Titanic
Titanic
(OP)
The sinking of the Titanic nearly a century ago can be attributed to low-grade rivets that the ship's builders used on some parts of the ill-fated liner, two experts on metals conclude in a new book.
htt p://www.th eglobeandm ail.com/se rvlet/stor y/RTGAM.20 080418.wti tanic0418/ BNStory/Sc ience/home
htt






RE: Titanic
I think the quote you've taken from the article is very misleading.
I have never studied the sinking of the Titanic
but imho nothing could have prevented from sinking after it hit the iceberg. The article states that the revits with lower strength iron where increased in size to account for the weaker iron, thus you cant blame the manufacturer.
I am biased though as i come from N. Ireland
RE: Titanic
Dik
RE: Titanic
The article states that more revits should have been used at the connections, thus it was possibly more likely a design issue rather than a construction issue (cant believe I've just said that as these days when something goes wrong on a construction project first finger is usually pointed at us designers, when 9 out of 10 times its the contractors fault for not following our drawings correctly). However i would think that the design would have followed standard practice at the time thus this cant be blamed either.
Therefore i conclude that neither the structural design or construction was to blame.
RE: Titanic
One article I read many years ago talked about the quality of steel used to make the hull. It refered to the brittle nature of the steel due to a transition temperature which was substandard. In the cold waters of the north atlantic, it was thought that the steel became very brittle and that the impact with the iceburg cause a tear in the hull which propagated under it's own. This is what they felt was the cause with Liberty Ships and why the cracks propagated around the hulls.
It is ironic to think that had the captin steered into the iceburg rather than away from it, the ship would have stayed afloat.
jetmaker
RE: Titanic
RE: Titanic
"Art without engineering is dreaming; Engineering without art is calculating."
Have you read FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?
RE: Titanic
Nothing anyone can design or build is indestructible or unsinkable. Titanic is another confirming example.
RE: Titanic
I watched a TV show about a Great Lakes freighter sinking some time in the mid-sixties. The ship was built about the same time as the Titanic, and a survivor attributed the sinking to the same crummy material used on the Titanic. There may be another explanation.
My understanding is that there were very few structural failures of ships built around the time of the Titanic. The engineers back then understood what they were doing and they understood their materials. Their calculations were not as exact, so they used larger safety factors.
If there was any failure, it was the White Star line. Titanic's sister ship Olympic rammed a Royal Navy cruiser shortly before Titanic's launching, and it rammed a light ship off New York city some time around 1930. Racing in the fog was a very bad habit, but Olympic hit things littler than it was.
JHG
RE: Titanic
As you said;
"Nothing anyone can design or build is indestructible or unsinkable. Titanic is another confirming example."
Very true! When I discussed this with one of my non-engineer friends, he said;
"Titanic was built by professionals; Noah's arc was built by amateurs."
Clefcon
RE: Titanic
Captain's disdain for iceberg reports; high speed thru potential ice field; too fast for effectiveness of lookouts; ice spotted too late; ineffective turn; iceberg strike; damage to ship's hull; flood water successively overrunning bulkheads; progressive sinking; broken hull; rapid sinking.
The root cause was the captain's actions leading up to the iceberg strike. The strength of the rivets is almost immaterial to the sinking. Would failure by tearing of the plates be a more satisfying failure mode? Hardly.