Shackleton's Endurance and Amundsen's Fram were made of wood, not metal. Yet I can find no explanation of why, even though most other ships had long since been built from iron and/or steel.....
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
4
-
$\begingroup$ Was it just an ice-breaker design of ship was available at the right time which just happened to be of a wooden construction - thinking of the Endurance? $\endgroup$– user207455Commented Jul 16, 2019 at 13:04
-
$\begingroup$ This video, Last of the Liberties, explains how material properties can change when the temperature changes. In this case steel which was supposed to be ductile changes form and becomes brittle at low temperatures. $\endgroup$– FarcherCommented Jul 16, 2019 at 13:47
-
$\begingroup$ Not relevant for antarctic voyages, but a wooden ship did allow for the possibility of putting in for repairs on an island. $\endgroup$– Paul ChildsCommented Jul 16, 2019 at 14:14
-
$\begingroup$ But Fram is not an icebreaker, this vessel was designed specifically for the drift in polar latitudes, its spoon-like hull shape was proposed by Nansen. $\endgroup$– Aleksey DruggistCommented Jul 16, 2019 at 14:28
Add a comment
|
3 Answers
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
I don't know the history of ice breakers so I can't confirm that this was their reason, but...
Steel back then contained high concentrations of impurities that made them an order of magnitude more brittle than today. This is especially problematic in cold water.
It has been suggested that the Titanic's fate may have been different had they've used a higher quality steel. There is also the famous example of the SS Schenectady, a ship that split in two while moored at a dock due to the cold conditions causing a brittle fracture.
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
When you are talking about an icebreaker, it is a very specific ship design with certain needs. It is also a vessel that will be pushed to its limits.
There is a general reluctance in the engineering community to adopt new bleeding edge technologies. Considering the secutity of tried and tested techniques that is understandable. Generally the greater the risks, the more the customer and public need to be assured that things will work out right. A centuries old technology provides that. It may ne a poor substitute but as its limitations are known, control measures can be engineered to meet the required performance specification. Investors feel more confident dealing with the predictable.
Experimentation in construction operates under the guise of quantity is a quality in and of itself. Although steel construction was not that novel at the turn of the 20th century, until production had demonstrated reliability in the 100s and 1000s, it was not trusted with risky costly ventures.
The builders who built the endurance did a spectacular job and everything about their approach to building it demonstrated reliability and trustworthyness. Unfortunately it wasn't designed with the rounded keel to enable it to pop up when under pressure, relying on its strength instead.
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
3
Wooden ships better withstood the crushing force of the ice when they were iced up for the winter. It sounds counter-intuitive, but it was found that wood was better than steel. This is not to say that wooden ships couldn't be damaged, sometimes they were.
-
1$\begingroup$ The Endurance was definitely more than damaged by ice... $\endgroup$– user207455Commented Jul 16, 2019 at 13:25
-
1$\begingroup$ If wood was better than steel then modern icebreakers would be wooden $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 16, 2019 at 13:52
-
$\begingroup$ Perhaps the organisers of polar expeditions were idiots who didn't know what they were doing and had no concern for their own lives or those of their companions. On the other hand ,wood was found more resistant to damage and the rounded hulls of wooden ships sometimes allowed them to be lifted up by the enclosing ice rather than crushed. $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 16, 2019 at 19:43