The possible role of fire in the sinking of the Titanic

[Encyclopedia Titanica]

Structural response of a steel bulkhead subjected to localised heating...
Titanica! Mon, 17 Jul 2023
This paper reports research to investigate the theory that a fire in the Titanic's coal bunker could had weakened a steel bulkhead accelerating the sinking.

The possible role of fire in the sinking of the Titanic

Structural response of a steel bulkhead subjected to localised heating

www.encyclopedia-titanica.org

 

[Michael H. Standart]

I'll read it with interest but I think this is one of those trivial differences which make no difference. With through hull damage as far back as BR#5, the ship was a goner no matter what.

 

[Arun Vajpey]

It is an interesting article and I'm sure that the physics in it is all correct but the question is, how far it was applicable to the sinking process of the Titanic; my impression is not a lot. This business about the coal fire weaking the bulkheads etc has been done to the death in the past and remains as unconvincing as when it was first put forward. Apart from the fact that the coal fire had been put out by the time the Titanic encountered the iceberg on Sunday night, I don't think that there is any reliable survivor account indicating sudden and catastrophic failure of a bulkhead. Leading Fireman Barrett's testimony about flooding of BR5 led some early reserachers to assume that soon after BR6 filled completely, the bulkhead between it and BR5 gave way. But had it really done so, it would have been a lot more than a rush of green water and Barrett woud not had the time to reach the escape ladder, let alone clamber up it to safety.

 

[Bob Read]

Even the writers give equivocal conclusions because of the number of unknowns. I don’t see where this provides any really useful information.

 

[Mike Bull2019]

I didn't get anything new from that at all I'm afraid.

 

[Michael H. Standart]

Even the writers give equivocal conclusions because of the number of unknowns. I don’t see where this provides any really useful informat

The problem is that there is no way they can actually go into the wreck to examine the effected bulkheads and put anything to any sort of objective test.

 

[Titanicmaster]

Structural response of a steel bulkhead subjected to localised heating...
Titanica! Mon, 17 Jul 2023
This paper reports research to investigate the theory that a fire in the Titanic's coal bunker could had weakened a steel bulkhead accelerating the sinking.

The possible role of fire in the sinking of the Titanic

Structural response of a steel bulkhead subjected to localised heating

www.encyclopedia-titanica.org

The smoldering coal dust in bunkers happened frequently in that era. I believe there was no outright flame but ignited dust, and coal may have glowed and may have been shoveled. standard operating procedure in those days was to seal the bunker and let it burn itself out.

The reason the titanic sank, had nothing to do with coal fires… But was a direct result of hitting an object with a force of 6000 pounds per square inch ha ha kind of like the same pressure of being at the bottom of the Atlantic… I don’t care how strong your rivets are. I don’t care what your rivets are made of, those rivets popped like butter causing a seperation of the plates.
There was no 300 foot gash to the hull of Titanic or she would’ve sunk within 30 minutes… just look at the time it took one mine to sink the Britannic.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

As I wrote elsewhere,
If a bulkhead had given way in a catastrophic collapse, the result would have been the bow quickly rising up a little bit as the center of gravity of the floodwater would have quickly shifted aft. It's like having 3 people all seated near the bow of a row boat, when suddenly one of them decides to move aft.

 

[Thomas Krom]

As I wrote elsewhere,
If a bulkhead had given way in a catastrophic collapse, the result would have been the bow quickly rising up a little bit as the center of gravity of the floodwater would have quickly shifted aft. It's like having 3 people all seated near the bow of a row boat, when suddenly one of them decides to move aft.

If the bulkhead gave way as well there likely would have been a "Leading fireman Frederick William Barrett, Southampton aged 29" been listed between the victims, as well as the number being 1497 instead.

 

[SunnyDay]

I'll read it with interest but I think this is one of those trivial differences which make no difference. With through hull damage as far back as BR#5, the ship was a goner no matter what.

Yep the main problem was the massive hole on the side

 

[Steven Christian]

Structural response of a steel bulkhead subjected to localised heating...
Titanica! Mon, 17 Jul 2023
This paper reports research to investigate the theory that a fire in the Titanic's coal bunker could had weakened a steel bulkhead accelerating the sinking.

The possible role of fire in the sinking of the Titanic

Structural response of a steel bulkhead subjected to localised heating

www.encyclopedia-titanica.org

As others have pointed out I don't think in Titanic's case that it played a role in the sinking. But it was an interesting article to read for someone who has put out many smoldering coal fires over their career. We always treated them as something that needed to be taken care of but it was nothing out of the ordinary for the business. Thanks for posting it.

 

[Michael H. Standart]

Yep the main problem was the massive hole on the side

There was no massive hole. The through hull damage amounted to no more than aroud 12 square feet. The killer was that it left every compartment from the forepeak to BR#5 open to the sea and that was non-survivable.

 

[marina_irc]

As others have pointed out I don't think in Titanic's case that it played a role in the sinking. But it was an interesting article to read for someone who has put out many smoldering coal fires over their career. We always treated them as something that needed to be taken care of but it was nothing out of the ordinary for the business. Thanks for posting it.

I've actually heard the opposite before, that people have suggested that in fact the bulkhead giving way saved the ship from capsize and gave the crew enough time to mostly finish the launching boats, because the water was then free flowing and the list corrected itself.

"Not enough data" is the only real answer.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

because the water was then free flowing and the list corrected itself.

The flooding beyond a collapsed bulkhead aft would be stopped at the next bulkhead because the next flooded compartment's WTD would drop down by action of the float under the plates.

 

[marina_irc]

The flooding beyond a collapsed bulkhead aft would be stopped at the next bulkhead because the next flooded compartment's WTD would drop down by action of the float under the plates.

Right, but the coal bunkers served to make the flooding uneven by partially holding back the water from free flooding across the entire beam, correct? The WT compartments in the boiler room would have uneven flooding for a time and even out as the water progressed through the coal scuttles. Basically, I remember someone did a model some years ago suggesting this was corrected when the WT bulkhead failed and otherwise the list would have kept progressing. It was probably hogwash, and you can certainly make a model say anything; but now I should do some research and see if I really remembered that correctly.