Author Topic: QE2 and her lack of expansion joints compared to other similar liners.  (Read 18589 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Isabelle Prondzynski

SS Rotterdam is one of the rare ships, I am told, where the expansion joints in her hull are clearly marked and easy to see :

https://www.flickr.com/search/?w=55206992@N00&q=rotterdam%20expansion

Here is one of these pictures, showing the expansion joint as the black line looking a bit like a thermometer in shape :


Expansion joints by prondis_in_kenya, on Flickr

I wonder whether QE2 had expansion joints, and if so, where were they located?
« Last Edit: Apr 27, 2014, 08:05 PM by Rob Lightbody »

Offline Bob C.

Re: Expansion joints
« Reply #1 on: Dec 12, 2011, 01:10 AM »
Nice photo Isabelle.  The reason for the thermometer shape is so the artificial "crack" does not expand or "run". 

WARNING: TECHNICAL SPEAK TO FOLLOW: 

In the stress equation, stress is equal to force divided by the area it acts upon.  At the bottom of a crack the area is virtually zero making the stress almost infinite.  So the larger the area, the lower the crack stress - thus the reason for the larger area at the bottom of the "artificial" crack in Isabelle's photo

Offline Alistair

Re: Expansion joints
« Reply #2 on: Dec 12, 2011, 11:40 AM »
I remember reading somewhere, it may have been the book QE2, 40 Years Famous, that she does not have expansion joints. I could be wrong however and will wait to see if anyone can correct / update me!  :)

Offline Twynkle

Re: Expansion joints
« Reply #3 on: Dec 12, 2011, 11:54 AM »
Ooh, that's good! Yet again the opportunity to learn something new - and all because of QE2!

Firstly, Isabelle -  well spotted! (Regarding the expansion joint that's been identified with the marking)
I wonder, did you notice any others on the Rotterdam's superstructure?

Then Bob C - I remember clearly your explanations about QE2's superstructure, hull and tumblehome - that is what's it's called, isn't it?
Not forgetting the transitional join, either!!
If you and anyone else, has the time, please could you 'talk' about the why, how are they made, what are they there for, and other important things / questions about expansion joints - what exactly  might stress it enough to make it 'crack or run' (can/do they actually break, and how far could the metal split etc? etc).
If Rotterdam's got at least one, then mightn't QE2 have one or two as well?
Thank you
Rosie

« Last Edit: Dec 12, 2011, 12:00 PM by Twynkle »

Online Isabelle Prondzynski

Re: Expansion joints
« Reply #4 on: Dec 12, 2011, 12:47 PM »
Firstly, Isabelle -  well spotted! (Regarding the expansion joint that's been identified with the marking)
I wonder, did you notice any others on the Rotterdam's superstructure?

I was lucky -- visiting SS Rotterdam together with very knowledgeable shippy people! Otherwise, I would never have known what that attractive looking thermometer design represented...

Looking at my photos now, it is quite possible that there is only one such joint on each side of the ship. From memory, I would have said more, but if so, they are not visible in the pictures.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/prondis_in_kenya/sets/72157623546400484/

Offline John Parsons

Re: Expansion joints
« Reply #5 on: Dec 12, 2011, 04:35 PM »
The expansion joint discussion calls to mind the "Kaiser" cargo ships supplied to us from the USA during the war. These were an all welded construction and were so rigid that many of them broke in half while crossing the Atlantic in heavy weather.
Apparently, they would ride on top of a large wave, so that the bow and stern were unsupported, and just break in two.
I wonder if they had expansion joints, or if it would have made any difference if they had?  Certainly more flexibility was required.

Offline cunardqueen

Re: Expansion joints
« Reply #6 on: Dec 12, 2011, 07:58 PM »
There are also Expansion joints on the Queen Mary, they were pointed out, but quite where they are l have no idea..
From the moment you first glimpsed the Queen,
 you just knew you were in for a very special time ahead.!

Offline Rob Lightbody

  • Administrator
  • Queens Grill Diner
  • *****
  • Posts: 12365
  • Total likes: 15942
  • Helping to Keep The Legend Alive
    • Rob Lightbody dot com
Re: Expansion joints
« Reply #7 on: Dec 12, 2011, 08:07 PM »
There are also Expansion joints on the Queen Mary, they were pointed out, but quite where they are l have no idea..

QE2 was very, very special in her day for NOT having expansion joints.  There's lots of information about this in the various books and we've discussed it previously here - https://www.theqe2story.com/forum/index.php/topic,620.0.html
Passionate about QE2's service life for 40 years and creator of this website.  I have worked in IT for 28 years and created my personal QE2 website in 1994.

Offline pete cain

Re: Expansion joints
« Reply #8 on: Dec 12, 2011, 08:23 PM »
Issabelle, that photo of Rotterdam, I distinctly remember  a documentary (still on Youtube somewhere, OH my Fading memory!!)' showing that same shape of the thermometer, on  a dive to RMS Brittanic, sister ship to  Titanic re expansion joints . like Rosie (regarding another topic) I'm on a search & will post in due course.
   I also remember somewhere , a mention about tarpaulin & plastic drain pipes , above (Queens grill?? or somewhere) because of ingress of water,  dripping on diners, maybe because of a lack of an expansoin joint?

Offline pete cain

Re: Expansion joints
« Reply #9 on: Dec 12, 2011, 09:30 PM »
Found it,   well worth watching but the info comes in at 1hr 19min :

Note: link to You Tube video not available because of a copyright claim

-- the same thermometer glass  shape,  as mentioned on Rotterdam, as ever thanks to Youtube & those who post.....

 As a postscript, do you think if QE2 had these things , she might not have had so many repairs, realising of course that her superstructure was  a part of the load bearing hull ?. Still searching about the tarpaulin story......................
« Last Edit: Mar 04, 2023, 11:40 AM by Lynda Bradford »

Offline Rob Lightbody

  • Administrator
  • Queens Grill Diner
  • *****
  • Posts: 12365
  • Total likes: 15942
  • Helping to Keep The Legend Alive
    • Rob Lightbody dot com
Re: Expansion joints
« Reply #10 on: Dec 12, 2011, 10:13 PM »

Note: the You Tube video no longer available because of a copyright claim

Found it, well worth watching but the info comes in at 1hr 19min    the same thermometer glass  shape,  as mentioned on Rotterdam, as ever thanks to Youtube & those who post.....

 As a postscript, do you think if QE2 had these things , she might not have had so many repairs, realising of course that her superstructure was  a part of the load bearing hull ?. Still searching about the tarpaulin story......................

Watching it!  It gets particularly interesting and relevant at about 1h15m onwards.

QE2's expansion joints, and the problems it caused by not having them, is of great interest to me.  What did other aluminium superstructured ships have?  why did they feel they had to change this design for QE2?  What were the advantages of not having joints?

I'm sure its safe to say that if they'd known QE2 would last 40 years, they would not have designed her this way.  The fact that the Aluminium was already causing relatively big problems in the mid 80s cannot have been intended - but was it the fault of the lack of joints?
« Last Edit: Mar 04, 2023, 11:39 AM by Lynda Bradford »
Passionate about QE2's service life for 40 years and creator of this website.  I have worked in IT for 28 years and created my personal QE2 website in 1994.

Offline Twynkle

Re: Expansion joints
« Reply #11 on: Dec 12, 2011, 10:24 PM »
QE2 was very, very special in her day for NOT having expansion joints.  There's lots of information about this in the various books and we've discussed it previously here - https://www.theqe2story.com/forum/index.php/topic,620.0.html

Thanks for confirming this about QE2 as well as for the cross reference, Rob.
Just realised that you have posted here too!
Quote
......QE2's expansion joints, and the problems it caused by not having them, is of great interest to me.  What did other aluminium superstructured ships have?  why did they feel they had to change this design for QE2?  What were the advantages of not having joints?

I'm sure its safe to say that if they'd known QE2 would last 40 years, they would not have designed her this way.  The fact that the Aluminium was already causing relatively big problems in the mid 80s cannot have been intended - but was it the fault of the lack of joints?
I'd love to know the answers too!
Not having access at the moment to the appropriate texts, hope that you won't mind my asking:
Do you / anyone know whether it was the combination of aluminium and steel and the rubber inserted into the transitional join, as well as a strengthened bow, that rendered it unecessary to build in expansion joints?
And if she'd had them, then where would they have been situated?
Rosie


PS No time to read this at the moment - hope it might be of interest...
http://titanic-model.com/articles/markchirnside3/index.shtml
Also  - maybe we could have another 'Ask the...'   A 'Naval Architect' or Technical Expert in maritime metallurgy on 'the Design and Building of QE2!! Wonder whether Mr S Payne might enjoy it?!

  
« Last Edit: Dec 12, 2011, 10:34 PM by Twynkle »

Magic Pipe

  • Guest
Re: Expansion joints
« Reply #12 on: Dec 13, 2011, 02:03 AM »
The QE2 was unusual in her day in that she had a unitized hull and superstructure.  She was the first ship anywhere close to her size built this way.  Her contemporaries such as the France and Michelangelo were structurally more like the Titanic than a modern ship.  The superstructures of these older ships were segmented with expansion joints, which prevented them (intentionally) from contributing to the ship's hull girder strength.  In constructing a ship in this method, the uppermost continuous deck (strength deck) is reinforced, usually with doubler plates affixed to the shell plating in way of the strength deck and by employing significantly thicker plating for the strength deck.

In unitizing the hull and superstructure, a much deeper hull girder can be constructed, which stiffens the ship's structure and also eliminates the need for the reinforced strength deck.  Had the QE2 not gone this route, significant strengthening would had to have been added in way of One Deck.  The weight saved by eliminating this strengthening allowed a larger superstructure to be constructed, increasing her earning potential.

Offline pete cain

Re: Expansion joints
« Reply #13 on: Dec 13, 2011, 08:46 PM »
Have been looking avidly , regarding expansion joints on QE2, & still looking, however, I've been a long believer that SS Oriana was the forebear to QE2, bear with me, Oriana was the first  with steel hull / Aluminium superstructure, the first with bow thrusters, & just look at these bow shots   re Bulbous bow another Oriana 1st,

http://ribapix.com/index.php?a=subjects&s=item&key=SYToyOntpOjA7aToyNjc7aToxO3M6NToiRG9ja3MiO30=&pg=14
http://rmsqueen.blogspot.com/2009/11/qe2-in-bremerhaven-dry-dock.html

just page down to see , now got to find out if ORIANA & QE2 had expansion joints Arghh!!!
« Last Edit: Dec 13, 2011, 10:26 PM by Isabelle Prondzynski »

Online Isabelle Prondzynski

Re: Expansion joints
« Reply #14 on: Dec 14, 2011, 10:54 PM »
Could I ask the ignorant questions I should perhaps have posed at the beginning :

What does an expansion joint do?

What is it made of? Unlike that of a bridge, it does not consist of a gap, I am sure.

Amazing that, as the Britannic video (I think!) shows, the expansion joint can be the point of weakness in the whole ship's structure.

How is QE2 constructed, that she can flex in a storm and not come to grief; how does she expand and contract with changes in temperature?

Thank you all for the fascinating information already here -- I had not expected my simple observation of a black line with a bulbous bottom to concern such a vital part of the ship's architecture!