Jeremy Aufderheide
Member
What did the expansion joints look like inside? Did they go all the way through so that there was a gap through the interior? Or were the interiors cleverly designed to hide them?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Expansion Joints Inside
- Thread starter Jeremy Aufderheide
- Start date
Jeremy,
A little late for somebody to reply to your question but I do have some experience of expansion joints during my service in the Royal Navy. HMS Amazon was the first in the class of 8 type 21 frigates designed by Vosper Thornycroft for the Royal navy. In 1975 she made her first long trip to the West Indies and met very bad weather. The stress on the all aluminium rigid superstructure caused some alarming cracking, as the flexing of the steel hull was too much for the rigid aluminium superstructure to cope with.
My ship, the second in the class, was about to leave Yarrow shipyard in Glasgow in pristine condition when a team of workers came on board and literally cut the superstructure through the middle through all the compartments amidships. A rubber joint was inserted between both halves.It looked like the joint connecting two railway carriages together except it was only about an inch wide and it was quite amazing to watch the movement in rough seas, as it could stretch much wider and then close completely It was said that you could crack nuts in the joint. Of course being a war ship, there was no point in trying to hide it. We did have ongoing problems for a while as some cables - in particular thick aerial cables -became overstretched in heavy seas.
I watched the documentary on the television for the first time last night on the subject of the expansion joints, when the divers filmed the joint on the Britanic to compare with the original ship's drawings. I would imagine that Harland and Wolfe used some very clever screening to hide the joint.
I hope that this is of some interest to you Jeremy. Dave.
A little late for somebody to reply to your question but I do have some experience of expansion joints during my service in the Royal Navy. HMS Amazon was the first in the class of 8 type 21 frigates designed by Vosper Thornycroft for the Royal navy. In 1975 she made her first long trip to the West Indies and met very bad weather. The stress on the all aluminium rigid superstructure caused some alarming cracking, as the flexing of the steel hull was too much for the rigid aluminium superstructure to cope with.
My ship, the second in the class, was about to leave Yarrow shipyard in Glasgow in pristine condition when a team of workers came on board and literally cut the superstructure through the middle through all the compartments amidships. A rubber joint was inserted between both halves.It looked like the joint connecting two railway carriages together except it was only about an inch wide and it was quite amazing to watch the movement in rough seas, as it could stretch much wider and then close completely It was said that you could crack nuts in the joint. Of course being a war ship, there was no point in trying to hide it. We did have ongoing problems for a while as some cables - in particular thick aerial cables -became overstretched in heavy seas.
I watched the documentary on the television for the first time last night on the subject of the expansion joints, when the divers filmed the joint on the Britanic to compare with the original ship's drawings. I would imagine that Harland and Wolfe used some very clever screening to hide the joint.
I hope that this is of some interest to you Jeremy. Dave.
Trevor Rommelley
Guest
The expansion joint ran around Captain Smith's copious waist, in the form of a belt, which he could loosen after eating too much during the 1st class dinners.
Michael H. Standart
Member
>>The A-Deck covering ends and the A-Deck opening meets,is that were the expasion joint is?<<
No. Take a look at https://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/plans.php?angle=Boat+Deck and take note of the broken line across the boat deck in two locations. This marks the location of the expansion joints.
No. Take a look at https://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/plans.php?angle=Boat+Deck and take note of the broken line across the boat deck in two locations. This marks the location of the expansion joints.
What? I see three expansion joints.I knew Titanic had one but never knew about the two extra expasion joints.
The expansion joint ran around Captain Smith's copious waist, in the form of a belt, which he could loosen after eating too much during the 1st class dinners.
Hey Trevor. Thats' funnie about the joke about captain Smith, but he was not that big!
The expansion joint ran around Captain Smith's copious waist, in the form of a belt, which he could loosen after eating too much during the 1st class dinners.
Hey Trevor. Thats' funnie about the joke about captain Smith, but he was not that big!
Michael H. Standart
Member
>>What? I see three expansion joints.<<
I suspect one of them is an error in the plans on the site. It happens. Keep in mind that the role of the expansion joint was as a stress relieving device. It allowed the superstructure to flex in a heavy sea without breaking.
I suspect one of them is an error in the plans on the site. It happens. Keep in mind that the role of the expansion joint was as a stress relieving device. It allowed the superstructure to flex in a heavy sea without breaking.
>>I suspect one of them is an error in the plans on the site.<<
Does not look like a mistake, but if you say so Michael. I believe you.
>> It allowed the superstructure to flex in a heavy sea without breaking.<<
It serve it's purpose in that way but when it comes to the crunch,in other ways it actually helps ships brake in half.
I'm guessing expansion joints have improved alot since then on modern ships.
Does not look like a mistake, but if you say so Michael. I believe you.
>> It allowed the superstructure to flex in a heavy sea without breaking.<<
It serve it's purpose in that way but when it comes to the crunch,in other ways it actually helps ships brake in half.
I'm guessing expansion joints have improved alot since then on modern ships.
Michael H. Standart
Member
>>It serve it's purpose in that way but when it comes to the crunch,in other ways it actually helps ships brake in half.<<
Not really. The expansion joints were in the superstructure and didn't penetrate into the hull girder itself. By the time there was any failure here, the breakup of the hull itself was already well advanced. You might want to check out Roy Mengot's outstanding website at http://home.flash.net/~rfm/ to get the details from an engineer's perspective.
>>I'm guessing expansion joints have improved alot since then on modern ships.<<
Uhhhhh...not by much, and they're rarely if ever used in shipbuilding today. Expansion joints have been out of favour for almost half a century.
Not really. The expansion joints were in the superstructure and didn't penetrate into the hull girder itself. By the time there was any failure here, the breakup of the hull itself was already well advanced. You might want to check out Roy Mengot's outstanding website at http://home.flash.net/~rfm/ to get the details from an engineer's perspective.
>>I'm guessing expansion joints have improved alot since then on modern ships.<<
Uhhhhh...not by much, and they're rarely if ever used in shipbuilding today. Expansion joints have been out of favour for almost half a century.
>>Uhhhhh...not by much, and they're rarely if ever used in shipbuilding today. Expansion joints have been out of favour for almost half a century.<<
Um. If the modern ships don't have expansion joints, they would just brake in half in rough wheather. Remember what you said in you're other post. Is that correct?
Um. If the modern ships don't have expansion joints, they would just brake in half in rough wheather. Remember what you said in you're other post. Is that correct?
Michael H. Standart
Member
>>If the modern ships don't have expansion joints, they would just brake in half in rough wheather.<<
No they don't. Modern ships are strong enough but flexible enough that it just isn't an issue.
>>Remember what you said in you're other post. Is that correct?<<
Yes, and what I said was "It allowed the superstructure to flex in a heavy sea without breaking." The superstructure was not a part of the hull girder and had none of it's loadbearing qualities.
No they don't. Modern ships are strong enough but flexible enough that it just isn't an issue.
>>Remember what you said in you're other post. Is that correct?<<
Yes, and what I said was "It allowed the superstructure to flex in a heavy sea without breaking." The superstructure was not a part of the hull girder and had none of it's loadbearing qualities.
Michael H. Standart
Member
>>Michael sir.I thought that welding is weaker than rivets?<<
It may have started out that way, but once welding came into use, it the technology improved so rapidly that it became the preferred way of doing it. Not only does welding make for a hull which is stronger, but one which is smoother and signifigently lighter.
It may have started out that way, but once welding came into use, it the technology improved so rapidly that it became the preferred way of doing it. Not only does welding make for a hull which is stronger, but one which is smoother and signifigently lighter.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 24
- Views
- 5K
- Replies
- 5
- Views
- 2K
- Replies
- 14
- Views
- 2K
