Doug Criner
Member
I too have read the book, What Really Sank the Titanic. My biggest problem with the book is its title. Titanic sank because it collided with an iceberg and because of the resultant internal flooding.
Not named until after the launch?/"Weak rivets," redux
- Thread starter TitanicNerd
- Start date
-
- Tags
- launch
Michaela Famfulikova
Member
Thanks a lot!
Hi all,
Re the weak rivets theory, I think we need to apply just a little bit of common sense here. They were designed to hold the steel plates together and keep the ship watertight under the various regular ocean conditions. They were not designed to do the same when the ship had just plowed side-on into an iceberg at almost full speed. Furthermore, they were not designed to do the same when there's hundreds of tons of water flooding into the various compartments which they encompassed.
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that only a couple of hundred rivets popped during the entire passage of time between striking the iceberg and sinking. That in itself would be more than enough to allow the ocean quicker access to the interior areas of the ship. I can't understand how people think that the ship sustained what was clearly a lot of damage over an extended area and yet the rivets remained completely intact.
I don't believe in any claims that such a theory can be "disproved" because the area of concern is buried under several metres of ocean floor mud. Testing rivets from other parts of the ship is pointless, for the purpose of that particular theory anyway.
Doug, I can understand that title - what you describe is only the end result, there was a number of a factors which led to that end result.
Cheers,
Adam.
Re the weak rivets theory, I think we need to apply just a little bit of common sense here. They were designed to hold the steel plates together and keep the ship watertight under the various regular ocean conditions. They were not designed to do the same when the ship had just plowed side-on into an iceberg at almost full speed. Furthermore, they were not designed to do the same when there's hundreds of tons of water flooding into the various compartments which they encompassed.
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that only a couple of hundred rivets popped during the entire passage of time between striking the iceberg and sinking. That in itself would be more than enough to allow the ocean quicker access to the interior areas of the ship. I can't understand how people think that the ship sustained what was clearly a lot of damage over an extended area and yet the rivets remained completely intact.
I don't believe in any claims that such a theory can be "disproved" because the area of concern is buried under several metres of ocean floor mud. Testing rivets from other parts of the ship is pointless, for the purpose of that particular theory anyway.
Doug, I can understand that title - what you describe is only the end result, there was a number of a factors which led to that end result.
Cheers,
Adam.
David G. Brown
RIP
A couple o' thoughts about rivets --
First, this whole discussion should be in another thread. The rivets had nothing to do with the ship's name.
Second, there is a naivete about book titles. The vast majority if titles are picked by the publisher's marketing department and not the authors of the books. In fact, most authors' titles are rejected in favor of something that corporate bigwigs think will sell better. Of my books, only one carried my working title into production. Six were given titles that I abhor. And, one title was assigned to me and I had to write a book to fit. So, don't judge a book by its title because the author probably had nothing to do with naming his published work.
Finally, the rivets in the debris field are not likely to have come from the bow, and certainly not from the period of time when the ship was in contact with the ice. Titanic was moving at speed when she struck and then continued to shoot forward for some time afterward. That was followed by a brief period of renewed forward motion. The amount of time the ship moved again is in dispute, but one thing certain -- Titanic did not sink directly over the spot where it struck on the iceberg. What did occur nearly directly above the debris field was the breakup of the hull. Tearing a structure apart the size of Titanic was bound to wrench out some rivets, shear others, and generally do a lot of mayhem. And, the evidence of that mayhem is all around on the bottom. It is far more likely that any rivets found laying about were dislodge during the breakup than during impact some distance away from the ship's final resting spot.
-- David G. Brown
First, this whole discussion should be in another thread. The rivets had nothing to do with the ship's name.
Second, there is a naivete about book titles. The vast majority if titles are picked by the publisher's marketing department and not the authors of the books. In fact, most authors' titles are rejected in favor of something that corporate bigwigs think will sell better. Of my books, only one carried my working title into production. Six were given titles that I abhor. And, one title was assigned to me and I had to write a book to fit. So, don't judge a book by its title because the author probably had nothing to do with naming his published work.
Finally, the rivets in the debris field are not likely to have come from the bow, and certainly not from the period of time when the ship was in contact with the ice. Titanic was moving at speed when she struck and then continued to shoot forward for some time afterward. That was followed by a brief period of renewed forward motion. The amount of time the ship moved again is in dispute, but one thing certain -- Titanic did not sink directly over the spot where it struck on the iceberg. What did occur nearly directly above the debris field was the breakup of the hull. Tearing a structure apart the size of Titanic was bound to wrench out some rivets, shear others, and generally do a lot of mayhem. And, the evidence of that mayhem is all around on the bottom. It is far more likely that any rivets found laying about were dislodge during the breakup than during impact some distance away from the ship's final resting spot.
-- David G. Brown
James Garrett
Member
There was another ET discussion of the weak rivet theory presented in the book "What Really Sank The Titanic" but the discussion (while remaining interesting) soon veered a bit off topic so that the result was inconclusive.
https://www.encyclopedia-titanica.o...-theories/10000-about-new-brivetb-theory.html
Mr. Standart's statement that the vast majority of the rivets are where the shipbuilder put them does not conclusively disprove the theory since the authors of that book make that case that only a subset of the rivets installed in near the bow and stern were the ones where the quality was in question. Also only a fraction of the rivets were subjected to enough stress to test their quality.
Perhaps the portion of this thread having to do with "weak rivets" could be moved to that thread since it appears that the original topic of this thread concerning when the ships received their names appears to be settled.
https://www.encyclopedia-titanica.o...-theories/10000-about-new-brivetb-theory.html
Mr. Standart's statement that the vast majority of the rivets are where the shipbuilder put them does not conclusively disprove the theory since the authors of that book make that case that only a subset of the rivets installed in near the bow and stern were the ones where the quality was in question. Also only a fraction of the rivets were subjected to enough stress to test their quality.
Perhaps the portion of this thread having to do with "weak rivets" could be moved to that thread since it appears that the original topic of this thread concerning when the ships received their names appears to be settled.
Michael H. Standart
Member
>>Mr. Standart's statement that the vast majority of the rivets are where the shipbuilder put them does not conclusively disprove the theory since the authors of that book make that case that only a subset of the rivets installed in near the bow and stern were the ones where the quality was in question.<<
The problem with that is that the rivets here were ALL subjected to the violent impact and sheering forces of 52,310 long tons of mass colliding at high speed with something which was going nowhere when the Titanic tried to. When you subject a relatively small area to several million foot pounds of energy in only a few seconds, it doesn't matter how sound the rivets are, the damn things WILL break.
The problem with that is that the rivets here were ALL subjected to the violent impact and sheering forces of 52,310 long tons of mass colliding at high speed with something which was going nowhere when the Titanic tried to. When you subject a relatively small area to several million foot pounds of energy in only a few seconds, it doesn't matter how sound the rivets are, the damn things WILL break.
TitanicNerd
Member
James, I respectively disagree. I believe the rivets were not weak. They were fine for their time. Parks Stephenson wrote an article in the Titanic Commutator about it. I trust in his skill.
TitanicNerd
Member
Exactly. They popped not because they were weak, but because the pressure from the impact was too great. I must disagree with the brittle rivets theory, though.
Damn you Rivet Heads.
Damn you Rivet Heads.
Jim Currie
Member
The whole rivet theory is a pile of garbage. Let me give you a practical example of the reliability of state-of-the-art riveting.
In 1955, when riveting had reached it's technical peak, I was on a brand new ship on her maiden voyage from Greenock in Scotland to Seven Islands in the Gulf of St lawrence. She was a 14,000 ton bulk carrier of composite construction. i.e. she was part riveted - part welded. This kind of construction was prevelant in the bow section.
About 300 miles east of Newfoundland, we encountered thick pea-soup fog. Not only that but the wind rose to force 12 and there were icebergs about. As we crossed the Grand Banks, the seas got shorter and steeper and the ship motion got very violent. So much so, that the spare propeller which was stowed upright aganst the forward side of the collission bulkhead broke loose and began to slide from side to side within the compartment. Eventually, before we had time to secure it, it had punched through both sides of the ship at the bow. The welded parts held but the rivets of the riveted sections in the area sprung, buckled and sheared, allowing the sea to enter through rivet holes and the seams themselves. Fortunately the pumps coped with the flooding and we made it to St. John. There, we had 4000 rivets replaced in the bow.
The point of the story being that a riveted construction, no matter how good, will not stand up to a heavy, side impact as experienced by Titanic. I can't think why the authors of the article suggesting they might have done, bothered to write it; other than to show their superior knowledge of metallurgy.
Jim C.
In 1955, when riveting had reached it's technical peak, I was on a brand new ship on her maiden voyage from Greenock in Scotland to Seven Islands in the Gulf of St lawrence. She was a 14,000 ton bulk carrier of composite construction. i.e. she was part riveted - part welded. This kind of construction was prevelant in the bow section.
About 300 miles east of Newfoundland, we encountered thick pea-soup fog. Not only that but the wind rose to force 12 and there were icebergs about. As we crossed the Grand Banks, the seas got shorter and steeper and the ship motion got very violent. So much so, that the spare propeller which was stowed upright aganst the forward side of the collission bulkhead broke loose and began to slide from side to side within the compartment. Eventually, before we had time to secure it, it had punched through both sides of the ship at the bow. The welded parts held but the rivets of the riveted sections in the area sprung, buckled and sheared, allowing the sea to enter through rivet holes and the seams themselves. Fortunately the pumps coped with the flooding and we made it to St. John. There, we had 4000 rivets replaced in the bow.
The point of the story being that a riveted construction, no matter how good, will not stand up to a heavy, side impact as experienced by Titanic. I can't think why the authors of the article suggesting they might have done, bothered to write it; other than to show their superior knowledge of metallurgy.
Jim C.
James Garrett
Member
Thanks for the input. Jim, that sounds like a scary storm, thanks for the surviving it so you can contribute to this discussion!
I just want to make it clear that (as I alluded to in my posts 25 and 29 earlier in this discussion) I did not have a preconceived notion as to the validity of this theory. What I did think was lacking was a detailed rebuttal of the theory.
When I read "What Really Sank The Titanic", I was impressed at the time by the details and research behind the book. Conflicting with that was the absence of a general pattern of other H&W built vessels having hull failures due to faulty materials or construction methods.
My purpose in participating in this discussion was to find out if there were specific arguments that countered the idea put forward in the book.
I certainly did NOT assume that the use of steel rivets or No. 4 best-best iron instead of the No. 3 best iron used in the bow would have resulted in only scratched paint instead of intermittent damage along over 250 feet of hull! The idea did enter my head that perhaps the damage MAY have been slightly less if rivet quality was an issue as raised in the book.
For example: Has anyone looked into the point about the quality of the iron? Did H&W actually use No. 4 iron for rivets in the earlier ships they built (such as the "Big Four") and not the Titanic as the authors of the book imply? (I understand that the consensus of the participants of this discussion is that it does not matter which of the two types of iron were used).
-James (Devil's Advocate) Garrett
I just want to make it clear that (as I alluded to in my posts 25 and 29 earlier in this discussion) I did not have a preconceived notion as to the validity of this theory. What I did think was lacking was a detailed rebuttal of the theory.
When I read "What Really Sank The Titanic", I was impressed at the time by the details and research behind the book. Conflicting with that was the absence of a general pattern of other H&W built vessels having hull failures due to faulty materials or construction methods.
My purpose in participating in this discussion was to find out if there were specific arguments that countered the idea put forward in the book.
I certainly did NOT assume that the use of steel rivets or No. 4 best-best iron instead of the No. 3 best iron used in the bow would have resulted in only scratched paint instead of intermittent damage along over 250 feet of hull! The idea did enter my head that perhaps the damage MAY have been slightly less if rivet quality was an issue as raised in the book.
For example: Has anyone looked into the point about the quality of the iron? Did H&W actually use No. 4 iron for rivets in the earlier ships they built (such as the "Big Four") and not the Titanic as the authors of the book imply? (I understand that the consensus of the participants of this discussion is that it does not matter which of the two types of iron were used).
-James (Devil's Advocate) Garrett
TitanicNerd
Member
What an interesting and at the same party scary story, Jim!
TitanicNerd
Member
No. 4 Iron? What is this? What I know is that Titanic was made with the same rivets as Olympic. If Titanic's rivets were "weak" then Olympic had a lot of luck, because she rammed a submarine, got in a storm, hit a ship, hit another ship off of Nantucket. No rivets popped, except some because, again, the pressure would just be too great. Bottom line, the rivets were not weak.
Hi all,
Well it sounds to me as if most of us are actually on a similar wavelength here - that the rivets in the Titanic were fine for her time, but given the sheer force of the impact with the iceberg, many of them were bound to break or at least be seriously affected. Again, they weren't designed for such an impact - in fact, I would go so far as to say that even if the Titanic had been welded like the ship Jim described, such an impact would still have caused significant damage.
It's like a car - you can have all the safety features in the world and be driving a perfectly constructed vehicle, but if you hit a large solid object at high speed, it's still going to cause a whole heap of damage.
It's all well and good to test iron and rivets from parts of the wreck which weren't affected by the iceberg, but the impact zone is of most interest and that isn't likely to ever be seen again by human eyes.
Cheers,
Adam.
Well it sounds to me as if most of us are actually on a similar wavelength here - that the rivets in the Titanic were fine for her time, but given the sheer force of the impact with the iceberg, many of them were bound to break or at least be seriously affected. Again, they weren't designed for such an impact - in fact, I would go so far as to say that even if the Titanic had been welded like the ship Jim described, such an impact would still have caused significant damage.
It's like a car - you can have all the safety features in the world and be driving a perfectly constructed vehicle, but if you hit a large solid object at high speed, it's still going to cause a whole heap of damage.
It's all well and good to test iron and rivets from parts of the wreck which weren't affected by the iceberg, but the impact zone is of most interest and that isn't likely to ever be seen again by human eyes.
Cheers,
Adam.
Jim Currie
Member
T
Rivets are but one part of the construction process. There is one aspect of this which does not seem to have been considered.. shell side framing.
Construction method consisted of erecting frames spaced at 24 inches at the bow and increasing to (I think) 36 inches from just forward of boiler room 6. Steel plates were vertically riveted to these frames and the plates themselves riveted to each other, both vertically and horizontally. The horizontal seams were double, treble and quadrupal riveted. The result was an enormously strong structure located on and between two very large steel beams. The following picture if of men working on the port side of Titanic on the slip-way.
/
Note the heavy horizontal riveting and the vertical line of rivets which follow the line of the internal frames.
Just imagine what force would be needed to bend the hull plates in between these frames and what limited effect sheared rivets would have,
Jim C.
Rivets are but one part of the construction process. There is one aspect of this which does not seem to have been considered.. shell side framing.
Construction method consisted of erecting frames spaced at 24 inches at the bow and increasing to (I think) 36 inches from just forward of boiler room 6. Steel plates were vertically riveted to these frames and the plates themselves riveted to each other, both vertically and horizontally. The horizontal seams were double, treble and quadrupal riveted. The result was an enormously strong structure located on and between two very large steel beams. The following picture if of men working on the port side of Titanic on the slip-way.
/
Note the heavy horizontal riveting and the vertical line of rivets which follow the line of the internal frames.
Just imagine what force would be needed to bend the hull plates in between these frames and what limited effect sheared rivets would have,
Jim C.
TitanicNerd
Member
Amazing to think a chunk of ice has enough force to pop rivets and flood the Titanic.
