Weak Rivets May Have Sped Sinking of Titanic

Pickens writes "Metallurgists studying the hulk of the Titanic argue that the liner went down fast after hitting an iceberg because the ship's builder used substandard rivets that popped their heads and let tons of icy seawater rush in. They say that better rivets would have probably kept the Titanic afloat long enough for rescuers to have arrived, saving hundreds of lives. The team collected clues from 48 Titanic rivets and found many riddled with high concentrations of slag, a glassy residue of smelting that can make iron brittle. To test whether this extra slag weakened the rivets, scientists commissioned a blacksmith to make rivets to the same specifications as those used to join steel plates in the hull of the Titanic. When the plates were bent in the laboratory, the rivet heads popped off at loads of about 4,000 kg. With the right slag content they should have held up to about 9,000 kg. Even a few failures because of flawed metal would have been sufficient to unzip entire seams, because as faulty rivets popped, more stress would have been placed on the good ones, causing them to break in turn. The shipbuilder, which is still in existence, denies it all."

Comments

Re:What is the fascination with the Titanic?

[Turn-X Alphonse]

Because the Titanic was labeled as "the best thing since sliced bread" and went out of it's way to seem grand and impressive. Then it sunk on it's first voyage and proved that even the grandest of things are but a paper weight should you have no luck. It is the ultimate in luxury and a bad luck story rolled into one, so people find it fasinating.

Re:What is the fascination with the Titanic?

[Alioth]

There are several reasons why:

1. Schadenfraude: the immense hubris of the builders and operators of the Titanic were key factors in the loss of the ship. Stories where supreme arrogance is dealt a blow by nature are always fascinating to people.
2. A grand supposedly unsinkable ship sinking on her first voyage.
3. This accident prompted a sea change (pun intended) in maritime safety practices.

From an accident investigation standpoint, it is also the classic demonstrator of the accident chain. Many maritime and aviation accidents consist of a long chain of direct events that occur over a considerable period of time, and if any of the links been broken, the accident wouldn't have occurred.

Re:How is this new information?

[Noishe]

Step 1: Build the Olympic.
Step 2: Crap that was expensive.
Step 3: Cut costs when building the Titanic.
Step 4: Profit

oh and... hit by a mine? I can easily explain how the Britannic went down...... it was hit by a freaking mine!!!

Re:How is this new information?

[Firethorn]

oh and... hit by a mine? I can easily explain how the Britannic went down...... it was hit by a freaking mine!!!

But the damage might of been survivable if a number of features had worked or been used. It was noted that a number of doors couldn't be sealed. Damage to two watertight compartments I can understand, maybe even three, but a couple more compartments remaining water tight might of made a huge difference. Another thing noted was that the nurses aboard had opened most of the portholes to ventilate the wards. If those had been closed, it would have slowed things as well.

Still, they did manage to get everyone off the ship, though there were casualties from boats launched without authorization that got hit by the propellors.

I do like your steps 1-4, they do make sense. Note: The Iceberg might of been the primary cause of the loss of the titanic, but I'll view it like a car and crash safety standards - sure, a crash isn't normal operating procedure, but safety in a crash is a required design measure for cars. Sturdy rivets not only increase the life of the ship, they also help it survive damage - whether that allows the ship to be saved like the USS Cole, or simply keeps it above water long enough to be evacuated.

Re:How is this new information?

[ultranova]

If the rivets were such inferior quality why did the Olympic sail without problems (including being rammed by the cruiser HMS Hawke) for 24 years?

Perhaps precisely because it sailed without problems ? That is, it never ran into situation where the strength of the rivets might be tested.

It's similar to how most people who don't use seatbelts don't die in traffick accidents. It's a risk-increasing factor, not an automatic death sentence. It only becomes the latter when an accident happens.