Would the Titanic be able to close its watertight doors in a head-on collision?

[Lex Aldrace]

While watching Titanic Honor and Glory's Britannic real time video, I heard them mention that the mine explosion twisted Britannic's hull enough to jam two watertight doors. Since I expect slamming into what is basically a floating mountain will impart more force on to the ship, would the Titanic's hull be un-warped enough be able to close enough of its watertight doors (assuming it survives the collision mostly intact) to prevent it from sinking?

 

[Thomas Krom]

In the order of events as it happened that night I doubt that all the vertical watertight doors would have been closed in time before the head-on impact, the sudden impact at an estimated 20 and a half knots would possibly caused some of the vertical watertight doors to jam, as it did on the Britannic when she hit the mine on the 21st of November 1916. The impact and the jamming caused by it most likely would have intervened with the fail-safe system of the vertical watertight doors when water was near as well, which caused them to automatically close in a case of flooding.

Not many people know that the lever on the navigating bridge only closed the vertical watertight doors down at the tank top (this includes the vertical watertight door at the end of the firemen's tunnel, all the boiler rooms, reciprocating engine room, low pressure turbine engine room, electric engine room and the propeller shafts). The horizontal watertight doors on E, F and Orlop deck had to be closed with the hand by either the able bodied seamen or the victualling crew after the event of a collision.

According to recent calculations a head-on-collision with the iceberg at a speed of 22.5 knots, the estimated speed the Titanic had based on the last known revolutions of the reciprocating engine engines, the Titanic would have lost her first, forward three watertight compartments, with the watertight bulkheads A and B being destroyed in a pile up of rubble, and the firemen’s tunnel running under the forward holds being completely flooded as far back as bulkhead D. Of-course, even with accurate calculations like the one here we cannot exactly estimate say: "Well, this steel plate went in-ward, and this one goes out-ward." or anything on the likes of that.


If this scenario above is accurate it would mean that the vertical watertight door at the end of the firemen's tunnel or the forward vertical watertight door of boiler room number 6 along with the horizontal watertight door of watertight compartment C on F-deck would play a key role in the worst-case scenarios of the collision and could potentially make a difference.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

I don't believe it is a fair comparison to equate a head-on collision to a mine explosion. The deceleration of the vessel during a head-on event would have crushed in structures in the bow over a period of about 4 seconds and reach a maximum of slightly less than 1/2 g just before the vessel is stopped dead in the water. The energy of impact of a head-on collision being absorbed over about a hundred feet, or thereabouts. An explosion by torpedo or mine would produced much much more destruction in the immediate area of the explosion, enough to bend bulkheads, etc, on either side, besides opening up a large space in the hull plates.

 

[Jim Currie]

In the order of events as it happened that night I doubt that all the vertical watertight doors would have been closed in time before the head-on impact, the sudden impact at an estimated 20 and a half knots would possibly caused some of the vertical watertight doors to jam, as it did on the Britannic when she hit the mine on the 21st of November 1916. The impact and the jamming caused by it most likely would have intervened with the fail-safe system of the vertical watertight doors when water was near as well, which caused them to automatically close in a case of flooding.

Not many people know that the lever on the navigating bridge only closed the vertical watertight doors down at the tank top (this includes the vertical watertight door at the end of the firemen's tunnel, all the boiler rooms, reciprocating engine room, low pressure turbine engine room, electric engine room and the propeller shafts). The horizontal watertight doors on E, F and Orlop deck had to be closed with the hand by either the able bodied seamen or the victualling crew after the event of a collision.

According to recent calculations a head-on-collision with the iceberg at a speed of 22.5 knots, the estimated speed the Titanic had based on the last known revolutions of the reciprocating engine engines, the Titanic would have lost her first, forward three watertight compartments, with the watertight bulkheads A and B being destroyed in a pile up of rubble, and the firemen’s tunnel running under the forward holds being completely flooded as far back as bulkhead D. Of-course, even with accurate calculations like the one here we cannot exactly estimate say: "Well, this steel plate went in-ward, and this one goes out-ward." or anything on the likes of that.


If this scenario above is accurate it would mean that the vertical watertight door at the end of the firemen's tunnel or the forward vertical watertight door of boiler room number 6 along with the horizontal watertight door of watertight compartment C on F-deck would play a key role in the worst-case scenarios of the collision and could potentially make a difference.

Hello Thomas,
Since you are familiar with shipbuilding practice, you will know that Bulkhead A on Titanic was the collision bulkhead, and as such would have had, like most other such bulkheads, a design strength about +20% above the strength of all other main WT Bulkheads.
In addition, the designers would have included planned top speed in their collision bulkhead and bow stiffening strength considerations. i.e. 23+ knots.
I know that the collision bulkhead was offset at the top and the BoT Surveyor complained about this. However, I would be fascinated to see the calculations which determined that the collision bulkhead would have catastrophically as you described.
As Sam points out, you cannot compare mine damage on the ship's side Brittanic) to a head-on collision. However, I have heard of ships having their bows blown off by a mine, yet surviving. Bottom line is that a ship that hits anything usually does so with its bow. The Hawke incident comes to mind.

 

[Thomas Krom]

Hello Thomas,

Hello Captain Currie,

I am terribly sorry for my late response, I was sound asleep when your post was published. Every since July it isn't going well with me with some very negative strokes of bad luck following me about after something happened which is the worst thing that ever happened to me.

I know that the collision bulkhead was offset at the top and the BoT Surveyor complained about this.

Yes, indeed. On April 25th 1910 the Belfast Board of Trade surveyor Francis Carruthers, who was tasked to oversee the construction of the Olympic class liners, provided a sketch of the watertight compartments on the Olympic class liners to his superior in London, a man named William Archer. Mr. Carruthers was concerned that the collision bulkhead did not go up in a straight line, but was stepped, so that the uppermost area was closer than the rules stipulated, or 1/20th of the vessel's length. Mr. Archer agreed with Mr. Carruthers, although Harland and Wolff disagreed, explaining although the bulkhead went up high enough the drawing offices said that it would be "very difficult" to modify the plans.

Ultimately a compromise was reached, whereby the second bulkhead along would also go up to the underside of D deck, just as the first.

Since you are familiar with shipbuilding practice, you will know that Bulkhead A on Titanic was the collision bulkhead, and as such would have had, like most other such bulkheads, a design strength about +20% above the strength of all other main WT Bulkheads.

I am familiair with it, the collision bulkhead was fitted for the specific purpose of serving as an inner skin in the event that the bow should be broken open in an end-on collision with other vessels. The collision bulkhead had stiffeners that were of bulb angle between E and D Decks, while extra-thick channel bars of 6 inches and then 12 inches deep were used within the chain locker and Forepeak Tank respectively.


A good example of the practicality of the collision bulkhead in an end-on collision with other vessels, in my humble opinion at-least would be the collision between the SS Florida and RMS Republic on the 23rd of January 1909. There's a photograph of the damaged Florida when she returned to Brooklyn that shows the collision bulkhead intact after the squashed remains of the bow plating were removed, sadly I cannot find this exact photograph online.

However, I would be fascinated to see the calculations which determined that the collision bulkhead would have catastrophically as you described.

The calculations come from Mr. Halpern his article "Brace For Collision", a link of the article will be provided here: http://www.titanicology.com/Titanica/BraceForCollision. The calculations are matters of dissipated energy, force and deceleration Vs. distance and deriving values for a speed. If the calculations are correct it would have meant that during the event of a head-on-collision with the iceberg at a speed of 22.5 knots the crushing distance would have been 80 feet in length and the extent of the damage 107 feet in length.

As Sam points out, you cannot compare mine damage on the ship's side Brittanic) to a head-on collision. However, I have heard of ships having their bows blown off by a mine, yet surviving.

I agree that it cannot be exactly compared to the impact with a nautical mine as with the HMHS Britannic on the 21st of November 1916. I only referred to a possibility that the forward vertical watertight doors could have been jammed in the same manner as with the mine impact. I don't want to state it as a fact but rather as something we cannot confirm or deny that it would have happened since we sadly cannot change the elements to their most optimal performance in an event that never took place. That is the only thought I included on the matter.


I remember earlier this year I had a conversation with someone who believed an improvised wooden wall would have saved the ship from sinking. Despite that some people attempted to talk sense into him, he believed absurd matters such as that this bulkhead would suddenly stop the intake of water forward of the location where he placed this improvised wall.


I hope you are doing well.



Yours sincerely,

Thomas

 

[Jim Currie]

Hello Captain Currie,

I am terribly sorry for my late response, I was sound asleep when your post was published. Every since July it isn't going well with me with some very negative strokes of bad luck following me about after something happened which is the worst thing that ever happened to me.

Yes, indeed. On April 25th 1910 the Belfast Board of Trade surveyor Francis Carruthers, who was tasked to oversee the construction of the Olympic class liners, provided a sketch of the watertight compartments on the Olympic class liners to his superior in London, a man named William Archer. Mr. Carruthers was concerned that the collision bulkhead did not go up in a straight line, but was stepped, so that the uppermost area was closer than the rules stipulated, or 1/20th of the vessel's length. Mr. Archer agreed with Mr. Carruthers, although Harland and Wolff disagreed, explaining although the bulkhead went up high enough the drawing offices said that it would be "very difficult" to modify the plans.

Ultimately a compromise was reached, whereby the second bulkhead along would also go up to the underside of D deck, just as the first.

I am familiair with it, the collision bulkhead was fitted for the specific purpose of serving as an inner skin in the event that the bow should be broken open in an end-on collision with other vessels. The collision bulkhead had stiffeners that were of bulb angle between E and D Decks, while extra-thick channel bars of 6 inches and then 12 inches deep were used within the chain locker and Forepeak Tank respectively.


A good example of the practicality of the collision bulkhead in an end-on collision with other vessels, in my humble opinion at-least would be the collision between the SS Florida and RMS Republic on the 23rd of January 1909. There's a photograph of the damaged Florida when she returned to Brooklyn that shows the collision bulkhead intact after the squashed remains of the bow plating were removed, sadly I cannot find this exact photograph online.

The calculations come from Mr. Halpern his article "Brace For Collision", a link of the article will be provided here: http://www.titanicology.com/Titanica/BraceForCollision. The calculations are matters of dissipated energy, force and deceleration Vs. distance and deriving values for a speed. If the calculations are correct it would have meant that during the event of a head-on-collision with the iceberg at a speed of 22.5 knots the crushing distance would have been 80 feet in length and the extent of the damage 107 feet in length.

I agree that it cannot be exactly compared to the impact with a nautical mine as with the HMHS Britannic on the 21st of November 1916. I only referred to a possibility that the forward vertical watertight doors could have been jammed in the same manner as with the mine impact. I don't want to state it as a fact but rather as something we cannot confirm or deny that it would have happened since we sadly cannot change the elements to their most optimal performance in an event that never took place. That is the only thought I included on the matter.


I remember earlier this year I had a conversation with someone who believed an improvised wooden wall would have saved the ship from sinking. Despite that some people attempted to talk sense into him, he believed absurd matters such as that this bulkhead would suddenly stop the intake of water forward of the location where he placed this improvised wall.


I hope you are doing well.



Yours sincerely,

Thomas

Hello Thomas.
I am very sorry to hear that you have had a terrible experience. I can well imagine how that affected you. Please do not feel you need you answer posts immediately

I too remember that post you referred to. Unfortunately, practicality is not always at the forefront of the minds of some posters.

Take care,

Jim C.