How did the Titanic really sink?

snafuk35

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLGf3QWJxeo

Using the latest evidence from the wreck site a panel of experts debate with filmaker James Cameron about how the RMS Titanic really met its end in 1912.
They talk about how it was wounded by the iceberg, how it flooded and the sequence of events that led up to its breakup and its final voyage to the bottom of the Atlantic.

The evidence shows that as the Titanic began to flood through a series of breeches in its starboard side it began to list to port as it went down by the head. This was due to the interior layout of the ship in particular a long corridor known as Scotland Road. The ship did not rear up to the 45 degrees depicted in Cameron's movie 15 years ago but in fact broke in half when it listed at about 23 degrees. After the forward section sank the detached stern section did not go entirely vertical either but keeled over to port and capzised before sinking. Detailed analysis explains how the debris became distributed and how the stern section became so bad damaged during its descent below the surface.

nuac

There was a good TV programme on this durng the week,

Mention of the heroism of the crew below decks who kept power going for lights and SOS messages.

Such a sad litany of negligence - not enough life boats, watertight bulkheads inadequate, ship doing 20+ knots in an iceberg area, steaming ahead after rupture thus shipping more seawater, steerage passengers locked below etc etc.

dubhthach

Decent article here:
http://axion.physics.ubc.ca/titanic/

Including photos of refitting of Titanic sister with a double hull. The Titanic only had a double bottom. In comparison Brunel's Great Eastern had a full "double hull", that and it's bulkheads went all the way to the main-deck.

dubhthach

Article about modifications to RMS Olympic (Titanic older sister) after sinking here:
http://www.titanicology.com/Modifications_To_Olympic.html

pakalasa

dubhthach wrote: »

........it's bulkheads went all the way to the main-deck.

There was a programme on TV during the week which gave this as the most sgnificant factor in the sinking. The top of the bulkheads were only 3 metres above the water line. When the ship tilted forward, the water simply poured in over them.

franc 91

I think I'm right in saying that they thought that the iceberg scraped alongside the hull (as in fact they did try to avoid it) and as it did so, it ripped off the rivets on the surface - this meant that the metal sheets that made up the outer skin came away and seawater came directly into the ship at several levels.

dmcronin

The damaged area in now buried in mud so we can't see what happened, an early school of thought was that the iceberg ripped through the steel, nowadays the concensus is that it bumped along the 'berg and the impact(s) popped the rivets along the hull, the turn-of-the-century steel comprising the rivet being brittle at sub zero temperatures.

Also there was a bunker fire early on in the voyage that weakened a bulkhead that burst under weight of water when she was flooding.

pedroeibar1

dmcronin wrote: »

......... it bumped along the 'berg and the impact(s) popped the rivets along the hull,

Yes; impact pressure of the ship's hull on the side of the berg would cause the rivets to pop and the sheets of steel hull to tear away.

dmcronin wrote: »

the turn-of-the-century steel comprising the rivet being brittle at sub zero temperatures.

No; iron is already frozen as it is a solid with a melting point of 1535 deg.C - so it freezes at one degree below that.
Sea water freezes a just a few degrees below that of fresh water (depends on salinity). The temperature differential is minute and had nothing to do with the rivets popping.