Slowing Titanic's flooding/sinking

[Michael H. Standart]

>>It would take some very complex differential equations involving rates of flooding, rates of flow through doors only slightly opened, and rates of pumping out the water to determine whether this could have saved the ship, or at least bought more time.<<

The problem is, they didn't really have time for any of that. They did in fact try to hold the line at Boiler Room Five since they already knew that once it was lost, the ships stability and bouyancy would rapidly go into the negetive.

Even if they had people around capable of doing the skull sweat...and they probably did...the really big problem is that the level of damage control training and resources which we take for granted as being availble today simply did not exist.

 

[steven p greiner]

>>It would take some very complex differential equations involving rates of flooding, rates of flow through doors only slightly opened, and rates of pumping out the water to determine whether this could have saved the ship, or at least bought more time.<<
Nope, no time for any of that.
Really, the Titanic did a pretty darn good job of staying afloat as long as she did, no thanks to anyone except her designers. After all, this WAS 1912, and she really was a technological wonder for the time.
I enjoy speculating how she compares to other wrecks, and how she would so in the scenarios that sent them to the bottom. (yeah, I know, wrong thread) Especially the Lusitania torpedo hit, and the hit amidships to the Andrea Doria by the Stockholm. (I think she would have taken that shot and not foundered, as the A.D. did some forty-something years later)
I guess that if there is a point here it is that disaster or not, she was built pretty darn well. Of course there were compromises regarding compartmentalization say, compared with a warship but that is as normal now as it was then....It was a very lucky shot for the berg, and a very unlucky shot for the Titanic. One hundred years later, it is unanimous that people would never consider ANY ship unsinkable, but at least now we have the technology to save everyone should anything happen. They had 2-1/2 hours to get off safely after all, more time than the one man on board gave her to live.

 

[ADeblois]

I recently hit upon an idea related to Titanic's catastrophic flooding.

My question is: Couldn't Captain Smith have ordered the aft spaces near the stern counter-flooded to reduce the water ingress forward, to buy more time for lowering the lifeboats? I think this could theoretically be possible, because this could have brought Titanic more on an even keel reducing the seawater pressure on the forward bulkheads, as well as leveling the water level inside each of the flooded compartments. The logic being that it would take longer to flood each compartment. The ship would have probably still foundered, but Titanic could have stayed afloat longer, perhaps long enough for Carpathia to arrive and help to rescue passengers.

 

[Jake Peterson]

You mean, like opening the Watertight doors, and having it flood evenly, or are you saying that they should somehow pump more water in the stern, pulling the bow up?

 

[ADeblois]

If you read the text below, you might understand more of what I am talking about...

View attachment counterflooding titanic.txt

I copied this from a webpage -- credit for the above text goes to Jeffrey R. Charles.

 

[Jake Peterson]

Thanks! I sort of see where you're coming from.

My thoughts are: Sure they could spread the water evenly through out the other compartments and control it, but there would still be water rushing in, unchecked.

I'm intrigued by your friend's theory of 2200 people standing on the stern of the Titanic: Let's say 2200 people with an average weight of 170 pounds (some more, some less) would equal 374,000 pounds.

So, in theory it COULD work, but that would mean that 2200 people would be standing on the stern of the ship.

 

[Adam Went]

This sounds very similar to the theory of leaving the watertight doors open and allowing even flooding, a scenario which has been scientifically tested in the past and which showed that the Titanic would have actually gone down about half an hour sooner. The main problem is that while it would have allowed the ship to settle on a more even keel, it only takes one weight movement to either side of the ship with that amount of water in the interior to probably cause the ship to capsize, which would have been even more disasterous.

 

[Michael H. Standart]

>>This sounds very similar to the theory of leaving the watertight doors open and allowing even flooding, a scenario which has been scientifically tested in the past and which showed that the Titanic would have actually gone down about half an hour sooner.<<

It was worse then even that, Adam. With the after sections flooding out, they would have lost power and been left in the dark a lot sooner then they actually were. (People tend to forget that the after portion of the ship was where the dynamos were located. Then there's the whole capsize problem you mentioned which would have been caused by free surface action. With a hull girder stressed to the point where it broke up, I don't think the hogging would have helped either had the ship been counterflooded in the manner proposed.

 

[JollyJack]

The web page referenced above contains this gem: "I first thought of the technique in 1970, when I was in the seventh grade."

I don't think they teach Naval Architechture in the 7th Grade, do they? Even a rudimentary understanding of what GM is makes this theory laughable. (and no, GM has nothing to do with motor vehicles, it's the difference between KM and KG. If you don't know what either of these are, why are you wearing out your fingertips typing about a subject which is a complete mystery to you?)

 

[Mark Baber]

I don't think they teach Naval Architechture in the 7th Grade, do they? Even a rudimentary understanding of what GM is makes this theory laughable. (and no, GM has nothing to do with motor vehicles, it's the difference between KM and KG. If you don't know what either of these are, why are you wearing out your fingertips typing about a subject which is a complete mystery to you?)

Moderator's hat on:

If you want to be rude and snide, JollyJack, please do so somewhere else. Here, limit your comments to the content of the article, not to personal comments about its author.

Moderator's hat off.

 

[Michael Kestner]

Titanic's pumps were fighting a losing battle as it was, against water flowing in at an intial rate of almost 12 times as great as their ability to remove it. Turning some of the pumping capacity towards moving water around in the ship instead of slowing the flooding, would not have helped at all, and likely would have made it worse, for reasons explained in the posts above mine. I truly think Titanic's crew did the best job they possibly could have prolonging the ships life, given the available equipment and knowledge.

 

[Michael H. Standart]

No they don't teach naval architecture in grade school, however, that's no barrier to us learning a bit about it here. For anybody who wants a description of such concepts as metecentric high, centre of gravity and so on, click on Metacentric Height

Keep in mind that the Engineers, notably Chief Engineer Bell, knew the ship as well as anybody and he along with his team did the best they could with the skills they had and the limited understanding of the dynamics of shipboard damage control. A lot of the skills we take for granted today would only be won through combat experience in two world wars and even if they had that understanding, I doubt it would have been all that helpful.

With a third of the ship's length open to the sea, they were fighting a delaying action in a battle they couldn't possibly win.

 

[Augusto Félix Solari]

Hello to all!

Somebody should also take into account that if that had happened, both ends of the ship would have been flooded. Thus, the dry area located in the middle of Titanic would be boyant while the bow and stern sections would be pulling the ship down. It is my impression that the ship would have broken in two and not necessarily late in the sinking.

I hope this helps!

 

[Scott Mills]

I think I either read, or saw a documentary, about this very question.

The maritime engineers involved in the project concluded that opening the bulkheads to allow even flooding would have meant Titanic would:

1: Lost all electric power as the engines and dynamos would have flooded right away

2: Iirc they also stated that the ship would have sunk 40 minutes sooner, and could have possibly rolled.

This of course does not answer your question about counter flooding. I would wonder if this was even possible for her. Not just from a physical standpoint, she was not a ship of war after all, but for a human stand point with a crew on a brand new ship being asked to manage what I am sure would be a very complicated task.

 

[Michael Kestner]

I think I either read, or saw a documentary, about this very question.

The maritime engineers involved in the project concluded that opening the bulkheads to allow even flooding would have meant Titanic would:

1: Lost all electric power as the engines and dynamos would have flooded right away

2: Iirc they also stated that the ship would have sunk 40 minutes sooner, and could have possibly rolled.

This of course does not answer your question about counter flooding. I would wonder if this was even possible for her. Not just from a physical standpoint, she was not a ship of war after all, but for a human stand point with a crew on a brand new ship being asked to manage what I am sure would be a very complicated task.

While Titanic was a new ship, Chief Engineer Bell had 10 months of experience with Olympic to draw on. Titanic was mechanically identical to Olympic, engines, pumping arrangements, etc would have all been the same. They could probably have used the bilge pumps to move water from Titanic's forward ballast tanks to ones in the stern, but I think water outside of those tanks could only be pumped out. Like I said earlier though, using pumping capacity to move water around INSIDE the ship would mean less pumping capacity for moving water OUT of the ship.