Titanic's rivets


ash briers

Member
May 1, 2008
148
3
123
hi, i'm wondering how many rivets were on the titanic, i would really like to know how many there were on the port side and starboard side and any where else.
 
Jun 10, 1999
1,284
21
313
...and to think RMSTI roughly retrieved only about 30 for the composition test of slag. BTW, I had the opportunity to see a large one on display at the Tropicana in Las Vegas, along with L-brackets and other various pieces of steel.

Mike Cundiff
NV, USA
 
Sep 28, 2002
299
1
183
Northern Ireland
Yes, only 30! Not all had too much slag either. Most likely those were rivets with different specifications from the ones used on the super structure.

This is what the New York Times quoted from me in April this year.

The same rivets are installed on SS Nomadic and they look good.
 
T

Trevor Rommelley

Guest
Doesn't matter if they "look good." The point is, are they any good?
 
Jun 10, 1999
1,284
21
313
Roy Cullimore (RMSTI forensic expedition member) made a statement that of the 30 retrieved, some had high contents of slag.

I feel it all had to do with cost cuts, yet on the other hand you have R.M.S. OLYMPIC, and as James pointed out NOMADIC.

Mike Cundiff
NV, USA
 
Sep 28, 2002
299
1
183
Northern Ireland
The ones with higher slag would be in places that do not need such a high strength.

Some people do not realize that it is the specification which decides what strength of material is required for different areas.

"Are they any good." You don't know anyone who has worked in Harland & Wolff, do you?

Ask David!
 
Sep 28, 2002
299
1
183
Northern Ireland
Mike,

The Thompson Dry Dock are riveted with the same material as Olympic, Titanic and Nomadic.

nomadicrivets1.jpg
 
Jul 9, 2000
58,660
868
563
Easley South Carolina
>>Doesn't matter if they "look good." The point is, are they any good?<<

Good enough that they're still there after nearly a century, most of that in the water. The rivets on the Titanic are good enough that most of them remained right where the riveters put them even after a 30+ knot collision with the ocean's bottom.

There's a lot of sound and fury over the materials that the ship was built of which may not be entirely misplaced in some instances. The problem with all of that is that it's over-rated. Absent the interaction with an iceberg, and through hull damage along the ship's length which no vessel could survive, we wouldn't even be having this conversation.
 
T

Trevor Rommelley

Guest
The original poster said "they looked good." "Looking" is irrelevant, its the quality that counts. If the original poster has said "they are still good" then great, but an opinion of aesthetic attractiveness is irrelevant.
 
Jul 9, 2000
58,660
868
563
Easley South Carolina
>>its the quality that counts.<<

And I've addressed that issue. The rivets are good enough on the Nomadic to have survived this long. The rivets on the Titanic were good enough that they survived anything except human fallibility, and the vast majority of them survived even that.
 
Sep 28, 2002
299
1
183
Northern Ireland
As the writer of the posting of "they look good". The first inspection is always a "visual inspection", hence my use of "they look good".

No matter what, Titanic was not built to scrape an iceberg. She would have survived a bow on collision with an iceberg.

Remember, a Riveter had a five year apprenticeship and he had a vast knowledge of the different materials used in rivets amongst other aspects of rivets.
 
Mar 22, 2003
6,479
1,744
383
Chicago, IL, USA
www.titanicology.com
That all its takes is the failure of a few substandard rivets in a seam to lead to progressive failure along a length of that seam when subjected to higher than expected loadings such as impact with a massive body at high speed. All evidence points to the opening of riveted seams along the plates as opposed to plate fracture on the hull. Something had to give.
 
Sep 28, 2002
299
1
183
Northern Ireland
Can you say 100% that the rivets that were tested came form the critical point of Titanic where it hit the iceberg. What was the stress weight exerted on these rivets. Rivets were installed throughout the ship and not just on the exterior.

Ships are not built to withstand icebergs. They are built to withstand large waves.

Today a under spec weld would have the same effect.
 
Jun 10, 1999
1,284
21
313
As Paul Mathias ('96 RMSTI) detected with his EOSCAN the actual wound on the starboard hull, was as H & W's Wilding suggested...12 sq. ft., basically the size of a standard refrigerator. I believe it was substandard rivets, which in turn sheered the heads upon impact with the iceberg, and as Sam said opened the *joggled* seams.

Michael Cundiff
NV, USA
 
T

Trevor Rommelley

Guest
...and what about the more serious damage that Matthias found on the port side? This has hardly been mentioned. Since we know the ship hit on the starboard side, and there is damage to both sides, what Matthias found must be a combination of iceberg and bottom impact damage.
 

Similar threads

Similar threads