment has been declared "correct" by modern medical historians and ethicists, although it didn't help and probably hastened his death.
 
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