First Funnel Collapse

[Arun Vajpey]

Only two things cause a ship to suddenly increase her list to one side or come upright:
1. A sudden inundation of water on the low side or a sudden inundation of water on the high side.

OK. If the port list started to steadily correct itself so as to bring the sinking Titanic to an even keel in the final minutes, it could only have been sudden inundation of water on the high (starboard side). My question is, IF that did occur, what could have caused it?

The initial damage, ie breach of the ship's hull, occurred on the starboard side through which the sea was entering the Titanic, resulting in an early starboard list. But (approximately) by 01:15 am the ship was back on even keel and thereafter steadily started to list to port. Unless I am mistaken (and I am happy to be corrected about this), that happened because there were more large spaces on the port side like the 'Scotland Road', Turkish Bath etc and the equilibrating water filled these spaces steadily.

But prior to the start of the break-up, there was no hull breach on the port side of the Titanic. Also, the ship had no through longitudinal bulkheads AFAIK. So, what sudden internal damage that occurred around 02:15 am could have caused that large volume shift of water from the port to starboard side, thus bringing the ship back to an even keel? Or, was it simply a case of sudden increase in the rate of flooding on the damaged starboard side?

PS: In relation to the above question, can I ask about a possibility that I wondered about? Since the bow of the Titanic was steadily dipping as the sinking continued, the water pressure outside the damaged area would also have increased with depth. The damaged area was all on the starboard side of the bow section and so could that increased pressure have caused a sudden increase in the rate of flooding and so a corresponding increase in the water ingress on the starboard side?

 

[Jim Currie]

OK. If the port list started to steadily correct itself so as to bring the sinking Titanic to an even keel in the final minutes, it could only have been sudden inundation of water on the high (starboard side). My question is, IF that did occur, what could have caused it?

The initial damage, ie breach of the ship's hull, occurred on the starboard side through which the sea was entering the Titanic, resulting in an early starboard list. But (approximately) by 01:15 am the ship was back on even keel and thereafter steadily started to list to port. Unless I am mistaken (and I am happy to be corrected about this), that happened because there were more large spaces on the port side like the 'Scotland Road', Turkish Bath etc and the equilibrating water filled these spaces steadily.

But prior to the start of the break-up, there was no hull breach on the port side of the Titanic. Also, the ship had no through longitudinal bulkheads AFAIK. So, what sudden internal damage that occurred around 02:15 am could have caused that large volume shift of water from the port to starboard side, thus bringing the ship back to an even keel? Or, was it simply a case of sudden increase in the rate of flooding on the damaged starboard side?

PS: In relation to the above question, can I ask about a possibility that I wondered about? Since the bow of the Titanic was steadily dipping as the sinking continued, the water pressure outside the damaged area would also have increased with depth. The damaged area was all on the starboard side of the bow section and so could that increased pressure have caused a sudden increase in the rate of flooding and so a corresponding increase in the water ingress on the starboard side?

When Titanic stopped, they opened the wt doors in BR bulkheads to allow portable pumping equipment to be carried forward and connected to the pumping system. If they inadvertently pumped out a ballast compartment below the surface level of the floodwater, they might well have created further instability.
Standard practice when a ship was bilged on one side, was first to add water (believe it or not) to the low side. This made the ship more stable. Thereafter, water would be pumped equally from port and starboard sides maintaining stability. If however, they pumped existing ballas from below the hull breaches, then the hull would become more and more unstable and eventually lurch to one side.

When a hull is breached. the water level inside rises to the outside level. Thereafter, pressure equalises throughout all inter connecting compartments open to the sea.

 

[Arun Vajpey]

If they inadvertently pumped out a ballast compartment below the surface level of the floodwater, they might well have created further instability. If however, they pumped existing ballast from below the hull breaches, then the hull would become more and more unstable and eventually lurch to one side.

Was there any indication that the crew inadvertently pumped out the ballast? And IF they had done so, how would it relate to what actually happened ie late 'correction' of the port list?

When a hull is breached. the water level inside rises to the outside level. Thereafter, pressure equalises throughout all inter connecting compartments open to the sea.

That part I have understood (at least I think that I have). I assumed that was the reason why the initial starboard list gradually became a port list - since there were more open spaces on the port side into which the water would flow and equilibrate.

Standard practice when a ship was bilged on one side, was first to add water (believe it or not) to the low side. This made the ship more stable.

I won't pretend to understand this part. How would that help to make the ship more stable?

Getting back to that very late correction of the port list just before the final plunge began, what was the physics involved? The continued flooding through the hull breaches on the starboard side could not caused so sudden a change and so - as you said - there must have been a sudden shift of a large volume of water within the flooded bow from the port to the starboard side, thus bringing the ship back to an even keel. I am asking, IF that happened, what caused it?

 

[Cam Houseman]

That part I have understood (at least I think that I have). I assumed that was the reason why the initial starboard list gradually became a port list - since there were more open spaces on the port side into which the water would flow and equilibrate.

You mean the Stewards' accommodation on E-Deck?

I mean, its plausible, but a good portion of these rooms were aft of the E-Deck staircase, and with the increasing trim, the water would have to go "uphill" to go much farther than the staircase down to the Third Class Dining Saloon

and the Biggest Rooms on F-Deck are the Turkish Baths and Pool

 

[madClockmaker]

I’ve read many testimonies of survivors of the Titanic and I’m trying to figure out if the the First Funnel fell before or after the ship split in two and I’m also wondering which direction the First Funnel fell. The testimonies give no clear answer. What do you think?

It's important to keep track of the context of the story, what a survivor might call the "forward funnel" might be referring to the forward of the two funnels left, not necessarily the most forward funnel on the ship.

 

[madClockmaker]

I’ve read many testimonies of survivors of the Titanic and I’m trying to figure out if the the First Funnel fell before or after the ship split in two and I’m also wondering which direction the First Funnel fell. The testimonies give no clear answer. What do you think?

I think what's tripping people up is that you have to follow the context of the story. The forward funnel on the 2nd half of the ship of the two funnels left is different than the most forward funnel on the entire ship. In context they may be talking about the forward of the two funnels.

 

[madClockmaker]

I’m betting that those animations and calculations don’t take into consideration that something occurred down below that caused that sudden list change. I truly think something gave way around 2:14-2:15 that caused the ship to rock back to an even keel (or maybe even a little to starboard). A loud rumbling was heard when the boat deck became submerged. Maybe the beginning of the break, maybe a failing bulkhead etc.

The even keel was most likely the 2nd half of the ship stabilizing after the split, and the bulk heads turning it temporarily into a self sustaining vessel.

 

[madClockmaker]

Was there any indication that the crew inadvertently pumped out the ballast? And IF they had done so, how would it relate to what actually happened ie late 'correction' of the port list?

That part I have understood (at least I think that I have). I assumed that was the reason why the initial starboard list gradually became a port list - since there were more open spaces on the port side into which the water would flow and equilibrate.


I won't pretend to understand this part. How would that help to make the ship more stable?

Getting back to that very late correction of the port list just before the final plunge began, what was the physics involved? The continued flooding through the hull breaches on the starboard side could not caused so sudden a change and so - as you said - there must have been a sudden shift of a large volume of water within the flooded bow from the port to the starboard side, thus bringing the ship back to an even keel. I am asking, IF that happened, what caused it?

The sudden shift and even keel seems to have happened after the split, guessing it was the stern becoming its own vessel with weight distribution being temporarily protected by the bulk heads creating a self sustaining vessel for a few minutes.

 

[Kyle Naber]

The sudden shift and even keel seems to have happened after the split, guessing it was the stern becoming its own vessel with weight distribution being temporarily protected by the bulk heads creating a self sustaining vessel for a few minutes.

There’s a few pieces of testimony that indicate the bow actually evened out from its port list. This was before the first funnel even fell.

 

[Arun Vajpey]

There’s a few pieces of testimony that indicate the bow actually evened out from its port list. This was before the first funnel even fell.

Irrespective of its relationship to the fall of the first funnel, I'd like to know the actual physics involved in the late part-correction of the port list. Jim above hints that it would have happened due to a sudden shift of a large volume of water - I take it he meant from port to the starboard side. But what caused that shift?

Can it be that parts of the keel and hull started failing a minute or two before the final catastrophic break-up occurred? Or were bulkheads giving way within bowels of the ship? If so, an inrush of water into the starboard side from newly opened-up areas could have caused the port list to partially correct itself before the final break-up happened.

 

[Kyle Naber]

Irrespective of its relationship to the fall of the first funnel, I'd like to know the actual physics involved in the late part-correction of the port list. Jim above hints that it would have happened due to a sudden shift of a large volume of water - I take it he meant from port to the starboard side. But what caused that shift?

Can it be that parts of the keel and hull started failing a minute or two before the final catastrophic break-up occurred? Or were bulkheads giving way within bowels of the ship? If so, an inrush of water into the starboard side from newly opened-up areas could have caused the port list to partially correct itself before the final break-up happened.

It's tough to determine. My guess probably would be a sudden shift of water internally. I think if the ship were to start breaking at that angle, the stern wouldn't have reached that 20-30 degree angle before the big separation many saw.

 

[Arun Vajpey]

It's tough to determine. My guess probably would be a sudden shift of water internally. I think if the ship were to start breaking at that angle, the stern wouldn't have reached that 20-30 degree angle b

Yes, I agree and I think that's what Jim Currie was trying to say in the earlier post. But what I am trying to understand is the cause of that sudden internal shift of a large volume of water from port to starboard which resulted in that partial correction of the port list just before the full break-up.

The way I looked at is that by about 02:15 am the port list was perhaps at its maximum when the Titanic suddenly lost its longitudinal stability and gave that sudden forward and downward lurch at the bow. That in turn resulted in that 'wave' which washed sternwards; during the next 3 or 4 minutes the port list appeared to correct itself while the stern reached an angle of around 25 degrees. The major break-up, witnessed and reported by many survivors, followed.

But Sam Halpern's calculations in his Centennial Reappraisal book show that the stress (the bending force) on the Titanic's keel would have been maximum when the stern was about 11 degrees out of the water. That would have been at around 02:15 am and I am wondering whether that bending/stretching effect resulted in the break-up process starting at that time with several internal structures giving way, including bulkhead and other barrier failures while the keel itself, though under great stress, remained momentarily intact. That internal damage could have resulted in the aforementioned sudden shift of a large volume of water from port to starboard, thereby partially correcting the port list. A few minutes later, as the stern continued to rise, the keel snapped and the full break-up, as witnessed by some survivors, took place.

That is just my rough non-expert conjecture and is open to criticism.

 

[Kyle Naber]

Yes, I agree and I think that's what Jim Currie was trying to say in the earlier post. But what I am trying to understand is the cause of that sudden internal shift of a large volume of water from port to starboard which resulted in that partial correction of the port list just before the full break-up.

The way I looked at is that by about 02:15 am the port list was perhaps at its maximum when the Titanic suddenly lost its longitudinal stability and gave that sudden forward and downward lurch at the bow. That in turn resulted in that 'wave' which washed sternwards; during the next 3 or 4 minutes the port list appeared to correct itself while the stern reached an angle of around 25 degrees. The major break-up, witnessed and reported by many survivors, followed.

But Sam Halpern's calculations in his Centennial Reappraisal book show that the stress (the bending force) on the Titanic's keel would have been maximum when the stern was about 11 degrees out of the water. That would have been at around 02:15 am and I am wondering whether that bending/stretching effect resulted in the break-up process starting at that time with several internal structures giving way, including bulkhead and other barrier failures while the keel itself, though under great stress, remained momentarily intact. That internal damage could have resulted in the aforementioned sudden shift of a large volume of water from port to starboard, thereby partially correcting the port list. A few minutes later, as the stern continued to rise, the keel snapped and the full break-up, as witnessed by some survivors, took place.

That is just my rough non-expert conjecture and is open to criticism.

I wouldn’t dismiss that idea. (Also my non-professional opinion) But I would think if the superstructure were to begin to break, it would all happen at once. Yes, the breakup was a result of a series of events/stresses, but once a crack formed, I’d think it would ALL go. A crack big enough to allow large amounts of water in wouldn’t allow the ship to rise up in one piece that high (25°). Would it?

 

[Cam Houseman]

I wouldn’t dismiss that idea. (Also my non-professional opinion) But I would think if the superstructure were to begin to break, it would all happen at once. Yes, the breakup was a result of a series of events/stresses, but once a crack formed, I’d think it would ALL go. A crack big enough to allow large amounts of water in wouldn’t allow the ship to rise up in one piece that high (25°). Would it?

Right, if the ship supposedly began the break-up phase earlier, how would the ship get steep enough, (about 25-39 degrees) for Olaus Abelseth to see people losing their balance and sliding down the decks?

If Joughin's story can be believed, what if the water in his cabin was from stress fractures?

 

[Arun Vajpey]

A crack big enough to allow large amounts of water in wouldn’t allow the ship to rise up in one piece that high (25°). Would it?

Right, if the ship supposedly began the break-up phase earlier, how would the ship get steep enough, (about 25-39 degrees) for Olaus Abelseth to see people losing their balance and sliding down the decks?

Agreed with both of you, but I'd like to suggest two things ( once again, an unprofessional opinion).

By "earlier", I meant around 02:15 am, just when the Titanic lost its longitudinal stability and gave that sudden lurch forwards and downwards at the bow.

Also, I was referring to some internal barriers and structures within the ship giving way and NOT the keel or the superstructure. Sure, the keel would have been under max stress as Sam Halpern has demonstrated but IMO it might have held on for a few more minutes longer before breaking.

My unqualified theory (and only that) is that with the port list at its maximum around 02:15 am, the pressure of the larger volume of water on that side caused several internal structures within the submerged part of the ship to suddenly give way. The 'lurch' might have caused it. This resulted in a sudden shift of a large volume of water from port to starboard, in turn causing the partial correction of the port list. At that stage the keel was still intact but the continued stretching effect caused the main break perhaps around 02:18 am.