Watertight bulkheads and decks

Warship design and construction, terminology, navigation, hydrodynamics, stability, armor schemes, damage control, etc.
User avatar
marcelo_malara
Senior Member
Posts: 1847
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 11:14 pm
Location: buenos aires

Watertight bulkheads and decks

Post by marcelo_malara »

I have just finished reading the book "Titanic ships, titanic disasters", by Mr. Garzke, an excellent technical account and discussion about the sinking of Titanic, Britannic and Lusitania. Excellent in every way, I strongly recomend it to anyone interested in maritime history. Anyway, reading it, I came upon the issue of watertight bulkheads and decks, not an easy one. I have a couple of questions:

-Were the watertight bulkheads used in battleships pierced with doors at the lower levels?

-Did the watertight compartments end in a watertight deck? If so, how was access to the lower decks provided thru these decks?

Regards to all
Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Post by Bgile »

Generally speaking, modern battleships didn't have doors in propulsion space bulkheads; they were accessed from above by ladder. There were often large hatches which were normally dogged down, with personnel access provided through a small round "scuttle" in the hatch.
User avatar
marcelo_malara
Senior Member
Posts: 1847
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 11:14 pm
Location: buenos aires

Post by marcelo_malara »

Thanks Bgile. Were the hatches watertight?
Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Post by Bgile »

marcelo_malara wrote:Thanks Bgile. Were the hatches watertight?
Oh yes. The compartments were tested periodically by pressurizing them and checking for a drop in air pressure over time to see if they were still airtight, which more or less corresponds to watertightness. Not always the same thing, but a useful test nonetheless since flooding the compartment to test it wasn't practical.
User avatar
marcelo_malara
Senior Member
Posts: 1847
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 11:14 pm
Location: buenos aires

Post by marcelo_malara »

Thanks again. What happened if some watertight compartments were flooded, the ship settled low in the sea, and water managed to enter ABOVE the watertight deck? I mean, wouldn´t the free surface effect of this water endanger the stablity?
Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Post by Bgile »

Absolutely. That would be a serious problem, and it happened sometimes. That is why the most modern designs continued the side protective system to a point fairly high in the ship. Also, there wasn't just one watertight deck.
Tiornu
Supporter
Posts: 1222
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 6:13 am
Location: Ex Utero

Re: Watertight bulkheads and decks

Post by Tiornu »

Each navy had its own standards, and they were quite different. As I recall, the British post-WWI inspection of German ships determined that their extensive subdivision was compromised by too many doors. I've also heard criticism of the American use of windows in watertight spaces.
User avatar
marcelo_malara
Senior Member
Posts: 1847
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 11:14 pm
Location: buenos aires

Post by marcelo_malara »

Windows in watertight spaces? You mean port holes? Anyway, did the USN used them?
Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Post by Bgile »

Windows? Where? The US Navy had portholes in pre WWII contstruction, but I think they eliminated that for wartime construction. They also removed almost all wood from ship interiors.

I've been aboard a lot of US ships, and the only windows I've ever seen were in special purpose areas like the bridge and aircraft control areas. I don't recall ever seeing a window in an internal bulkhead. I also don't recall any damage control efforts being compromised by a window. Doors for sure, which is why they tried to eliminate them from watertight subdivision.

I'm sure this didn't come out of the blue, and I'd be interested in knowing where you saw this information.
mike1880
Member
Posts: 71
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2005 9:00 pm
Location: UK

Post by mike1880 »

Glass windows were observed by Stanley Goodall when he inspected Tennessee as built (New York, Tennessee and New Mexico were thoroughly inspected by RN constructors during and soon after WW1), paraphrased in D K Brown's Grand Fleet as: "There were glass windows low down in the generator room bulkheads". The constructor who inspected New York (Friedman considers it was probably Attwood) commented on glass bulls-eyes in watertight doors. (He was also able to walk from the steering gear compartment to the engine rooms at platform deck level through watertight doors.)

Mike
Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Post by Bgile »

Hopefully those weaknesses were corrected during wartime reconstruction. I don't feel that little round windows in WT doors are always a bad thing, provided the window is as strong or stronger than the door itself. You don't want doors in WT bulkheads that are part of the ship's flooding subdivision scheme at all.

IIRC submarines use little round windows in watertight doors, but those doors are much stronger than those on surface ships, with much more powerful latching mechanisms.
Post Reply