pumps on Titanic
mf...@my-deja.com
I've posted a couple of things but I've never formally introduced
myself.
My name is Morgan Ford and I'm an electronics technician for the
governmemt. I've always been interested in maritime disasters and
what was behind them.
I read what I can about the Titanic and other disasters but monetary
and time constraints prevent me from reading everything I would like
to.
My question is:
Were the pumps on Titanic capable of operating while submerged or was
the pumping capacity reduced as each compartment flooded?
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Tom Pappas
>the pumping capacity reduced as each compartment flooded?
The pumps were located in the machinery spaces at the aft end of the bottom
deck. If you are trying to figure out whether or not the ship's condition
could have been stabilized at some point, I think the answer is probably:
yes. Once the forward compartments were full to the water line, there may
have been enough pumping capacity to equal the inflow. The missing piece of
information is whether or not they were trying to deal with the flooding
forward of Boiler Room #5, which would have squandered pump power
needlessly.
PUMPING ARRANGEMENTS.
The general arrangement of piping was designed to that it was possible to
pump from any flooded comparment by two independent systems of 10-inch mains
having cross connections between them. These were controlled from above by
rods and wheels led to the level of the bulkhead deck. By these it was
possible to isolate any flooded space, together with any suctions in it. If
any of these should happen accidentally to be left open, and consequently
out of reach, it could be shut off from the main by the wheel on the
bulkhead deck. This arrangement was specially submitted to the Board of
Trade and approved by them.
The double bottom of the vessel was divided by 17 transverse water-tight
divisions, including those bounding the fore and aft peaks, and again
subdivided by a center fore-and-aft bulkhead, and two longitudinal
bulkheads, into 46 compartments. Fourteen of these compartments had 8-inch
suctions, 23 had 6-inch suctions, and 3 had 5-inch suctions connected to the
10-inch ballast main suction; 6 compartments were used exclusively for fresh
water.
The following bilge suctions were provided for dealing with water, above
the double bottom, viz., in No. 1 hold two 3 1/2-inch suctions, No.2 hold
two 3 1/2-inch and 2 3-inch suctions, bunker hold, two 3 1/2-inch and two
3-inch suctions.
The valves in connection with the forward bilge and ballast suctions were
placed in the firemen's passage, the water-tight pipe tunnel extending from
No. 6 boiler room to the after end of No. 1 hold. In this tunnel, in
addition to two 3-inch bilge suctions, one at each end, there was a special
3 1/2-inch suction with valve rod led up to the lower deck above the load
line, so as always to have been accessible should the tunnel be flooded
accidentally.
In No. 6 boiler room there were three 3 1/2-inch, one 4 1/2-inch, and two
3-inch suctions.
Bilge and ballast pumps.
The ship was also fitted with the following pumps: Five ballast and bilge
pumps, each capable of discharging 250 tons of water per hour; three bilge
pumps, each of 150 tons per hour capacity.
One ash ejector (pump?) was placed in each of the large boiler compartments
to work the ash ejectors, and to circulate or feed the boilers as required.
This pump was also connected to the bilges, except in the case of three of
the boiler rooms, where three of the ballast and bilge pumps were placed.
The pumps in each case had direct bilge suctions as well as a connection to
the main bilge pipe so that each boiler room might be independent.
--
Half-baked Titanic theories galore at
http://198.223.97.17/titanic
Could the collision be avoided?
Hitting the iceberg head-on
How many could have been saved?
A tale of two icebergs
Could the ship have been kept afloat?
How many could Californian have saved?
"But this script can't sink!"
"She is made of irony, sir. I assure you, she can."
OTNMBRD
Excellent discription, Tom....can I assume that all pumps were "recips"?
Hell,no wonder they couldn't keep up....the pumps were small, the main lines
were small, the suctions were small......all in keeping with what these pumps
and lines were really meant to do.....remove small amounts of water at a
leisurely pace (relatively).....tankers they weren't.
otn
mf...@my-deja.com
vessels have more capacity?
Cal Haines
>>>Bilge and ballast pumps.
>>> The ship was also fitted with the following pumps: Five
ballast and bilge
>>> pumps, each capable of discharging 250 tons of water per
hour; three bilge
>>> pumps, each of 150 tons per hour capacity.
OTN:
>> Excellent discription, Tom....can I assume that all pumps
were "recips"?
>> Hell,no wonder they couldn't keep up....the pumps were
small, the main lines
>> were small, the suctions were small......all in keeping
with what these pumps
>> and lines were really meant to do.....remove small
amounts of water at a
>> leisurely pace (relatively).....tankers they weren't.
mf999:
> Wonder how the pumping capacity of modern ships compares.
Do military
> vessels have more capacity?
>
Hi guys,
I was trying to put this into terms that I could understand.
IIRC, the pump on a typical fire engine can discharge about
1250 gallons per minute, which is about 5 tons a minute or
300 tons an hour (assuming you don't try to pump too far or
too high). The hard suction intake on an engine is about 6"
in diameter. So Titanic's total pumping capacity is
equivalent to about 6 civilian fire engines. (I'm talking
US here, not sure about other countries). What I come up
with is a mental image of 6 fire engines, all sipping away
at a pond through their 6" hard suction lines. The pond is
filling through a 12 square foot opening (5' diameter pipe)
that is under a maximum of 10psi pressure. (10psi as the
pond draws down, less as it fills). Not good.
To carry this one step farther (I can hear the group
yawning), some VERY simple hydraulics:
The amount of water our 12 square foot hole admits depends
on the head (difference in elevation between water levels on
either side of the hull):
Quantity = 8 * Area * Sqrt( Head) [the 8 comes from Sqrt( 2
* Gravity), English units]
For an area of 12 square feet:
96 cubic feet per second @ 1 foot head
136 cubic feet per second @ 2 foot head
192 cubic feet per second @ 4 foot head
288 cubic feet per second @ 9 foot head
384 cubic feet per second @ 16 foot head
Titanic can pump: 1,700 tons per hour = 28 tons per minute =
57,000 pounds per minute = 7,600 cubic feet per minute = 126
cubic feet per second. Ouch!
So, my six fire engines are not going to pull the level of
the pond down more that about 2 feet. A good thing if you
are fighting a fire :-) A bad thing if you are trying to
drain the pond :-(
(The above is greatly simplified. For one thing, flow
through many narrow slits is less than that through a
single, large opening of equivalent area--as a guess, maybe
50% less. But it gives some appreciation for the problem.)
Hope that helps,
Cal
Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo
Cal Haines wrote:
It does indeed Cal. Add to the mix what some would later term 'design
flaws.' The bulkheads were traverse but no longitudinal bulkheads
running the 'length' of the compartments! Worse, the height did not go
beyond 'E' deck, and in other instances, 'D' deck. Yet, look at the
great ship's plans and that 12 foot WIDE E Deck corridor which ran the
length of Titanic's E deck. Great for helping the crew to get around or
3rd class moving from the bow to the stern but decidedly not good for
one uninvited guest: water!
So too, none of the decks were watertight since the plans called for
things like the grand staircase, elevators, stairs, ladders, etc. and so
water just crept up and up unimpeded once the bow began sinking and the
bulkheads filling. Naturally, the double bottom was a nice adjunct but
unfortunately quite useless when it came to SIDE IMPACT disasters.
Ditto, ironically, with the Andrea Doria, solid 50's era thinking as to
safety designs with radar on the bridge and double hull on the bottom
but when struck by the Stockholm broadside which (*did you see the story
on the Discovery Channel Sunday night?) not only fully penetrated the
side, the bow literally ENTERED the cabin areas and, in one cabin, threw
a girl out of her bed and INTO the Stockholm bow. It was only many hours
later, Stockholm bow (what was left of it) retracted from Andrea Doria's
side and the bow now a mangled pile of twisted steel that the girl
initially presumed to have fallen into the sea at impact or otherwise
missing and presumed dead was FOUND , alive, but INSIDE the bow of the
Stockholm! Talk about deliverance! This is a true story and that girl's
father was the reporter covering the disaster! The facts can be looked
up and verified on any website covering the Andrea Doria/Stockholm
disaster (July 25, 1956). To me, it was literally amazing. But,
strangest of all, completely true.
Doc Tony
Tom Pappas
decreasing hydrostatic head slows the flow until, when the level INSIDE the
ship reaches that OUTSIDE, the inflow stops. And as your chart shows, there
IS a point at which Titanic's pumps are adequate to the task.
Keeping in mind the fact that the ship would remain afloat even if her first
four compartments were open to the sea, then the only hole we have to worry
about is the one in Boiler Room #6. In other words, if you write off the
cargo holds and fore peak and concentrate your damage control in the boiler
rooms, the math becomes very different.
My own contention is that the ship could have been saved if they had
realized this and abandoned their efforts at pumping down the holds,
concentrating all the suctions in BR6.
--
Half-baked Titanic theories galore at
http://www.pcslink.com/~tom/titanic
Could the collision be avoided?
Hitting the iceberg head-on
How many could have been saved?
A tale of two icebergs
Could the ship have been kept afloat?
How many could Californian have saved?
"But this script can't sink!"
"She is made of irony, sir. I assure you, she can."
Cal Haines wrote in message ...
Cal Haines
>> Cal Haines wrote:
...
>> [a bunch of stuff comparing Titanic's pumps to US fire
engine pumps]
...
>>
> It does indeed Cal. Add to the mix what some would later
term 'design
> flaws.' The bulkheads were traverse but no longitudinal
bulkheads
> running the 'length' of the compartments! Worse, the
height did not go
> beyond 'E' deck, and in other instances, 'D' deck. Yet,
look at the
> great ship's plans and that 12 foot WIDE E Deck corridor
which ran the
> length of Titanic's E deck. Great for helping the crew to
get around or
> 3rd class moving from the bow to the stern but decidedly
not good for
> one uninvited guest: water!
Yes. It looks like water could go up the staircase by the
#2 hatch and into "Scotland Road". Also from the squash
court (which we know flooded early) into the first class
passage on E deck. There were some water-tight doors along
"Scotland Road". Mostly back aft around the engine room
casing, where they were of no help in Titanic's situation.
These were all manually operated doors. I'm not aware of
any references to them being closed at any point. Here's a
scan of the E deck plan from "Engineering" magazine, May 26,
1911:
http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/2519/titanic/E_deck.gif
Down one level, on F deck,
http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/2519/titanic/E_deck.gif
there are doors that lead into the fan rooms above each
boiler room. They are not marked as watertight (the symbol
is two arrows, tip to tip). If not, water could enter the
boiler rooms through these doors. The plans are a little
shaky, however, since they show a non-existent door from the
swimming pool, through a bulkhead, and into a third class
cabin. ("Look 'ere, Luv, a bloody swimmin' pool! Think
wha' the blokes up in first class must 'ave!")
> So too, none of the decks were watertight since the plans
called for
> things like the grand staircase, elevators, stairs,
ladders, etc. and so
> water just crept up and up unimpeded once the bow began
sinking and the
> bulkheads filling. ...
Right. On E-deck, you'll notice two doors off of "Scotland
Road" into each of the boiler casings. Those lead to the
escape ladders for the boiler rooms. If not watertight, the
boiler rooms are all vulnerable from that level.
> ... Naturally, the double bottom was a nice adjunct but
> unfortunately quite useless when it came to SIDE IMPACT
disasters.
The double bottom really wasn't there because they wanted a
double hull. It contained ballast tanks and probably also
provided major structural support. A pretty common design
feature, AFIK.
Missed the special, but I'm familiar with the story.
Cal
Alan Minyard
wrote:
>As you point out in your pond analogy, as the compartments fill, the
>decreasing hydrostatic head slows the flow until, when the level INSIDE the
>ship reaches that OUTSIDE, the inflow stops. And as your chart shows, there
>IS a point at which Titanic's pumps are adequate to the task.
>
>Keeping in mind the fact that the ship would remain afloat even if her first
>four compartments were open to the sea, then the only hole we have to worry
>about is the one in Boiler Room #6. In other words, if you write off the
>cargo holds and fore peak and concentrate your damage control in the boiler
>rooms, the math becomes very different.
>
>My own contention is that the ship could have been saved if they had
>realized this and abandoned their efforts at pumping down the holds,
>concentrating all the suctions in BR6.
Sir
Nope, sorry, but as the compartments fill, the draft increases,
maintaining the static head (actually, somewhat increasing it). The
level inside will not equal the level outside until the ship has sunk.
Another problem lies with the fact that even reciprocating pumps lose
efficiency when their suction pressure is decreased. This occurs when
taking a suction on a remote location, thus, any pumping of a space
other than the pump room itself would result in somewhat decreased
pump output.
Incidentally, it is highly unlikely that Titanic could have remained
afloat with the four forward compartments flooded, as the pressure
would have eventually collapsed the remaining bulkhead.
Al Minyard
Non teneas aurum totum quod splendet ut aurum.
Tom Pappas
>>decreasing hydrostatic head slows the flow until, when the level INSIDE
the
>>ship reaches that OUTSIDE, the inflow stops. And as your chart shows,
there
>>IS a point at which Titanic's pumps are adequate to the task.
>>
>>Keeping in mind the fact that the ship would remain afloat even if her
first
>>four compartments were open to the sea, then the only hole we have to
worry
>>about is the one in Boiler Room #6. In other words, if you write off the
>>cargo holds and fore peak and concentrate your damage control in the
boiler
>>rooms, the math becomes very different.
>>
>>My own contention is that the ship could have been saved if they had
>>realized this and abandoned their efforts at pumping down the holds,
>>concentrating all the suctions in BR6.
>
>Sir
>
>Nope, sorry, but as the compartments fill, the draft increases,
>maintaining the static head (actually, somewhat increasing it). The
>level inside will not equal the level outside until the ship has sunk.
Er, not exactly. Let us suppose that only one compartment had been breached.
In this case, the lost bouyancy would cause that end of the ship to sink,
but only to the point that the bouyancy of the rest of the ship held it up.
In this case, the compartment would fill to the water line, without the ship
sinking. This is approximately the condition that the ship reached about
12:20, and where it remained until the bulkhead in BR5 collapsed at 12:50 or
so.
>Another problem lies with the fact that even reciprocating pumps lose
>efficiency when their suction pressure is decreased. This occurs when
>taking a suction on a remote location, thus, any pumping of a space
>other than the pump room itself would result in somewhat decreased
>pump output.
Somewhat. But there still might have been enough capacity to stay ahead of
the inflow through the one hole.
>Incidentally, it is highly unlikely that Titanic could have remained
>afloat with the four forward compartments flooded, as the pressure
>would have eventually collapsed the remaining bulkhead.
What makes you think so? Your statement suggests that you think the design
was defective, and I think that would be extremely hard to prove.
Alan Minyard
wrote:
>>
>>Sir
>>
>>Nope, sorry, but as the compartments fill, the draft increases,
>>maintaining the static head (actually, somewhat increasing it). The
>>level inside will not equal the level outside until the ship has sunk.
>
>
>Er, not exactly. Let us suppose that only one compartment had been breached.
>In this case, the lost bouyancy would cause that end of the ship to sink,
>but only to the point that the bouyancy of the rest of the ship held it up.
>In this case, the compartment would fill to the water line, without the ship
>sinking. This is approximately the condition that the ship reached about
>12:20, and where it remained until the bulkhead in BR5 collapsed at 12:50 or
>so.
>
Sir
You are correct for a ship that is not in a sinking condition. I was
presuming that the theory was that at some point the water level would
stabilize regardless of the progressive flooding.
>>Another problem lies with the fact that even reciprocating pumps lose
>>efficiency when their suction pressure is decreased. This occurs when
>>taking a suction on a remote location, thus, any pumping of a space
>>other than the pump room itself would result in somewhat decreased
>>pump output.
>
>Somewhat. But there still might have been enough capacity to stay ahead of
>the inflow through the one hole.
>
>>Incidentally, it is highly unlikely that Titanic could have remained
>>afloat with the four forward compartments flooded, as the pressure
>>would have eventually collapsed the remaining bulkhead.
>
>
>What makes you think so? Your statement suggests that you think the design
>was defective, and I think that would be extremely hard to prove.
History, primarily. Internal bulkheads have a history of failure (with
many notable exceptions) when exposed to the conditions prevalent on
Titanic (i.e. a fully, or nearly fully, flooded adjacent compartment.)
This is especially true where there has been a significant change in
trim. In addition, the various reports of the apparent stresses on the
fwd bulkhead of boiler room 5 indicate that its failure was immanent.
Tom Pappas
>>>afloat with the four forward compartments flooded, as the pressure
>>>would have eventually collapsed the remaining bulkhead.
>>
>>What makes you think so? Your statement suggests that you think the design
>>was defective, and I think that would be extremely hard to prove.
>
>History, primarily. Internal bulkheads have a history of failure (with
>many notable exceptions) when exposed to the conditions prevalent on
>Titanic (i.e. a fully, or nearly fully, flooded adjacent compartment.)
>This is especially true where there has been a significant change in
>trim. In addition, the various reports of the apparent stresses on the
>fwd bulkhead of boiler room 5 indicate that its failure was immanent.
I understand the effect of increased trim angle on the depth (and therefore
pressure) of the water column in an adjacent compartment. And it may have
applied to the BR5/BR6 partition (although I tend to think it was the door
that failed). But you are saying that the BR6/CH1 bulkhead would collapse,
even though the bulkheading was designed with the "first four compartments
flooded" forces in play. Do you actually mean that the structures would not
satisfy their design parameters?
H.E. Meyers
Tom Pappas wrote in message ...
Tom Pappas
>Are one or both of you guys an engineer?
I am (although not of the marine variety). But you don't have to have any
credentials to have an appreciation for what Titanic's crew were up against.
Most of damage control is Applied Common Sense.
mf...@my-deja.com
"Tom Pappas" <t...@pcslink.com> wrote:
> >Were the pumps on Titanic capable of operating while submerged or was
> >the pumping capacity reduced as each compartment flooded?
>
Snipped
> Bilge and ballast pumps.
> The ship was also fitted with the following pumps: Five ballast and
bilge
> pumps, each capable of discharging 250 tons of water per hour; three
bilge
> pumps, each of 150 tons per hour capacity.
>
> One ash ejector (pump?) was placed in each of the large boiler
compartments
> to work the ash ejectors, and to circulate or feed the boilers as
required.
> This pump was also connected to the bilges, except in the case of
three of
> the boiler rooms, where three of the ballast and bilge pumps were
placed.
> The pumps in each case had direct bilge suctions as well as a
connection to
> the main bilge pipe so that each boiler room might be independent.
>
snipped> --"
Based on the above description provided by Tom Pappas, the Titanic had
a capacity of 1700 tons an hour. Three of the 250 ton pumps were
placed in boiler rooms, not the machinery space. Perhaps they
decentralized things so the ship would have some pumping capacity even
if the machinery spaces were flooded?
Just plain Morgan Ford