Heaven’s Light is our Guide

Rajshahi University of Engineering & Technology

Department of Materials Science & Engineering
Sessional Assignment

Course No: MSE 2212

Course Title: Crystal Defect, Deformation and Fracture
Sessional
Assignment No: 01
Assignment Title: Failure of Titanic: A Metallurgical Aspect

Submitted by:
Name: Mahafuja Akter
Student ID: 2113001

Submitted to:
Abdullah-Al-Mazed Khan
Lecturer
Department of Materials Science & Engineering, RUET.

Date of Submission: 07-10-2024

Title: Failure of Titanic: A Metallurgical Aspect

Abstract:
This article introduces the reasons behind the titanic sink. The engineering evidence
suggests that it is an unsinkable ship [1].. At a moment the ship struck the iceberg below the
waterline on its starboard (right) side near the bow in about 40s.Being destroying the integrity
of the six forward watertight compartments, the iceberg raked the hull of the ship for 100 m.
The RMS Titanic sank within 2hr 40 min. Even during the American and British inquiries
into the disaster, few questions focused on the structural aspects of the ship. Despite
survivors’ testimonies, it was concluded that the ship sank intact. A full-ship model was
graphically constructed, employing a modern approach similar to that used for US Navy
destroyers and cruisers today[1].

The mode of this article is to explain the material failures and design flaws that contributed to
the rapid sinking of the Titanic. Specifically, brittle fracture of the hull steel, failure of the
rivets, and flaws in the watertight compartments will be analyzed. Human factors that
contributed to the sinking will not be reviewed. In addition to the causes for the sinking, the
effects of the disaster are reviewed. As a result of the Titanic disaster, changes were made in
ship design, such as double hulls and taller bulkheads. Also, stricter standards for safety
regulations governing ships at sea were implemented, including mandatory use of electronic
communication, minimum lifeboat capacities, and the development of the ice patrol. The first
section of the article is a historical overview of the Titanic disaster. This section includes
statistics on the Titanic and a timeline of the disaster. The next section of the article is a
discussion of the material failures and design flaws that contributed to the rapid sinking of the
Titanic. In the last section, the design changes made to ships and the safety regulations that
have been developed as a result of the Titanic disaster are explained. The article concludes
with a review of the causes and effects of the rapid sinking of the Titanic. In addition, the
conclusion provides a future perspective on the limitations of the shipbuilding industry[2]

1.Introduction:

At the time of her construction, the Titanic was the largest ship ever built. She was nearly
900 feet long, stood 25 stories high, and weighed an incredible 46,000 tons [Division, 1997].
With turn-of-the-century design and technology, including sixteen major watertight
compartments in her lower section that could easily be sealed off in the event of a punctured
hull, the Titanic was deemed an unsinkable ship. According to her builders, even in the worst
possible accident at sea, two ships colliding, the Titanic would stay afloat for two to three
days, which would provide enough time for nearby ships to help. On April 14, 1912,
however, the Titanic sideswiped a massive iceberg and sank in less than three hours.
Damaging nearly 300 feet of the ship's hull, the collision allowed water to flood six of her
sixteen major watertight compartments. She was on her maiden voyage to the United States,
carrying more than 2200 passengers and crew, when she foundered. Only 705 of those aboard
the Titanic ever reached their destination. After what seemed like a minor collision with an
iceberg, the largest ship ever built sank in a fraction of the time estimated for her worst
possible accident at sea. International community was highly shocked by this sensational
tragedy and insisted to conduct the better maritime safety regulations. However, there were
many reasons behind the huge loss of life of titanic ship. Although the steel was
probably as good as was available at the time the ship was constructed, it was very
inferior when compared with modern steel [3]

This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-SA

Fig 01: RMS Titanic

2.Materials composition of RMS Titanic:

The RMS Titanic was constructed using a variety of materials.

2.1 Chemical Composition:

1.Steel:

▪ Iron (Fe): The primary component, about 98%.

▪ Carbon (C): Around 0.1% to 0.3%, which improves hardness and

strength.
▪ Manganese (Mn): About 0.3% to 0.7%. Improve ductility and
toughness.
▪ Silicon (Si): About.02-.04%.

▪ Phosphorus: 0.04–0.06%
2.Glass:
● Silicon dioxide (SiO₂), silika:70-75%

● Sodium oxide (Na₂O), or soda:12-15%

● Calcium oxide (CaO), or lime: ~10-12%

3.Rivets:
 ▪ Iron rivets

▪ Steel rivets

3.Materials Failure:
When the Titanic struck the iceberg, both the hull steel and the wrought iron rivets
experienced failure due to brittle fracture. This type of catastrophic failure occurs in structural
materials without any prior plastic deformation and at extremely high speeds. Several factors
contribute to brittle fracture, including low temperatures, high impact loading, and high sulfur
content.
On the night of the Titanic disaster, all three of these factors were present: the water
temperature was below freezing, the Titanic was traveling at a high speed upon impact with
the iceberg, and the hull steel
contained elevated levels of sulfur.
The failure appears to have occurred
over a range of spatial and temporal
scales–from the atomic-scale process
of embrittlement of iron rivets to
global-scale fluctuations in climate
and ocean currents[4].

4.Tensile testing:
The hull steel specimen used for tensile testing had a diameter of 0.625 cm and a gage
length of 2.5 cm. These dimensions were not the original size of the Titanic's hull plates, as
corrosion from seawater had reduced their thickness, making it impossible to test standard-
sized specimens. The following table presents the results from the tensile tests conducted on
the Titanic's steel, alongside comparable data for SAE 1020 steel, which has a similar
composition.

The table shows that the steel from Titanic has a

lower yield strength. This could be due to the fact
that it has a larger grain size. Infect, tensile testing
has shown that the Titanic steel has approximately one-third the impact strength of modern
steel. The elongation increases more in Titanic steel, which again, is most likely due to its
larger grain size. At low temperatures where the impact energy required for fracture is less, a
faceted surface of cleaved planes of ferrite is observed, indicating brittle fracture. At elevated
temperatures, where the energy to cause fracture is greater, a ductile fracture with a shear
structure is observed.

Discussion:
A metallurgical analysis of steel taken from the hull of the Titanic's wreckage reveals that it
had a high ductile-brittle transition temperature, making it unsuitable for service at low
temperatures. At the time of its collision with an iceberg, the temperature of the sea was -2 °C
causing the failure[5]. Comparing the composition of the Titanic steel and ASTM A36 steel
shows that the modern steel has a higher manganese content and lower sulfur content,
yielding a higher Mn: S ratio that reduced the ductile-brittle transition temperature
substantially. the ductile-brittle transition temperature for the Chittenden lock gate steel was
33°C. The ductile-brittle transition temperature determined at an impact energy of 20 joules is
-27°C for ASTM A36, 32°C for the longitudinal specimens made from the Titanic hull plate,
and 56°C for the transverse specimens. It is apparent that the steel used for the hull was not
suited for service at low temperatures. The seawater temperature at the time of the collision
was -2°C.
Understanding the causes for the rapid sinking of the Titanic is necessary to prevent similar
accidents in the future. The changes made in ship design and safety regulations following the
disaster were effective in decreasing the casualties of accidents at sea[6].

Conclusion:

The sinking of the Titanic is one of the most infamous disasters in history. The immense loss
of life and the tragic downfall of a ship widely regarded as "unsinkable" have captivated
people's interest, prompting curiosity about the reasons behind the Titanic's rapid sinking.
Over the years, several theories have emerged to explain the events of that night. This article
has outlined the most widely accepted theory, supported by evidence gathered during
multiple expeditions to the Titanic wreck site.
The failure of the hull steel resulted from brittle fractures caused by the high sulfur content of
the steel, the low temperature water on the night of the disaster, and the high impact loading
of the collision with the iceberg. In the case of the Titanic disaster, the causes for the sinking
indicate that shipbuilding technology was far more advanced than the understanding which
engineers had of the materials they were using to build the ships.
References:
[1] H. P. Leighly, B. L. Bramfitt, and S. J. Lawrence, “RMS Titanic: A metallurgical
problem,” J. Fail. Anal. Prev., vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 10–13, 2001, doi:
10.1007/bf02715155.
[2] M. Nazim, R. Butola, and J. P. Kesari, “Case Study of Failure of Titanic Ship,” Int. J.
Sci. Res., vol. 10, no. 2, 2021.
[3] A. H. Khan and S. Islam, “RMS Titanic-A Tragic Ending; Analyzed by Risk
Management Cycle,” J. Banking, Financ. Insur. Manag., vol. 3, no. 1, 2020.
[4] R. C. Ewing, “Projecting risk into the future: Failure of a geologic repository and the
sinking of the titanic,” J. Fluid Mech., vol. 1665, 2014, doi: 10.1557/opl.2014.623.
[5] K. Felkins, H. P. Leigh, and A. Jankovic, “Royal Mail Ship Titanic: Did a
metallurgical failure cause a night to remember?,” JOM, vol. 50, no. 1, 1998, doi:
10.1007/s11837-998-0062-7.
[6] D. Ashkenazi, “How can fracture mechanics and failure analysis assist in solving
mysteries of ancient metal artifacts?,” 2020. doi: 10.1007/s12520-019-00970-w.